BA 777 lands short of runway at LHR

[Hagar]

Hagar , Yes I saw that report and at first thought it to be the case , but other reports have him on the road ( the journos were already on board) and being aware of the crash before arriving at the airport.

If the Sky News Adam Boulton thing is correct are we to understand that PM and Journos witnessed the crash through the aircraft window?

I suspect that is a little journalistic licence. They probably didn't witness it at all but I prefer to believe a respected political reporter than any amount of anonymous speculation. http://www.skypressoffice.co.uk/SkyNews/AboutUs/biography.asp?id=146

Who knows? I do know that the Security Services use some very powerful  
and broad spectrum electronic jammers . After all according to the airlines  even a humble mobile phone can cause an aircraft to fall from the sky

The 777 was designed long before current jammer technology was developed and so is unlikely to be protected from it

I'm sure the security services have all sorts of equipment that is not general public knowledge. Strangely enough I seem to recall hearing about a possible terrorist threat on Mr Brown's life earlier in the week.  If jammers were being used & caused this accident then it's quite likely we will never know the truth. There are also other reasons they might cover it up.

[JBaymore]

Is it really possible that they just ran out of fuel ?

Remember the Gimli Glider?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

best,

................john

[expat]

Is it really possible that they just ran out of fuel ?

Remember the Gimli Glider?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

best,

................john

No, as a significant amount of fuel was lost during the crash as indicated in the initial crash report from AAIB.

Matt

[expat]

Here's a thought . Prime Minister Brown's motorcade was traveling to Heathrow  at the time. The Security Services are known to operate very high powered electronics jammers to protect such motorcades from remotely triggered roadside bombs etc. Could they have interfered with the engine control electronics at a critical time? It's just possible and perhaps no ther aircraft were affected as they were not in the critical position.
If this is indeed the cause we will never be told and some BS story will be concocted to explain the multiple engine failures

Nice idea, but if was the case, then every time President Bush's motorcade was on the road or Air Force one landed, took off, taxied or was just powered up, aircraft would be falling out of the sky in a radius of 20 miles from said airport. So as Gordon would have the English version on his aircraft, designed by four white coated boffins in a garden shed it is not very likely.

Matt  

Matt

[FsNovice]

Well also, when royalty have departed heathrow before, planes havent just fallen out of the sky, have they?

[Springer6]

This has got people thinking though ( rather than accepting what we are told by the "respected professional Media").

Here's another thought . Do you recall that the Police issued a statement within an hour of the crash saying that there was "no terrorist involvement". How did they know this? How did they know that some jihadis ensconsed in a bedsit in Hounslow had not used a powerful (legal to buy but not to operate in the UK ) electronic jammer  to down the aircraft, unless of course they knew the real reason for the crash!

Terrorists would of course have tried to  disable an aircraft's engine on the more vunerable take off, rather than the landing . so this and the fact that they have not claimed responsibility makes their involvement unlikely.

I predict that it won't be long now before we are told that all the multiple and separate computer control systems for both engines on the 777 were affected because one small electronic component overheated and dripped a blob of solder onto the wrong connection. You can believe that if it makes you feel better !  ;)

[61_OTU]

What always gets me about conspiracy theories, is that they rely on extensive webs of secretive individuals collectively planning and executing a complex series of events so that they appear to have a straightforward and plausible explanation.

The reason why I find these complex scenarios difficult to believe, is that I work in an industry where any number of individuals seem completely incapable of making even the most straightforward of things possible, to the extent that it is difficult to get everyone to agree on what we are trying to achieve, let alone how we will do it.

The simpler and more mundane an explantion is, the more likely I am to believe it.

Sorry to be dull and bring this thread back to the original topic, but here are some shots of the approach from The Daily Mule website....someone posted the link on UKAR:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

[expat]

What always gets me about conspiracy theories, is that they rely on extensive webs of secretive individuals collectively planning and executing a complex series of events so that they appear to have a straightforward and plausible explanation.

The reason why I find these complex scenarios difficult to believe, is that I work in an industry where any number of individuals seem completely incapable of making even the most straightforward of things possible, to the extent that it is difficult to get everyone to agree on what we are trying to achieve, let alone how we will do it.

The simpler and more mundane an explantion is, the more likely I am to believe it.

