Air France flight data recorder recovered

BBC News - Air France flight data recorder recovered

So, just in case anyone was curious, even when the black box falls into the ****ing ocean we can still find at least one of them. Are we really supposed to assume not even one of the four has turned up from the World Trade Center attack?

P.S. Yes the coincidence of this happening on the same day as bin Laden's announced death does occur to me. No, I do not sincerely believe there is any connection.

holy **** isn't this from like two years ago?? Haven't read the article yet but I wonder how they found it looong after the black boxes stopped emitting signals.

Different situations. One plane crashes in ocean, another aircraft hit buildings, fires, and collapse of the building. Apple and Orange comparison.

Demon of Light said:

BBC News - Air France flight data recorder recovered

So, just in case anyone was curious, even when the black box falls into the ****ing ocean we can still find at least one of them. Are we really supposed to assume not even one of the four has turned up from the World Trade Center attack?

P.S. Yes the coincidence of this happening on the same day as bin Laden's announced death does occur to me. No, I do not sincerely believe there is any connection.

Click to expand...

drop half a building the size of the towers on them, and they are dust. Even the mfg. said so.

mike2810 said:

Different situations. One plane crashes in ocean, another aircraft hit buildings, fires, and collapse of the building. Apple and Orange comparison.

Click to expand...

Ya, that may be, but those things ARE painted to stick out... and they allegedly never even found the broken boxes.


(Others have said that they did recover ALL of the black boxes, but that's a whole discussion)

BmanMcfly said:

Ya, that may be, but those things ARE painted to stick out... and they allegedly never even found the broken boxes.


(Others have said that they did recover ALL of the black boxes, but that's a whole discussion)

Click to expand...

This is weak B'man, even for you ... for no matter how brightly painted they are, paint is not above and beyond being burnt off, especially in long lasting fires, as well as that again, no matter how lurid the colouring, if it is shattered into tiny bits they will be no more instantly recognizable than any other debris.

But even if all the black boxes were "recovered" what about it ... "recovered" doesn't necessarily mean readable !!!

USATODAY.com - Searchers find Pentagon black boxes

CNN.com - 'Black box' from Pennsylvania crash found - September 13, 2001

Since that covers 50% of the total number of black boxes for planes involved in 9/11, what would be the point of hiding the one's from the WTC attacks specifically? Are those the ones where the bad guy inexplicably reveals every last detail of his diabolical plans to our hero shortly before the big climax of the movie?

Tucker Case said:

USATODAY.com - Searchers find Pentagon black boxes

CNN.com - 'Black box' from Pennsylvania crash found - September 13, 2001

Since that covers 50% of the total number of black boxes for planes involved in 9/11, what would be the point of hiding the one's from the WTC attacks specifically? Are those the ones where the bad guy inexplicably reveals every last detail of his diabolical plans to our hero shortly before the big climax of the movie?

Click to expand...

It's more likely that the brilliant US government people behind the attackes on 9/11 simply 'forgot' about those particular black boxes. They had a lot going on, remember? They had to plan the attacks, plan the demolition of the towers, make arrangements to hide all the passengers on the flights (or was it arrange for the non-existent flights... I can never remember which). They were swamped.

Whovian said:

It's more likely that the brilliant US government people behind the attackes on 9/11 simply 'forgot' about those particular black boxes. They had a lot going on, remember? They had to plan the attacks, plan the demolition of the towers, make arrangements to hide all the passengers on the flights (or was it arrange for the non-existent flights... I can never remember which). They were swamped.

Click to expand...

They can orchestrate a massive attack, but they are completely befuddled by faking flight recorder data. The 9/11 conspirators: An amazing mix of mind-blowing skill at covering things up coupled with sheer incompetence at covering things up.

Tucker Case said:

They can orchestrate a massive attack, but they are completely befuddled by faking flight recorder data. The 9/11 conspirators: An amazing mix of mind-blowing skill at covering things up coupled with sheer incompetence at covering things up.

Click to expand...

They be awesome, huh.

Tucker Case said:

They can orchestrate a massive attack, but they are completely befuddled by faking flight recorder data. The 9/11 conspirators: An amazing mix of mind-blowing skill at covering things up coupled with sheer incompetence at covering things up.

Click to expand...

Consperisizing be serious bidness.

Tucker Case said:

USATODAY.com - Searchers find Pentagon black boxes

CNN.com - 'Black box' from Pennsylvania crash found - September 13, 2001

Since that covers 50% of the total number of black boxes for planes involved in 9/11, what would be the point of hiding the one's from the WTC attacks specifically? Are those the ones where the bad guy inexplicably reveals every last detail of his diabolical plans to our hero shortly before the big climax of the movie?

