This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Video Of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 Crash Released
Still confused how Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crashed yesterday, leading to the first fatalities associated with a Boeing 777 airplane? The following just released video from CNN should answer all lingering questions, and also explain why all airport landing systems should always be turned on (especially to assist those who apparently are clueless when it comes to operating without computer assistance, such as 9 out of 10 modern equity "traders").
And inside:
»
- 67972 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Steve Austin... Astronaut... A man barely alive...
There's been a motorcycle accident. We have the parts. We CAN rebuild him.
'Fred Haise' [guy filming the crash]... Wasn't he one of the Apollo 13 astronauts?...
~~~
Maybe he should stay away from flying aircraft...
Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God...
Normally I only hear those kind of words from my girlfriends...
view from another angle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maY54MwUsu8&t=20s
spoiler: it's actually the space shuttles when they flew into the pentagram
"Steve Austin... Astronaut... A man barely alive..."
~~~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoLs0V8T5AA
We can REBUILD him... We have the technology...
- We have the HFT trading algos
- We have the EBT cards
- We have NSA
- We have the Manchurian Candidate
- We have the Supreme Court in our pockets
- We have Bin Laden
- We have Indiana quarried limestone buildings that print money 24/7 [100% notwithstanding the people who operate therein]...
- We control the horizontal
- We control the vertical
- We have the erector set
- We have the gold [oh wait]...
"Gentlemen, we can create the world's first biomoronic man."
I'm thinking that 'biomoronic' may be an 'oxymoronic' term... Man made biology ~ It's all the rage...
Cyborg was a good book.
The show...not so much. Hokey, hokey...
Now if only we could get a video of Sheryl Sandberg looking at herself in the mirror admiring her Face
https://www.facebook.com/sheryl/posts/10152997724435177
PS did you notice in the various fotos from yesterday how many of the survivors had their carry-on luggage, laptops etc with them - even George Costanza would blush
and WTF was Lady Sheryl and her entoruage doing in fucking Korea and why the heartfelt concern/relief for everone`s favorite citizen journalist / Samsung exec David Eun - is there some sort of FB Samsung luv connection?
Funny, only near the Pentagon are pilots able to fly just feet above the ground for great distances.
You're correct: The USAF can't; the Brits can.
Sure, it might be due to shitty counter-measures and practising for the Russian push, but the RAF can hug a hillside like no other.
Yeah, but the 911 guys were going much faster, and weren't trying to land.
We will name it Barackoli.
"wee hope you enjoy fwite, pweese to chek overhed before leave."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mtg0Yl91ww
Oh Lord......
The Oh my god and you're filiming it too.
You really dont need an ILS system to be on when its CAVU outside.
Actually you do need a working ILS if that is how you have been taught and told how to fly a computer laden a/c like the 777. Most major, foreign airports (other than USA) don't allow visual approaches. Those pilots were not proficient with visual approaches and it cost them. Was there a working PAPI/VASI and how do you explain red over red to the Feds?
Red over White you are right. Red over Red, you're dead. Basic VASI private pilot 101.
...and White over White, you're high, stoner.
"out of sight"
+1 Agree on lack of experience with visual approaches.
My experience with Asian pilots gives me the distinct impression they have depth perception issues...
Perhaps so. Personnally, I give them a 9.5 for making a 777 pirouette on landing, and only killing 2 people.
Have you seen them drive? What do you think is going to happen if you put them in the pilot's seat?
I know this post will sink me if I am ever up for a Supreme Court appointment someday.
how in the Fuck do you become a major airline pilot, on brand new equipment, and don't have experience with visual approaches??
god damn it...sully can land better on a fucking river...he needs to create a book "Flying for dummies".
Had this discussion on ZeroHedge before, why are humans allowed much input in flying nowadays. Computers are 100 times better. Vast majority of recent crashes are human error. (Except the landing on the Hudson, and the Alaska airlines tail malfunction)
PAPIs/VASIs u/s. First world? Nah..
He should have known his altitude at every marker beacon. There is a cross check with his altimeter and radar altimeter.
Fly eleven hours and you don't have enough time to check the approach into SFO ?
Pressure from the airline to not initiate go around procedures when there is even the hint of a need to go missed.
Also available at SFO is an overlay gps approach to 28L with step down fixes every Mile or two.
http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1307/00375RPRM...
There is the approach.
I think he was flying with autopilot on not knowing that the landing system was off.
He allowed the aircraft to guide in thinking it was (almost) on automatic till it was too late.
It's amazing that this didn't end up being even worse than it was...
You shouldn't need one.
somoene told me yesterday you need one if the pilot is Asian!
