Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by Quantum Quack, Mar 29, 2015.
so if as you say is the case, explain the absence of a tail section...amongst the debris
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Except nobody jumped to any conclusion... the fact that there is recorded audio of the pilot BEGGING to be let back into the cockpit is pretty telling...
You are trying to work from the evidence we DON'T have (photographs) rather than that which we DO have... why in the WORLD would you assume we have seen every single photograph and angle that has been taken? I'm sorry, but I'm not part of the forensic analysis team... so I don't have access to EVERY photograph.
Again, it DIDN'T hit the ground at 700kph... why do you refuse to acknowledge that?
You are equating apples to fish here... the kind of impact forces we are talking about are so DRASTICALLY different as to make your comparison absolutely laughable.
Simple - the tail section, unlike the CVR and FDR, isn't designed to withstand high-speed impact with the ground... stop trying to obsfucate the facts.
The, according to you, CRV survives virtually intact due to crush zone reductions and yet the tail section is disintegrated.
Did the tail section hit the ground at 700KPH? According to your own logic it did not... it would have hit the ground at the more or less the same speed as the flight recorder.
(Which I would estimate looking at it as being at about 90-100kph. ( comparing with truck or car accidents)
well well well.. finally people are starting to think for them selves..
news 7 hours ago:
Was Germanwings plane crashed by a HACKER instead of co-pilot? Aviation expert says the jet could easily be accessed remotely
'Electronic hacking' could have caused the air disaster, aviation boss says
Germanwings tragedy has been widely blamed on co-pilot Andreas Lubitz
But Matt Andersson says investigators have yet to come to a final conclusion
Says passenger planes do not have same level of protection as military jets
"Until they are, many broad assertions currently presented to the public may turn out to be erroneous, misleading or in some cases lead to improper or counterproductive regulatory and other reactions –including misplaced liability, financial and insurance claims.'
I might add that civilian planes are not "hardened" against EMP devices either.
Thank you for the edit - as if I haven't read the whole thread, with all your ranting. You started off with a simple question - Perhaps there is more here than we see? - and progressed to total tinfoil territory.
Let me ask you this - what, if anything, would be sufficient evidence that the "official" story is more or less accurate?
Your failure to address this inquiry is telling - ranks high on the crackpot scale. Once again, what would convince you? Be introspective for a moment - would any evidence suffice? Or perhaps God told you that there is a cover-up conspiracy here...
I postulated a hypothesis that the plane could have been electronically hijacked quite a few pages ago, do you remember or are you so intent on attacking me that you forgot.. and you call me paranoid.. bah!
See above post #605 and start thinking for yourself for a change.
What would convince me?
Sound use of logic and reasoning... that is what would convince me...so far there has been very little of either.
Have I addressed your question?
I have serious concerns about the veracity of the CVR.. and so far they have not been addressed.
That MAY be. However, you have presented NO evidence to support this theory. Other than "it's possible". I grant that your explanation is possible. I fail to understand why you are so convinced of it though - because of lack of evidence? Because we only see photos of one wheel? What if there were pictures of two wheels? Three? Eight? My question is at what point would you give credence to to the possibility that the copilot was *insane* (depressed/mentally ill/whatever) and flew the plane into the mountainside? Period. End of story. What would you require to adopt that conclusion?
You are assuming the CVR didn't break lose during the impact... one of DOZENS of ASSumptions you and I both have to make to try and make ANY calculation about this! What don't you understand about this concept?
And again I say - bullshit.
If the plane was under outside attack, why did the co-pilot lock the pilot out? Why did he refuse to respond to ground controllers? The only explanation that would make sense would be he was incapacitated... yet we know he wasn't because he physically made input to the aircraft controls... so what happened here?
No, you haven't - because you have repeatedly stated you will not accept "expert opinion" on the matter... so why are you suddenly accepting this "experts" opinion? Oh, right, because it conveniently fits with your tin-foil-hat nonsense.
I have serious concerns about your capability as a forensic analyst, and so far they have not been addressed either.
Why did the co-pilot lock the pilot out?
The door can be locked by the flight computers... ( remember HAL in 2001 Space odyssey)
Why did he refuse to respond to ground controllers?
because the "out going" communication system may be governed by the computer
The only explanation that would make sense would be he was incapacitated... yet we know he wasn't because he physically made input to the aircraft controls...
if one believes that the FDR has not been also interfered with via it's inputs. (Recall the Computer Ghosting scenario I posted from way back.)
and the CVR is confirmed as being the actual CVR from the flight in question.
so what happened here?
Now that's the right question....
Can it? Do you have evidence of this claim? Do you have any evidence that there isn't a simple override/handle on the interior (cockpit side) that would allow them to override it?
Again, do you have any evidence of this? Any at all? Or are you just making another wild speculation?
So now, not only was the aircraft being remotely controlled, and the pilot/copilot locked out of the controls, but the CVR and FDR are being fed false data?
Can you even REMOTELY begin to back these wild claims?
I think the "right question" is... prove it. Provide ANY evidence that what you are saying is 1) possible 2) more probable than the copilot being to blame 3) what happened
If the pilot had an extensive history of violence and malicious intent i woud be more inclined to give the hypothesis that he committed mass murder suicide more credence.
He does not have that history. ( including school years, teen years etc)
How do I know this?
because if he did it would have been on all the media outlets as headlines...
yes prove it. Prove your case..
Why would he need a history of violence and malicious intent? it is obvious you haven't the first clue about depression or psychology, else you would realize a simple, basic, fundamental fact:
When one is depressed to the point of contemplating suicide, they tend to not think rationally.
Not the way things work here skippy - YOU are the one claiming that the experts are wrong and that the aircraft was hacked... now put up or shut up.
As it stands, I've provided numerous bits of evidence to back the currently-accepted proposal, ranging from photographs to equations and facts of the airframe to basic physics...
it's your turn to provide even a scrap of evidence to back your claims
Matt Andersson, president of Chicago-based Indigo Aerospace, is the author of the letter of concern to the Financial Times.
If he reckons hacking could explain the crash then I would be inclined to grant him credit.
why would I do that?
Because he is going out on a limb threatening his entire career by saying what he has said.
you haven't fully supported the validity of the CVR yet... do that first and we can talk about the supposed inflight cockpit situation better.
The only evidence that condemns the co-pilot is contained the CVR
I have major doubts as o whether or not it is the crash scene CVR.
Do I suspect a cover up... absolutely.
So, now you are making an appeal to authority... yet just a few posts ago:
I think we're done here... you've made it obvious you will ONLY believe in the authority that supports your crazy theories... I believe we've let you insult those who perished in this tragedy quite enough.
And again, you make unsupported and unbacked claims... sorry, but I cannot, in good conscience, let this farce continue. At this time, it would be prudent to allow the professionals to do their job and let them make the call on what happened... lest you insult the memory of those who perished any further.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.