Click to expand...

Lol, I am sure you know there are much less obvious pieces of evidence that can be gleaned from such data. Also, the cockpit voice recorder would only really record what was said in the cockpit so it would not be at all out of the question for undesirable details to be revealed under those circumstances. It wouldn't have to be something major or detailed. Just dropping a name that isn't supposed to be getting dropped can go a long way in exposing something people of influence do not want exposed.

Tucker Case said:

They can orchestrate a massive attack, but they are completely befuddled by faking flight recorder data. The 9/11 conspirators: An amazing mix of mind-blowing skill at covering things up coupled with sheer incompetence at covering things up.

Click to expand...

Why fake the data when they can simply destroy the evidence and claim the black boxes were destroyed in the collapse? Creating a fake is more risky than just destroying the evidence when you can so easily present an argument that the masses can digest, which does not require that some form of evidence exist.

Demon of Light said:

Lol, I am sure you know there are much less obvious pieces of evidence that can be gleaned from such data. Also, the cockpit voice recorder would only really record what was said in the cockpit so it would not be at all out of the question for undesirable details to be revealed under those circumstances. It wouldn't have to be something major or detailed. Just dropping a name that isn't supposed to be getting dropped can go a long way in exposing something people of influence do not want exposed.

Click to expand...

So you are supporting my "the bad guy inexplicably reveals every last detail of his diabolical plans to our hero shortly before the big climax of the movie" theory.

In a way, at least.

Weird how both planes involved in the WTC attacks managed to do this, but not the other two.

Why fake the data when they can simply destroy the evidence and claim the black boxes were destroyed in the collapse?

Click to expand...

So they wouldn't be discovered by super-genius basement monkeys in between rounds of D & D, of course.

Tucker Case said:

So you are supporting my "the bad guy inexplicably reveals every last detail of his diabolical plans to our hero shortly before the big climax of the movie" theory.

In a way, at least.

Click to expand...

If by "in a way" you mean "in no way at all" then sure that is exactly what I was saying. :roll:

Weird how both planes involved in the WTC attacks managed to do this, but not the other two.

Click to expand...

Only one of the cockpit voice recorders from the other two places was said to have not lost data. Also, as I said, it is much harder to convince people the black boxes would not have been found after the crashes in D.C. and Pennsylvania.

So they wouldn't be discovered by super-genius basement monkeys in between rounds of D & D, of course.

Click to expand...

If they destroyed them then there is nothing to discover. Easy-peasy.

Demon of Light said:

If by "in a way" you mean "in no way at all" then sure that is exactly what I was saying. :roll:

Click to expand...

The explanation you've given for this in conspiracy theory mode was that they did give away their diabolical plans on those recorders. The only difference between your theory and mine is that I said "every last detail". Had I made it "details" instead, it would be identical.

So when I say in a way, I mean "in a way".

Only one of the cockpit voice recorders from the other two places was said to have not lost data. Also, as I said, it is much harder to convince people the black boxes would not have been found after the crashes in D.C. and Pennsylvania.

Click to expand...

But with the vast conspiratorial skills necessary to pull of a feat such as 9/11 it would be absurdly easy to simply create some fake flight recorders. I mean absurdly easy. Far easier than, say, orchestrating the three largest controlled demolitions in history to be pulled off without any organized prep time and occurring simultaneously with four hijackings and three "impacts" into buildings which create the cover story for the controlled demos.

If they destroyed them then there is nothing to discover. Easy-peasy.

Click to expand...

Ah, but these super-genius basement monkeys have figured out the entire conspiracy between rounds of D & D.

I mean, if the conspirators were actually competent enough to pull it off (which is amazing in and of itself), you'd think they would be competent enough to realize that destroying the recorders would trigger these mountainous intellects into connecting all of the dots. There's no way these titans of cognitive perception would be fooled by such a tale as "The recorders were lost or destroyed in the largest building collapses in the history of mankind". No way. These cats are far too wiley to be fooled by this. They've managed to overcome such silly distractions as actually having witnessed the planes flying into the buildings, they certainly won't be daunted by a little thing like explanations.

Tucker Case said:

The explanation you've given for this in conspiracy theory mode was that they did give away their diabolical plans on those recorders. The only difference between your theory and mine is that I said "every last detail". Had I made it "details" instead, it would be identical.

So when I say in a way, I mean "in a way".

Click to expand...