Asian women drivers are always the worst....
what, you don't have black women drivers in your area?
Exactly. And any fly by wire system is only as good as the information inputs and the electronics.
Do you think the simplest program is ever completely debugged? If pilots don't land manually now and then in ideal weather conditions, their skills will atrophy. Shit happens. Expecting perfect outcomes from an imperfect world is the Oprah Winfrey School of Idiot Chique. "They" can't solve all of your problems.
Thats basically what happend to that Airbus 300 that was lost over the Pacific Ocean after it left Brazil. Pitot tube iced over causing incorrect airspeed indications, which actually caused the autopilot to disengage IIRC. Pilots didn't know they were stalling.
That's why we call them passengers.
Pilots know they are stalling.
I'm so sick of misinformation...you're clearly referencing Air France flight AF447, a Airbus A330 that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean.
Yes. I just threw that info out off the top of my head. Honest mistake. As opposed to todays media.
Don't discount that the crappy airbus flight software was hiding information and fighting the pilot(s) every step of the way.
That's only part of the story. The pilot didn't know he was stalling because he only believed the air speed indicator (which was wrong), and not his altimeter, which was showing the fall. The co-pilot was at the controlls because the pilot was taking nap, and the copilot kept pulling back on the yoke to get the plane to climb, but of course that didn't work in a stall. After that failed the first time, he should have trusted his altimeter and pushed the yoke forward and applied thrust to put the jet into a dive, eventually getting lift back. Instead, he kept doggedly trying to climb without applying thrust, and just kept stalling. By the time the pilot got back from his nap it was too late to correct the situation. The copilot had plenty of time to correct the problem because it happened at 30,000 ft. But he never trusted his altimeter and road the plane right into the ocean. An idiot co-pilot was definitely to blame on that one.
Kaiserhoff -
Then they should havng a "Student Pilot" sign out the cockpit.
The plane was stalling - flying too slow. It suddenly dropped in the last moment before the crash. It gotta be a some sort of mechanical failure of the engines. Any pilot knows the speed and height they need to maintain on approach. These were experienced pilots with over 9,000 hours of flying - FWIW.
So your agrument is engrained in the idea that people with experience don't make mistakes and are in fact perfect?
Guess you've never heard of life long surgeon's who amputate the wrong legs
No - I don't make this argument. We will eventually find out what caused - as they already have the black box. However, the probability of pilot error goes down with the experience. Still possible as you pointed out but much less likely.
I am not trying to defend some or accuse other. I just share my observations and it looks to me more like a mechanical failure than a pilot error. We will find out.
You can't climb in a jet without getting the nose up. Looks like their last minute adjustment cost them airspeed they couldn't spare. Right about the black box. The real question is why they were coming in so damn low.
.
Yep, and you can't put the nose up without sufficient airspeed or the wings will stall and you'll lose all lift.
It was a cost which left them overdrawn in their altitude account. At low (near stall) speed, the only quick way to gain airspeed is to put the nose down, which means if you're near the ground, you've painted yourself into a corner.
It sure looks like somebody, rather than something, fucked up.
Low ans slow, look out below.
They could have added more power than they did and kept the attitude the same... trouble with really big jet engines is that they don't respond that quick.
Pitch then power on a go around.
That doesn't work if you aren't 1.3 VSO or greater (thirty percent over stall speed).
He got too slow.
He got too low.
Dangerous combination that almost killed them all.
Why he got there? My bet is poor training. But it could be mechanical.
Just remember.... 95% of the time, the pilot kills the plane, not the other way around.
Perfectly good airplanes are killed by pilots. Perfect pilots do not exist.
Didn't I hear that the only other 777 that crashed, crashed exactly the same way as this one did?
If it's pilot error, that seems like a big coincidence.
count on pilot error. Flying on a visual...obviously coming down from high altitude with a stick shake seconds from the crash and tried to pull it out and thought to try again. Waiting for confirmation from a friend that flies these big birds commercially and flies into SFO. Many countries do not allow visual landings from what i heard with these big babies. I can stand to be corrected. My only question with 4 pilots on board and the co-pilot should have been reading out the altitude etc..what the heck was he doing?
Oh, please--of course experienced people make mistakes. But these guys land these planes all the time--they're not suddenly going to completely forget how to land a plane and then pop a fucking wheelie into the seawall. They were obviously struggling to reach the runway, and I'll bet you a million bucks that there was an engine/power problem and that the pilots were trying to keep the nose up to give the plane enough lift without stalling it. They almost made it, and they probably saved a lot of lives...
