• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

11 airliners missing

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
KeithP said:
Has anyone seen a listing of what types of jets are missing? I mean specific models. I find it odd in all these stories about the missing planes not a single one has indicated what models of planes are missing.

-KeithP
Click to expand...

Read the article linked to the foxnews article. Looks like A320s and CRJs.
 
Texashiker said:
I told yall a long time ago obama is a pro-muslim president.

He may not be a muslim, but he is not going to do anything to harm terrorist organizations. The obama administration may kill a few terrorist with drone strikes, kill osama, but in the grand scheme of things isis is about to take over the middle east.

It sounds like Syria ready for the picking, Russian military equipment and everything else going to isis.

What is obama doing? Playing golf.

EDIT

How difficult would it do to strip the airliners, take out the seats, install fuel tanks and extend the range of the planes?

It is not "that" difficult to weld aluminum.
Click to expand...

You dont make any sense. If he were a pro-muslim president. Why would he go about working to install terrorists into power? Nothing is more anti-muslim than these terrorist organizations. They kill other muslims at alarming rates.

And in case you missed my point about our foreign policy nearly batting 100% in installing terrorists into power. The other two instances are Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush fuckups unless you think he is secretly pro-muslim as well.
 
Texashiker said:
Yep, pretty much.

ISIS did not just magically find the weapons. The people in isis knew where the weapons where all along.

Not only does isis have the weapons, they also have a delivery system.
Click to expand...
keep spinning....the US also knew where these impotent useless chemical weapons were....
 
DrPizza said:
I don't know enough about transponders to say for sure. But, are they specifically designed with the intention to avoid someone being able to copy it?
Click to expand...

I hate to say this but I believe that we are so nervous over these missing jets that if the Jet could not be identified or for that matter verified I believe we would shoot it down regardless........How many people are on a full jet in relation to the damage done if it is used by terrorists??
 
Genx87 said:
Read the article linked to the foxnews article. Looks like A320s and CRJs.
Click to expand...

I saw that, from the article.
The state-owned Libyan Airlines fleet until this summer included 14 passenger and cargo jetliners, including seven Airbus 320s, one Airbus 330, two French ATR-42 turboprop aircraft, and four Bombardier CJR-900s. Libyan state-owned Afriqiyah Airways fleet is made up of 13 aircraft, including three Airbus 319s, seven Airbus 320s, two Airbus 330s, and one Airbus 340.
Click to expand...

Was there something else besides this statement? It doesn't say what jets were taken, it only lists a pool of potential aircraft they would have been taken from. At least that is how I read it.

-KeithP
 
Sorry, but no way do they have 11 people who can fly a commercial aircraft successfully into a target. That takes a lot of training and 9/11 took years of planning and education. If anything, this was an opportunistic snatching of air craft. Then again, if they are stolen, then clearly they have the ability to fly them...hmm. I'm calling BS on the whole story.
 
Last edited:
moonbogg said:
Sorry, but no way do they have 11 people who can fly a commercial aircraft successfully into a target. That takes a lot of training and 9/11 took years of planning and education. If anything, this was an opportunistic snatching of air craft. Then again, if they are stolen, then clearly they have the ability to fly them...hmm. I'm calling BS on the whole story.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but aren't flight simulator programs fairly accurate? I was under the impression that 16 year old kids could at least come close to flying, simply from those simulations and minimal other training. From what I understand, taking off & flying are easy; the landing is hard. I don't think they need to land if they repeat 9/11.
 
US wouldn't be a target, but yeah plenty of others things to plow em into.

With all the other things they've picked up lately could pack a lot of explosives in one too.

moonbogg said:
Sorry, but no way do they have 11 people who can fly a commercial aircraft successfully into a target. That takes a lot of training and 9/11 took years of planning and education. If anything, this was an opportunistic snatching of air craft. Then again, if they are stolen, then clearly they have the ability to fly them...hmm. I'm calling BS on the whole story.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they do.
 
Last edited:
DrPizza said:
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but aren't flight simulator programs fairly accurate? I was under the impression that 16 year old kids could at least come close to flying, simply from those simulations and minimal other training. From what I understand, taking off & flying are easy; the landing is hard. I don't think they need to land if they repeat 9/11.
Click to expand...

Unless they get the real landing training outside of a simulator; none of the aircraft have the range from Africa to the US.