It is almost like you are impervious to logic. No, it is not even remotely like "giving away their diabolical plans" because any small thing that may seem inconsequential to people who do not understand the significance could reveal important details. Dropping a name is just one of many potential clues. How a person speaks can also be revealing in ways the average person would not understand, but experts reviewing said evidence would.

But with the vast conspiratorial skills necessary to pull of a feat such as 9/11 it would be absurdly easy to simply create some fake flight recorders. I mean absurdly easy. Far easier than, say, orchestrating the three largest controlled demolitions in history to be pulled off without any organized prep time and occurring simultaneously with four hijackings and three "impacts" into buildings which create the cover story for the controlled demos.

Click to expand...

The idea of a controlled demolition is not something I automatically subscribe to, but one should understand that the reason controlled demolitions usually take a long time is because the people doing it want to make sure the demolition goes safely. Obviously that would not be a concern in this case. Still, whether the collapse would have been a predicted/planned outcome or a lucky break, there is inherently more risk in faking evidence than destroying it. Destroying evidence is relatively risk-free. When given a plausible explanation for the loss of evidence that is likely not to raise.

Ah, but these super-genius basement monkeys have figured out the entire conspiracy between rounds of D & D.

I mean, if the conspirators were actually competent enough to pull it off (which is amazing in and of itself), you'd think they would be competent enough to realize that destroying the recorders would trigger these mountainous intellects into connecting all of the dots. There's no way these titans of cognitive perception would be fooled by such a tale as "The recorders were lost or destroyed in the largest building collapses in the history of mankind". No way. These cats are far too wiley to be fooled by this. They've managed to overcome such silly distractions as actually having witnessed the planes flying into the buildings, they certainly won't be daunted by a little thing like explanations.

Click to expand...

The problem with many so-called skeptics is they think these people actually care if some college kids theorize about it. As long as there is no evidence to convict them there is no reason why they should care. If someone accuses you of stealing something but they cannot even remotely prove it would you be worried about going to jail?

With regards to the recorders being destroyed in the collapse, that requires first that they all be in the building when it collapsed. Given that pieces of the planes, including parts of the back where the black boxes are traditionally located, were found in other smaller buildings that did not collapse it is far from a reasonable assumption.

"A French crew equipped with robot mini-submarines last week recovered the flight data recorders that should explain how and why flight AF 447 fell into the sea. Both orange cylinders appeared to be intact and are now with the French aviation accident investigation agency, the Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses (BEA) in Paris. Tests over the next two weeks will reveal how much data remains. BEA director Jean-Paul Troadec says: “If we can read what is in the two flight recorders, we will finally know what happened.”

By Michael Day 6:57PM BST 09 May 2011


Air France Flight 447 - will all be revealed? - Telegraph




//

Demon of Light said:

It is almost like you are impervious to logic.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. If I was, I'd be a truther.

Dropping a name is just one of many potential clues. How a person speaks can also be revealing in ways the average person would not understand, but experts reviewing said evidence would.

Click to expand...

Someone who was not impervious to logic might say that this means exactly the same thing as "the bad guy inexplicably reveals details of his diabolical plans to our hero shortly before the big climax of the movie".

You are aware that what you are describing being stated would be correctly classified as "details", right?

I mean, it's obvious that you have decided to exclude logic from your assesment, but certainly you have not chosen to reject reality as well, right?

The idea of a controlled demolition is not something I automatically subscribe to, but one should understand that the reason controlled demolitions usually take a long time is because the people doing it want to make sure the demolition goes safely.

Click to expand...

Interesting. That's the only reason that they could possibly take time, is it? And in your vast years of expereince with controlled demolitions, have you encountered any other reasons that one might need to take a certain degree of time in placing them and setting it up?

Perhaps if you wished to have a certain style of demolition, such as, oh, I don't know, a top down demolition where the demo started at a specific point so that it could look as though the actual cause of the demolition was a giant friggin' plane flying into the building.

And it certainly wouldn't take any time at all to rig a couple of 1,300 foot buildings with enough explosives to bring them down in that specific manner. That could be done in like a couple of hours, right?

****, some dude probably did it in a day or two, despite the fact that the largest comparable demolition to have ever occurred was only a 439 ft. building.

I mean, sure, the tallest structure ever demoed was almost as tall as the WTC buildings, but with all of your vast expereince in demolition, I'm sure you know that taking down a radio tower is entirely different than demoing a structural steel building.

But with all of your years of expereince, I'm sure you have taken these piddling little details into account when you make your claims about how long it would take to set up such a demo.

Surely you aren't dumb enough to just talk out of your ass on a topic when you are actually clueless about it. :roll:

Still, whether the collapse would have been a predicted/planned outcome or a lucky break, there is inherently more risk in faking evidence than destroying it. Destroying evidence is relatively risk-free. When given a plausible explanation for the loss of evidence that is likely not to raise.

