Agree.
My personal theory is that it was landed at some remote location with ransom demands (or similar) to follow.
Don't laugh, it's not as bizarre as some of the scenario's out there that have already been proven wrong.
Airplanes don't just fall out of the sky
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
My personal theory is that it was landed at some remote location with ransom demands (or similar) to follow.
Don't laugh, it's not as bizarre as some of the scenario's out there that have already been proven wrong.
Wavels
Well-Known Member
Yes indeed.
In all likelihood there is a nascent screenplay on at least a few laptops out there.
A movie dramatizing this mystery already seems to be inevitable.
Yeah.. That happens.
Oxygen requirements can be confusing. The requirements change based on route duration, flight level and capabilities of the craft. In most cases, you need a minimum of 30 minutes for 10 percent of the passengers and the entire flight duration for the entire crew in either piston or turbine engines operating as an air carrier with pressurized cabins. That being said, any installed system that is in service will outperform these minimum requirements with ease. The chemical reaction masks are a great example. They burn for up to an hour each and last I knew was the most common because they are cheap (well, relative to the average cost of anything in aviation). I have no idea what they carry in the 777, but I'd be really surprised if they didn't exceed the minimums just based on how cheap and easy it can be.
[h=2]Sec. 121.333 — Supplemental oxygen for emergency descent and for first aid; turbine engine powered airplanes with pressurized cabins.[/h]
<snip the crew requirements>
(e) Passenger cabin occupants. When the airplane is operating at flight altitudes above 10,000 feet, the following supply of oxygen must be provided for the use of passenger cabin occupants:
(1) When an airplane certificated to operate at flight altitudes up to and including flight level 250, can at any point along the route to be flown, descend safely to a flight altitude of 14,000 feet or less within four minutes, oxygen must be available at the rate prescribed by this part for a 30-minute period for at least 10 percent of the passenger cabin occupants.
(2) When an airplane is operated at flight altitudes up to and including flight level 250 and cannot descend safely to a flight altitude of 14,000 feet within four minutes, or when an airplane is operated at flight altitudes above flight level 250, oxygen must be available at the rate prescribed by this part for not less than 10 percent of the passenger cabin occupants for the entire flight after cabin depressurization, at cabin pressure altitudes above 10,000 feet up to and including 14,000 feet and, as applicable, to allow compliance with §121.329(c) (2) and (3), except that there must be not less than a 10-minute supply for the passenger cabin occupants.
LegalizeNature420
Well-Known Member
They're gonna load a black market nuke and use the plane as a delivery system.
now that would be fucked up and something we're not thinking about, just like 9/11..although there was plenty of "chatter"..bush ignored it.
Bush didn't ignore anything. "Terrorists want to attack you" is not actionable. Should the CIA/FBI have connected some dots and uncovered the plot? Absolutely. But they didn't.
as i understand it, and perhaps i'm wrong..there was evidence which was ignored in a big way..what exactly does the cia/fbi do these days besides nothing? our cia is a laughing stock.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0
Doer
Well-Known Member
You know I did! I found out on my own, that cereal cardboard, has a thickness. At 4 yr that is a big discovery.
I cut the wing and body and made a slit for the wing through the body and it would not stay straight. HUh??
It took me until 5 yrs to figure it out. That was what my Dad, always said as he wandered off.
You'll figure it out.
huh?????????????
Doer
Well-Known Member
OK, lowpost.
Were they flying by wires? Like, were they near power wires? Or were they flying by, ie, along a wire?
You seem so important around here lowpost. Who are you? beenthere again? Maybe burgertime?
Go on explain to me how they can be by wires, or near any wires over the ocean,
Go on tough guy. Tell us.
Have you flown helicopters by wires? I sure have. I really pedaled hard to get away, I tell you what!
You're probably right, but what you're overlooking is this went way back into the Clinton years. And Clinton also had a chance to get OBL and said no thanks.
Bush has much less game for 9/11 than Clinton, but it is really absurd to blame either.
budleydoright
Well-Known Member
Clinton took a shot at him and was accused of Wagging the Dog. Bush and dickbag had a memo put in front of them stating Bin Laden Determined to Strike the US and didn't even open it.
I forget which one it was, but there was a government in Africa that was willing to hand over OBL in the 1990's and Clinton said no. There is a little more to it than that, but that sums it up.
As to the letter given to Bush, you do realize that the president gets multiple letters or notices like this every day?
budleydoright
Well-Known Member
OBL was bush's friend in the 90's and was only a threat at that time, he had no actionable offenses.
As to the SECURITY MEMO that was very clear on it's contents, I'm sure if the same happened to Obama, you would be giving him the same pass.
see how debate works around here?
tokeprep makes a statement with no citation then when we politely respond with facts he's gone.
and that means what? intel should be ignored?
budleydoright
Well-Known Member
I like the way a security memo is reduced to a simple letter, shit easy to mix in with all the junk mail I guess.
From your article: "'a group presently in the United States' was planning a terrorist operation"; terrorist attacks "could be 'imminent'"; "a coming attack"; "planned near-term attacks to have 'dramatic consequences'"; "operation...'will occur soon'"; etc.
The sum of the infamous briefing, mostly in my own words: bin Laden wants to conduct an attack in the US; such plots have been uncovered in the past. bin Laden is patient and plodding. al Qaeda members have traveled to the US for years and some are US citizens; Americans may be being recruited for the attack. We cannot corroborate "the more sensational threat reporting," including a threat to hijack a US aircraft.
So tell me, what evidence was Bush ignoring? There was no specific information, with the CIA expressly casting doubt on reports that bin Laden wanted to hijack a plane (nevermind hijacking four and crashing them into buildings). No US citizens were involved in the attack, even though that's an explicit focus of the PDB. As I said, "Terrorists wants to attack you" is not actionable. It's useless and obvious information. That al Qaeda members had traveled here and were active here was not news--it had been true since the 90s. That terrorists were plotting attacks was likewise unsurprising--see the Los Angeles airport plot.
I'm sorry that I don't sit here 24/7 for your amusement. What citation do you want? Have you not actually read the PDB you're referencing? If you had, you would know that's all it says: "Terrorists want to attack you." Well, actually it says "Terrorists want to attack you, but we have no evidence they're going to hijack airplanes when they do." My words, not quotes from the briefing, obviously.