Sorry to be dull and bring this thread back to the original topic, but here are some shots of the approach from The Daily Mule website....someone posted the link on UKAR:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

It is a fake composit picture to cover up the flames and smoke from the shoulder launched missile that was fired out of the bedroom window of number 23 Massingham Gardens hounslow. I know because my dads mate works with this bloke he knows who has a cousin who's best friends brothers sister was down the pub last week and over heard a conversation three tables away between two terrorist looking guys who stopped taking when she walked by as they spoke about moving into a house near the airport

Matt

[61_OTU]

It is a fake composit picture to cover up the flames and smoke from the shoulder launched missile that was fired out of the bedroom window of number 23 Massingham Gardens hounslow. I know because my dads mate works with this bloke he knows who has a cousin who's best friends brothers sister was down the pub last week and over heard a conversation three tables away between two terrorist looking guys who stopped taking when she walked by as they spoke about moving into a house near the airport

Matt

It'd be funny if I wasn't suspicious that it will be repeated word for word in one of the psuedo broadsheets tomorrow  ;)

Steve

[Springer6]

"What always gets me about conspiracy theories, is that they rely on extensive webs of secretive individuals collectively planning and executing a complex series of events so that they appear to have a straightforward and plausible explanation.

The reason why I find these complex scenarios difficult to believe, is that I work in an industry where any number of individuals seem completely incapable of making even the most straightforward of things possible, to the extent that it is difficult to get everyone to agree on what we are trying to achieve, let alone how we will do it."


It wouldn't take too many people to conspire to remain silent  here and they are all policemen or security service officers who have signed the official secrets act.

I know that policemen and the security services never ever lie or conceal the truth, but I can't for the life of me explain why for example we were told that John Charles deMenendez was:- a terrorist, ran into the tube station, leapt a barrier, was wearing a bulky coat , made threatening moves towards the armed police or that Harry Stanley was armed with a shotgun and not a table leg, made threatening moves as if to fire (even though he was shot in the back!).

And yes I do know that " if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear ". So everything is alright then, we'll go back to the dripping solder and billion to one multiple computer failure explanations.

Wonder why they haven't grounded all the other 777s  ;)

[mrjake2002]

I know that policemen and the security services never ever lie or conceal the truth, but I can't for the life of me explain why for example we were told that John Charles deMenendez was:- a terrorist, ran into the tube station, leapt a barrier, was wearing a bulky coat , made threatening moves towards the armed police or that Harry Stanley was armed with a shotgun and not a table leg, made threatening moves as if to fire (even though he was shot in the back!).

And yes I do know that " if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear ". So everything is alright then, we'll go back to the dripping solder and billion to one multiple computer failure explanations.

I entirely agree there... have a look at this documentary, its quite eye-opening: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5275097719

(Sorry if that's too political.)  ;)

[61_OTU]

I can't for the life of me explain why for example we were told that John Charles deMenendez was:- a terrorist, ran into the tube station, leapt a barrier, was wearing a bulky coat , made threatening moves towards the armed police or that Harry Stanley was armed with a shotgun and not a table leg, made threatening moves as if to fire (even though he was shot in the back!)

Your examples however show that official investigations have cleared up the misinformation surrounding the initial event. It's no surprise that witnesses to an event make mistakes, and that a careful official investigation can piece together the real facts.

The investigation into the Stockwell shooting pointed out that all the eyewitness accounts of a man in a bulky jacket running and vaulting the ticket barriers actually related to the police officers that were sent in to locate the suspect. The witnesses simply assumed, as did the media and everyone else, that they had seen the suspect. It's inevitable that the initial Police statements would reflect this misinformation from the eyewitnesses, what's important is that we live in a society where the facts were reassessed and presented in a court of law.

I'm not saying that bad things don't happen, but I also believe that explanations are usually more mundane than some people seem to want them to be. In this case you are talking about an immense number of systems which all combine to make a flying 777. Why is anyone in the least bit surprised that a technical failure is most likely to be at the heart of this?

[expat]

I know that policemen and the security services never ever lie or conceal the truth, but I can't for the life of me explain why for example we were told that John Charles deMenendez was:- a terrorist, ran into the tube station, leapt a barrier, was wearing a bulky coat , made threatening moves towards the armed police or that Harry Stanley was armed with a shotgun and not a table leg, made threatening moves as if to fire (even though he was shot in the back!).

And yes I do know that " if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear ". So everything is alright then, we'll go back to the dripping solder and billion to one multiple computer failure explanations.

I entirely agree there... have a look at this documentary, its quite eye-opening: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5275097719

(Sorry if that's too political.)  ;)

If you think that it is too political the it probably is. You may as well be saying;
I will post it anyway, sorry if the thread gets locked

Matt

[MWISimmer]

Can we keep on topic please, or as Matt said, this will be locked.

[Craig.]

How about instead of locking topics that stray for no reason, the offending posts are removed? Seen it a few times. A topic locked because of a couple of posts that could just have been deleted thus taking away an interesting discussion.