So pissed off with all the crap on this plane. Everyone wants to spin some story about how it implicates their favourite enemy. The "Intelligence Community" are suggesting it's hackers, so they can use it as a pearl harbour to attack the hacker community, and the media are sucking it up. I've seen two separate accounts from Pilots who present the view that, based on prior examples and their own training and experience, everything about the flight's flightpath, instrumentation failure, radio-darkness and disappearance is consistent with an onboard fire. Once suggested underinflated landing gear on long takeoff under hot/humid conditions could create blowout/smoulder conditions for frontal landing gear, which would smoke out the plane. In prior cases where this happens, a fire in landing gear can destroy a plane in ~5m, destroying control instrumentation. But first, procedures for firefighting demand nonessential instruments *including radio* are disabled while the fault and fire location are determined. Again in prior cases, the plane will (with an experienced pilot) immediately divert path to the nearest, not the "best", airport, which is what this did. And again as in prior cases, it may eventually fail to arrive as the crew succumb to smoke (oxygen masks not an option in case of fires) and the plane will fly "dark" on autopilot until ditching in the ocean. That all the Pilots are saying "Probably Fire" and nobody's listening, in favour of all sorts of bizarre and unlikely conspiracies, says a lot about our maturity and our level of openness to fearmongering. On 18/03/14 14:45, Robert Hettinga wrote:
On Mar 17, 2014, at 11:51 AM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:
Diego Garcia
Fuck tinfoil.
Cypherpunks use graphene.
Cheers, RAH ;-)
Curiouser and curiouser, innit?
-- T: @onetruecathal, @IndieBBDNA P: +3538763663185 W: http://indiebiotech.com