30 replies to this topic

[zipp]

So, considering certain people in chat go around wear tin foil hats and believe that government is trying to brainwash them

Welcome to the vote on varying theories of stuff forum thread thing.

Firstly, no disrespect to those who lost relatives/friends in 9/11 or have a personal connection, I meant no harm 

 

[Will101]

I feel with AF447 you miss the fact that pilot error wasn't all to blame. 

I also liek tinfoil hats.

[zipp]

Well, this was the general consensus in chat, but I will edit later

[Ioh]

I feel with AF447 you miss the fact that pilot error wasn't all to blame. 

 

you should correct this, will is right, pilot error's only half the story.

[zipp]

Ok, corrected

[zipp]

I feel with AF447 you miss the fact that pilot error wasn't all to blame. 
I also liek tinfoil hats.

Also, can you post your reasoning for your yes answers in the forums?

[zipp]

Well, I wanted to steer clear of 9/11 because of open wounds etc but I agree there are some dodgy theories floating around the interwebs about it.
On the ailen thing, it is damn nearly impossible for life not to exist somewhere in space, after all, some theories suggest that all life on earth came from space

[SirMoo]

Huge part of 9/11 had to do with the inability for US intelligence agencies to communicate with one another. The fact that multiple agencies knew that a threat was emanate but did nothing to coordinate with one another to prevent it was the real let down. This was one of the core reasons that the US Government condensed intelligence and defence agencies under the same branches... as a way to make it easier for them to share data and give one person oversight to hopefully prevent such a colossal **** up in the future.

 

Northeast, your claims on it being nearly impossible go against modern scientific thinking... Seeing as how last year a long about five different planets were stated to live within the habitable zone of their star.

[SirMoo]

Huge part of 9/11 had to do with the inability for US intelligence agencies to communicate with one another. The fact that multiple agencies knew that a threat was emanate but did nothing to coordinate with one another to prevent it was the real let down. This was one of the core reasons that the US Government condensed intelligence and defence agencies under the same branches... as a way to make it easier for them to share data and give one person oversight to hopefully prevent such a colossal **** up in the future.

 

Northeast, your claims on it being nearly impossible go against modern scientific thinking... Seeing as how last year alone about five different planets were stated to live within the habitable zone of their star.

[The Airbus Guy]

Was Trans World Airlines Flight 800 shot down? 

 

No. Looking back at the pictures of the wreckage, the plane doesn't look like it has been shot down by a missile.  Take a look at Iran Air Flight 655 for example, the fuselage on the Iran Air Flight is burnt out because of the explosion whereas the Trans Air looks as if it has been involved in an explosion from the "missile" Also the fuselage looks a bit intact. I would say that the incident would've been due to small explosion on board. There is also no reason why that particular flight should be targeted.

 

 

 

 

 Was United Airlines flight 93 shot down?

 

First off all I give my condolences to the families that have lost the loved ones on that day.

 

I could not possibly say whether is has been shot down or not however I do think there's more to it than just being a terrorist attack. First of all why would United fly from Newark NJ to San Francisco CA with only 37 passengers on a B757? For example the flight ticket for one passenger to fly from EWR - SFO is on Average $280. 280 x 37 =  $10,360  now a 757 would cost to operate between that route for $24,000 including fuel, staff etc. Now you may be think why am I bring that up, well simply because United would of made a loss of around $14,000 for that flight alone. Why would United continue to fly that flight knowing that they made a loss? or even more why didn't United use a smaller plane which they had in their fleet at that current time? They also had 5 cabin crew members and on that flight that was one crew to about 7 passengers? Maths aside, It just doesn't seem right to me.

 

 

 

 

Was the Pentagon hit by a missile?

 

Honestly, I don't know and I couldn't care less. I mean where would the missile come from?   

 

 

 

Was Air France 447 Pilot Error or something more sinister?

 

Incident Flight 447 was not just down to pilot error. It was also due to Airbus's faulty airbus pitot tubes that has caused the crash. Also I know that nothing sinister happened because Airbus has actually rectified the problem across all A330 and A340. I am surprised into why you would think that this particular flight was something more than a normal incident? Also am not sure whether Air France could of prevented the incident from maintenance check. (Air France has a lot of history of having accidents)

 

Lastly, Are Aliens real? 

 

I would not know but I don't believe there is.

[Stevphfeniey]

Silly HJG and your silly rumors. 

[Hake.]

I don't believe any of these, except I do believe there could be single cell life on Mars or another far off planet, but I'm 98% sure that there are no aliens as we see them in movies. Also, I have another conspiracy theory. The Tuskar Rock Air Disaster, Aer Lingus Flight 712. I personally believe that this plane collided with another light aircraft, there is evidence to suggest so but one party or more have covered this up.

[Superman]

 Was United Airlines flight 93 shot down?

 

First off all I give my condolences to the families that have lost the loved ones on that day.