Click to expand...

You are taking risk into the equation now? You do realize that faking a little evidence is far more risk-free than being part of a diabolical plot such as 9/11, right? Why not include some risk-reward calculations into all parts of the equation, instead of ignoring it when conventient for the conspiracy theory?

The problem with many so-called skeptics is they think these people actually care if some college kids theorize about it. As long as there is no evidence to convict them there is no reason why they should care. If someone accuses you of stealing something but they cannot even remotely prove it would you be worried about going to jail?

Click to expand...

That's just it. If a cabal of people powerful enough to mastermind such a cover-up as these "theorists" come up with actually existed, they wouldn't give a **** at all.

They wouldn't need to bother with the cover up because they are actually capable of doing things that have never been done before on such a grand scale. They can cover their tracks so well that nobody who was involved has spoken out about it. In 10 years, not one person felt guilty about murdering thousands.

I mean, that's skill far beyond the most powerful entities we know of today. The US government can't even waterboard a couple of prisoners without it getting out, so whoever was behind this truly had their **** together.

Yet amazingly, they did decide to cover it all up despite being practically omnipotent. And they did a great job covering it up, but somehow, someway, some college kids who don't know their ass from a hole in teh ground were able to see through t ehfacade and discover that something about it was too fishy for them.

With regards to the recorders being destroyed in the collapse, that requires first that they all be in the building when it collapsed. Given that pieces of the planes, including parts of the back where the black boxes are traditionally located, were found in other smaller buildings that did not collapse it is far from a reasonable assumption.

Click to expand...

And why, exactly, is it a far from reasonable assumption? Please give a very detaied explanation of why the black boxes could not have been destroyed. I'm dying for it. I really am.

You seem to be so sure, so you must have calculated every possible scenario. I'd love to see those calculations. ****, if you've actually analyzed this with enough competence to make such a claim, not only can you provide for me these calculations, you should also be capable of plotting out th etrajectory that these devics should have taken and you can, with a fairly high degree of accuracy, name the most likely path that these evices took from the building and, by virtue of that, the most likely locations for their eventual landing.

And no worries about my ability to follow the math. I'm quite good at it.

Tucker Case said:

Nonsense. If I was, I'd be a truther.



Someone who was not impervious to logic might say that this means exactly the same thing as "the bad guy inexplicably reveals details of his diabolical plans to our hero shortly before the big climax of the movie".

You are aware that what you are describing being stated would be correctly classified as "details", right?

I mean, it's obvious that you have decided to exclude logic from your assesment, but certainly you have not chosen to reject reality as well, right?



Interesting. That's the only reason that they could possibly take time, is it? And in your vast years of expereince with controlled demolitions, have you encountered any other reasons that one might need to take a certain degree of time in placing them and setting it up?

Perhaps if you wished to have a certain style of demolition, such as, oh, I don't know, a top down demolition where the demo started at a specific point so that it could look as though the actual cause of the demolition was a giant friggin' plane flying into the building.

And it certainly wouldn't take any time at all to rig a couple of 1,300 foot buildings with enough explosives to bring them down in that specific manner. That could be done in like a couple of hours, right?

****, some dude probably did it in a day or two, despite the fact that the largest comparable demolition to have ever occurred was only a 439 ft. building.

I mean, sure, the tallest structure ever demoed was almost as tall as the WTC buildings, but with all of your vast expereince in demolition, I'm sure you know that taking down a radio tower is entirely different than demoing a structural steel building.

But with all of your years of expereince, I'm sure you have taken these piddling little details into account when you make your claims about how long it would take to set up such a demo.

Surely you aren't dumb enough to just talk out of your ass on a topic when you are actually clueless about it. :roll:







You are taking risk into the equation now? You do realize that faking a little evidence is far more risk-free than being part of a diabolical plot such as 9/11, right? Why not include some risk-reward calculations into all parts of the equation, instead of ignoring it when conventient for the conspiracy theory?





That's just it. If a cabal of people powerful enough to mastermind such a cover-up as these "theorists" come up with actually existed, they wouldn't give a **** at all.

They wouldn't need to bother with the cover up because they are actually capable of doing things that have never been done before on such a grand scale. They can cover their tracks so well that nobody who was involved has spoken out about it. In 10 years, not one person felt guilty about murdering thousands.

I mean, that's skill far beyond the most powerful entities we know of today. The US government can't even waterboard a couple of prisoners without it getting out, so whoever was behind this truly had their **** together.