Europe and Middle East are what is within range for one fuel load.

However, if the planes are actually missing (flown away from the depot); then at least 1 tail has the ability to be dangerous.
 
Texashiker said:
The honest truth is, people like isis having access to planes, chemical weapons, anti-aircraft missiles,,,, is a valid reason to be concerned.

Didn't isis find the chemical weapons cache from saddam?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/09/isis-seizes-chemical-weapons-plant-muthanna-iraq


A plane loaded with chemical weapons flown into London, Paris,,,, or some other heavily populated area would be devastating.
Click to expand...

Fear monger often? They didn't capture any chemical weapons at all, just a place where those weapons had been kept long ago. Obviously, or the Bushistas would have trumpeted the find from every rooftop.

Sheesh.
 
The whole thing reeks of bullshit, anyway, given the anonymous source(s) & the jumping to semi-plausible conclusions.

What is meant by "missing", anyway, other than the fact that anonymous sources don't know where they are?

Take this, for example-

Islamist militias in Libya took control of nearly a dozen commercial jetliners last month, and western intelligence agencies recently issued a warning that the jets could be used in terrorist attacks across North Africa.
Click to expand...

http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...ise-fears-of-suicide-airliner-attacks-on-911/

It's a statement of fact where there is none. The article goes on later to cite anonymous sources as the basis for such official "warnings" that can't be shown to exist.

Shee-it, Sherlock. The whole thing is a hack job that Texashiker could have written in his basement.
 
Jhhnn said:
Fear monger often? They didn't capture any chemical weapons at all, just a place where those weapons had been kept long ago. Obviously, or the Bushistas would have trumpeted the find from every rooftop.

Sheesh.
Click to expand...
No, there actually are chemical weapons and precursors stored at the site. The Bushistas didn't trumpet the find because the charge wasn't that Hussein had WMD - everyone and his brother knew that. The charge was that Hussein was still manufacturing and stockpiling WMD. And since everyone knew about them, it wasn't really a find. Discovering Greenland is a pretty major accomplishment, but I'm not likely to get much air time if I announce it today.

Frankly at this point the hundreds of tons of sodium cyanide stored there (for making tabun) is probably more dangerous than are the sarin rockets. Certainly it would be safer for ISIS to use - although just going down into a partially destroyed bunker containing hundreds of tons of sodium cyanide and thousands of old sarin-filled rockets would be insane. Chemical weapons MUST be properly inspected to be a viable weapon system, even though they individually remain dangerous. If containment can be expected to fail on 1% of such rockets a year (a number I happily pulled out of my ass for theoretical purposes) and no one is monitoring the rockets, then simply trying to use them is reasonably likely to kill you.

If sarin in a rocket is 90% degraded then it isn't likely to kill anyone even if properly deployed - but it's still quite potent enough to kill YOU if it ruptures as you're handling it. At that point it's still incredibly concentrated.

Having ISIS take this cache is like when they captured the radioactive uranium - it makes splashly headlines, but it doesn't really change anything.
 
werepossum said:
No, there actually are chemical weapons and precursors stored at the site. The Bushistas didn't trumpet the find because the charge wasn't that Hussein had WMD - everyone and his brother knew that. The charge was that Hussein was still manufacturing and stockpiling WMD. And since everyone knew about them, it wasn't really a find. Discovering Greenland is a pretty major accomplishment, but I'm not likely to get much air time if I announce it today.
Click to expand...

Pure lies of convenience.

The charge was that Iraq possessed WMD's in violation of a UN mandate that they be destroyed. Period.

After the invasion, none were found, certainly none in serviceable condition.

Blatant revisionist history serves you not at all.

In the perpetrators' own words-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8JGd74dmRM
 
DrPizza said:
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but aren't flight simulator programs fairly accurate? I was under the impression that 16 year old kids could at least come close to flying, simply from those simulations and minimal other training. From what I understand, taking off & flying are easy; the landing is hard. I don't think they need to land if they repeat 9/11.
Click to expand...

If they haven't already crashed, that means they were flown away and landed somewhere and are presumably being prepped for an attack. You need a runway to land these (and a way to refuel them) and they should be really hard to hide. The story seems unlikely to me, as far as planes being flown away and hidden without people noticing. I want to be right on this one. I hope you are as wrong as possible.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top