Comments on: The disappearance of Air France 447: those in peril in air and sea http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/ Thu, 24 May 2012 15:34:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: jim egan http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-112041 jim egan Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:20:23 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-112041 My analysis of the recovered AF447 tailfin suggests it was ripped off in flight by a force from the right side of the plane due to the presence of exposed, unpainted tail surface at the break point. M hypothesis would be the left wing stalled and the rudder was (over-deflected) to the right causing structural failure. My analysis of the recovered AF447 tailfin suggests it was ripped off in flight by a force from the right side of the plane due to the presence of exposed, unpainted tail surface at the break point. M hypothesis would be the left wing stalled and the rudder was (over-deflected) to the right causing structural failure.

]]> By: rubber ducky http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-111631 rubber ducky Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:54:35 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-111631 seems like they are back at square one. no debris, no flight data recorder. seems like they are back at square one. no debris, no flight data recorder.

]]> By: Artfldgr http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-111617 Artfldgr Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:40:07 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-111617 sorry neo.. i was going down the line and had not read yoru post. sorry neo..
i was going down the line and had not read yoru post.

]]> By: Artfldgr http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-111616 Artfldgr Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:39:19 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-111616 <i>The aviation fuel would have ignited if a bomb had lit up the jet. So, we are talking about some other catastrophic failure. </i> not true... it would depend on the explosive used. certain explosives do not flame... such stuff is commonly used in hypebaric bombs, and thermobaric weapons. feul air bombs. so no... lack of flame as in hollywierd is not indicative of anyhitng. a bomb could have opened the skin, air could have torn it apart... no flame... The aviation fuel would have ignited if a bomb had lit up the jet. So, we are talking about some other catastrophic failure.

not true… it would depend on the explosive used. certain explosives do not flame…

such stuff is commonly used in hypebaric bombs, and thermobaric weapons. feul air bombs.

so no… lack of flame as in hollywierd is not indicative of anyhitng.

a bomb could have opened the skin, air could have torn it apart… no flame…

]]> By: Artfldgr http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-111615 Artfldgr Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:37:40 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-111615 rubber ducky, there is more than one criteria to satisfy. yes by itself alone its rotten logic. but as part of a list of items that all have to be satisfied, its not. lack of a claiment has no bearing on that list either way... all results are the same... if they claim it, they can be truthful, or lying. if they dont, they can be truthful, or lying. its irrelevent. but no radio contact made AND broke up in the air high enough that debris was spread out for more than a few hundred kilometers. france being islam protest and such central bomb threat the day before sorry rubber ducky, no kewpie doll here. rubber ducky,
there is more than one criteria to satisfy. yes by itself alone its rotten logic. but as part of a list of items that all have to be satisfied, its not.

lack of a claiment has no bearing on that list either way… all results are the same… if they claim it, they can be truthful, or lying. if they dont, they can be truthful, or lying. its irrelevent.

but
no radio contact made
AND broke up in the air high enough that debris was spread out for more than a few hundred kilometers.
france being islam protest and such central
bomb threat the day before

sorry rubber ducky, no kewpie doll here.

]]> By: neo-neocon http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-111584 neo-neocon Fri, 05 Jun 2009 02:28:32 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-111584 FredHjr: I am hardly an expert on the matter, but in the Lockerbie crash (caused by a bomb), the plane's fuel did not ignite until the plane hit the ground. The bomb tore a hole in the plane at a height of 31,000 feet, and then the plane broke into pieces which fell to the earth. The fireball only occurred when the section attached to the wings (containing the fuel) hit a residential area of Lockerbie (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103" rel="nofollow">this</a>). FredHjr:

I am hardly an expert on the matter, but in the Lockerbie crash (caused by a bomb), the plane’s fuel did not ignite until the plane hit the ground. The bomb tore a hole in the plane at a height of 31,000 feet, and then the plane broke into pieces which fell to the earth. The fireball only occurred when the section attached to the wings (containing the fuel) hit a residential area of Lockerbie (see this).

]]> By: FredHjr http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-111578 FredHjr Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:01:52 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-111578 As soon as I heard there was a slick of aviation fuel quite extensive I knew it wasn't a bomb. The aviation fuel would have ignited if a bomb had lit up the jet. So, we are talking about some other catastrophic failure. As soon as I heard there was a slick of aviation fuel quite extensive I knew it wasn’t a bomb. The aviation fuel would have ignited if a bomb had lit up the jet. So, we are talking about some other catastrophic failure.

]]> By: rubber ducky http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-111575 rubber ducky Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:03:09 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-111575 Artfldgr: and: "had to be a bomb… nothing else would have been catostrophic enough to prevent them making any radio anything" is not ROTTEN logic? Artfldgr:

and:

“had to be a bomb… nothing else would have been catostrophic enough to prevent them making any radio anything”

is not ROTTEN logic?

]]> By: Artfldgr http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-111510 Artfldgr Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:45:28 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-111510 lack of a claiment is ROTTEN logic... maybe the claiment was killed by a predator drone at another time. the point is that lack of a claimant says NOTHING. lack of a claiment is ROTTEN logic…

maybe the claiment was killed by a predator drone at another time.

the point is that lack of a claimant says NOTHING.

]]> By: rubber ducky http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-111454 rubber ducky Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:29:29 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2009/06/02/the-disappearance-of-air-france-447-those-in-peril-in-air-and-sea/#comment-111454 I have to agree with Mitch - if it was a explosive device, there would have been some claim to responsibility - especially if it was TAQ. You can't plan these things by on the fly (no pun intended), surely by now there would have been a video statement on Al Jazeera... And besides, why blow up a plane in the middle of nowhere - do it closer where media crews can get to it easier - greater visual impact... After all, a plane is still an mechanical device, and like many other mechanical devices - especially the more complicated ones - it can fail. If one was to deploy a Stinger, it would have been closer to the take off / approach, since its closer to the ground and at its slowest speeds. Not to mention, its a very costly proposal... its cheaper to get an explosive device on board and detonate... At any rate, time will tell. Hope they find the flight recorder... rd sends. I have to agree with Mitch – if it was a explosive device, there would have been some claim to responsibility – especially if it was TAQ. You can’t plan these things by on the fly (no pun intended), surely by now there would have been a video statement on Al Jazeera… And besides, why blow up a plane in the middle of nowhere – do it closer where media crews can get to it easier – greater visual impact…

After all, a plane is still an mechanical device, and like many other mechanical devices – especially the more complicated ones – it can fail.

If one was to deploy a Stinger, it would have been closer to the take off / approach, since its closer to the ground and at its slowest speeds. Not to mention, its a very costly proposal… its cheaper to get an explosive device on board and detonate…

At any rate, time will tell. Hope they find the flight recorder…

rd sends.

]]>