Yet amazingly, they did decide to cover it all up despite being practically omnipotent. And they did a great job covering it up, but somehow, someway, some college kids who don't know their ass from a hole in teh ground were able to see through t ehfacade and discover that something about it was too fishy for them.





And why, exactly, is it a far from reasonable assumption? Please give a very detaied explanation of why the black boxes could not have been destroyed. I'm dying for it. I really am.

You seem to be so sure, so you must have calculated every possible scenario. I'd love to see those calculations. ****, if you've actually analyzed this with enough competence to make such a claim, not only can you provide for me these calculations, you should also be capable of plotting out th etrajectory that these devics should have taken and you can, with a fairly high degree of accuracy, name the most likely path that these evices took from the building and, by virtue of that, the most likely locations for their eventual landing.

And no worries about my ability to follow the math. I'm quite good at it.

Click to expand...

The moment I saw those small disjointed paragraphs I knew that it was once more time for that attitude to come out. Well, it was nice to have this discussion Tucker.

Demon of Light said:

With regards to the recorders being destroyed in the collapse, that requires first that they all be in the building when it collapsed. Given that pieces of the planes, including parts of the back where the black boxes are traditionally located, were found in other smaller buildings that did not collapse it is far from a reasonable assumption.

Click to expand...

Wait, what? Parts of the cockpit were found in smaller buildings, despite the planes hitting almost head on?

Demon of Light said:

The moment I saw those small disjointed paragraphs I knew that it was once more time for that attitude to come out. Well, it was nice to have this discussion Tucker.

Click to expand...

I accept your concession.

spud_meister said:

Wait, what? Parts of the cockpit were found in smaller buildings, despite the planes hitting almost head on?

Click to expand...

The black boxes are located in the tail of the plane, spud. It is the parts of the tail end I was talking about. Not that this should be surprising considering placing the black boxes in the front would impede their survivability given that most crashes are head-on. All sorts of pieces from the plane and even human remains were found in nearby buildings, as well some pieces found in the area of the collapse.

So even if one assumed that a building collapse at a fraction of the speed at which the planes crashed could have completely obliterated all the black boxes you still have to assume that they were all in the building during the entirety of the collapse, which is not something a person can reasonably assume given the presence of debris around the area.

Of course, for the skeptics who have already ruled out any possibility of a conspiracy or cover-up that is what happened because anything else would seriously challenge the official theory. Really it is just circular logic using a false appeal to Occam's Razor. The defense is essentially that no conspiracy existed therefore if the black boxes survived they would have been found and announced as having been found so the fact this did not occur means they must not have been found and that would only really make sense if they were destroyed. The only plausible way they could have been destroyed is in the collapse. As a result the skeptics think the only reasonable assumption is that the black boxes were in the building when it collapsed and therefore there was no coverup.

It is not because they have definitive proof the black boxes were destroyed in the collapse. It is simply the only explanation that does not require there to be a cover-up and therefore a conspiracy.

Demon of Light said:

The black boxes are located in the tail of the plane,

It is not because they have definitive proof the black boxes were destroyed in the collapse. It is simply the only explanation that does not require there to be a cover-up and therefore a conspiracy.

Click to expand...

Another possibility is that the 9-11 Twin Tower black boxes were found and kept secret. Another possilbity is that the Black Boxes were burried in rubble, that was loaded into a dump truck and the Twin Tower black boxes are sitting in a landfill, yet undiscovered, but in good shape. Another possiblity is that the Twin Tower black boxes were subjected to excessivily high temepratures, such as in contact with thermite, and have been destroyed, and appeared to be rocks and were carted away with the rubble.

I don't see the fall from several hundred feet up, as destroying the black boxes, as in shattering them into unrecognizable tiny pieces.



//

Demon of Light said:

The black boxes are located in the tail of the plane, spud.

Click to expand...

Huh, I always thought they were in the front, my bad.

Good Pito Tubes cost $90,000 each and there are three of them. Air France delayed replacing Pito Tubes for 11 days after the Brazil air bus crash.

Flying at 35,000 feet creates a coffin corner, when flying to fast, you break up the plane, and flying too slow you stall and crash. The difference in between Break-up, and stall-crash speeds is a narrow window at 35,000 feet. Wit Ice on your Ptio tubes, you cannot tell what speed you are going. There is no differfence in the appearance on radar of rain and ice pellets.

The black boxes may indicate a safe air speed, but ice may have clogged the pito tubes, and given the instruments, the pilots, adn the black box, incorrect, inaccurate air speed info. The conflicting air speed info aparently caused the auto-pilot to disengage.



Air France Flight 447 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


//