 

I could not possibly say whether is has been shot down or not however I do think there's more to it than just being a terrorist attack. First of all why would United fly from Newark NJ to San Francisco CA with only 37 passengers on a B757? For example the flight ticket for one passenger to fly from EWR - SFO is on Average $280. 280 x 37 =  $10,360  now a 757 would cost to operate between that route for $24,000 including fuel, staff etc. Now you may be think why am I bring that up, well simply because United would of made a loss of around $14,000 for that flight alone. Why would United continue to fly that flight knowing that they made a loss or even more why didn't United use a smaller plane which they had in their fleet at that current time. They also had cabin crew members and on that flight that was one crew to about 7 passengers? Maths aside, It just doesn't seem right to me.

Damn, I actually never thought of that, that's a really good question

[zipp]

I don't believe any of these, except I do believe there could be single cell life on Mars or another far off planet, but I'm 98% sure that there are no aliens as we see them in movies. Also, I have another conspiracy theory. The Tuskar Rock Air Disaster, Aer Lingus Flight 712. I personally believe that this plane collided with another light aircraft, there is evidence to suggest so but one party or more have covered this up.

This has been proven to be in-flight structural failure

[The Airbus Guy]

Silly HJG and your silly rumors. 

 

I don't think its silly I personally don't believe in the media. 

[The Airbus Guy]

While the low passenger numbers aren't suspicious [to me], they're explainable quite plausibly - perhaps the 757 would have to make that flight anyway to transfer to a route where it would be more profitable. [SFO-EWR at a loss, EWR-Europe at a profit, for example], or perhaps it was just coincidentally empty at the time. There've been cases of 747s with a single passenger before.

 

A lot of crashes [though generally the less well known ones] have surprisingly low load-factors.

 

Okay I understand where your coming but reading an article says 

The airplane had a capacity of 182 passengers; the September 11 flight carried 37 passengers and seven crew, a load factor of 20 percent, considerably below the 52 percent average Tuesday load factor for Flight 93.

Coincidence? 

 

What about the fact that Flight 93 was the only one aircraft that failed to reached is intended target the "White House"

 

Coincidence?

 

Or that no F-16 intercepted flight 93?

 

Coincidence? 

[SirMoo]

Okay I understand where your coming but reading an article says 

The airplane had a capacity of 182 passengers; the September 11 flight carried 37 passengers and seven crew, a load factor of 20 percent, considerably below the 52 percent average Tuesday load factor for Flight 93.

Coincidence? 

 

What about the fact that Flight 93 was the only one aircraft that failed to reached is intended target the "White House"

 

Coincidence?

 

Or that no F-16 intercepted flight 93?

 

Coincidence? 

 

I've been on small to large planes that have had a fill rate of under half. You ever flown on Fourth of July? AA MD8...somethingorothoer and the plane had 10 people on it...

 

Seeing as how flight deck, and on board sat phone audio pretty clearly have sounds of people having a massive fight on plane (and forcing it to crash) before a small private plane and an US military interceptor saw it crash... I think you're bringing false comments to an argument.

[zipp]

I've been on small to large planes that have had a fill rate of under half. You ever flown on Fourth of July? AA MD8...somethingorothoer and the plane had 10 people on it...

There was some BA747 that only had 1 PAX after it was delayed

[The Airbus Guy]

I've been on small to large planes that have had a fill rate of under half. You ever flown on Fourth of July? AA MD8...somethingorothoer and the plane had 10 people on it...

 

Seeing as how flight deck, and on board sat phone audio pretty clearly have sounds of people having a massive fight on plane (and forcing it to crash) before a small private plane and an US military interceptor saw it crash... I think you're bringing false comments to an argument.

 

And I think your being naive. I never said that aircraft do not fly empty. I work at at Heathrow and know first hand how much flights are filled. Am also not bringing false comments either and I think you need to read more thoroughly because I said that the article I read said that the flight has not low but a CONSIDERABLY LOW factor for a Tuesday.  

 

If your still unsure as to what am trying to say here is that particular flight should 've had a load factor of around 52% during that season, day and time. Flight 93 barely reached 20% load factor.

 

Working at an Airport, Airlines know what the load factor would be like for future flights so that they can plan the correct frequency. How would airlines know how many aircraft is need for a particular route if they don't know an estimated figure?  

 

Again that flight should've been at least 52% but was even less than half of what should've been on that flight.

 

Still sound right to you?

[Hake.]

Well, taking Ireland's last 2 incidents into account:
Manx2 Flight 7102:
Fairchild Merroliner
19 seats
12 passengers
Head of one of Ireland's political parties was meant to be on board
Circled for 30 minutes
Arguably, I could say it purposely crashed, that the government wanted Gerry Adams dead, but no. It was a tragic accident where 6 people died because the plane circled over Cork airport for 30 minutes and was running out of fuel, it could have diverted, but no. Accidents happen, no one could have stopped that.

Aer Lingus Regional Flight (I don't know the number). I just wanted to mention it because although the ATR 72-200 took 68 passengers, 4 crew and 21 passengers were on board. The front landing gear broke, the plane was written off. See, just as a coincidence, a flight from Manchester to Shannon had 21 on board in the middle of July.
Airlines frequently run with low load factors, as outlined above.