The odds of both engines having a problem would be extremely slim. That airplane only needs one engine to fly, and wouldnt have a problem and all landing on one engine. And having a loss of power in one engine wouldn't contribute them them being too low.
Porn on channel 4
Life is better when you don't live within absolutes.
"Oh, please--of course experienced people make mistakes. But these guys land these planes all the time"
I heard from a friend of mine that pilots actually tend to have a slightly higher accident rate after a good 5,000 or 10,000 hours, the flying becomes so routine that they may take shortcuts or simply not have it fresh in their minds what to do in case of a problem. Not that they would completely forget, but in some cases one wrong move (including delaying too long) and you've had it.
"--they're not suddenly going to completely forget how to land a plane and then pop a fucking wheelie into the seawall."
There are wind sheer conditions which require a proper response or that's exactly what will happen... not that the person forgets how to land. It'd be more like if someone is driving in a rear-engine'd car, it can go right into oversteer, the person crashing does not mean they forgot how to drive, just that it requires a somewhat counterintuitive response to avoid the crash.
"They were obviously struggling to reach the runway, and I'll bet you a million bucks that there was an engine/power problem and that the pilots were trying to keep the nose up to give the plane enough lift without stalling it. They almost made it, and they probably saved a lot of lives..."
It's delicate though, lifting the nose reduces airspeed even further, which can cause the plane to further drop rather than lift. They were certainly struggling to reach the runway, but I don't care to speculate on the cause, be it mechanical, pilot error, weather, or a combination of the 3.
If there was an engine problem, then they were EVEN MORE incompetent. Because they did not radio in an emergency.
Send over my million in gold coins of 999 purity.
"They're not suddenly going to completely forget how to land a plane and then pop a fucking wheelie into the seawall. They were obviously struggling to reach the runway, and I'll bet you a million bucks that there was an engine/power problem" Actually, yes they are. Most of you guys here on ZH are full of s--t. He stalled the plane into the breakwater at about 103KTS IAS which is not only far below landing recommended speed of 137KTS but below the operating envelope of the aircraft. The only reason the thing stayed in the air as long as it did was that it's very well made and it was light on fuel at journey's end. A pilot who is not experienced on a plane, who has lots of hours on another type of craft, can indeed 'suddenly forget how to land' when the VASI is off, the GS is off, he has 2 landings both in a simulator and he is on OE with an LCA in the rh seat. This pilot was used to having all the gadgets and toys turned on and they weren't. The became fixated and tunnel-visioned out the IAS and other indicators by getting behind the plane and not being current on his landing checklist. Experienced people make mistakes, and this was one of those times. Your comment is typical CT stupidity - attributing magical and perfection abilities to others. No one can make a mistake and if they do, then it's CT. Morons and teenage basement dwellers, many of you.
I do know they will try like hell to make it pilot error. Boeing cant afford a mechical fault
That has gone thru my mind - the thought that what if fault lies with instrumentation? Boeing's order book wouldn't look so peachy.
It looked like a steep drop at the end to me as well.
No, he wasn't stalling. You have a positive deck angle when you land. It has nothing to do with being "nose up". He was simply flying to low (below the glideslope). Basically he was going to land short and hit the sea wall. You can't just give a jet power and start to climb, there is a lag from the time the throttles are pushed up to the time the engine actually spools up and creates thrust. He didnt have time to climb.
There was another witness - a lady jogging on the edge of water that saw that plane. she said it was strangely wobbling from side to side. Sounds to me like a stalling plane - but heck I am not an aviation expert.
If it was stalling, the nose would have pitched down, not up. And he may have tried to pull back on the yoke, and raise the nose at the last second, but all that is going to do is change the deck angle at that point. He wouldnt be able to turn speed into altitude at that point. And by pitching up, that would actually lower the tail, which may have exacerbated the problem.
The wings could have been rocking a bit, thats not unusual on a clear hot day, there could have been some light turbulence on approach over the water.
The nose pitches up during a stall. The Recovery happens as the Pilot will head Nose Down to gain Air Speed. Take some time and learn to fly.
Or design Aircraft.
Tall Tom
I Cor 13
Sorry Bro, you are wrong, and I do happen to be a pilot. Why don't you watch the 747 crash at Bagram in Afghanistan to see what happens. They nose pitches up, but they are still flying. When they run out of airspeed, and the airplane STALLS, they pitch nose down and crash. Notice how the nose crashes before the tail. If you are a pilot, you should have your license revoked. Stalled aircraft do not crash tail first.
If you were a pilot you would know that nose orientation means nothing in a stall. The only things that matter for a stall are airspeed and lift.
The crash in Bagram the plane was stalled well before it pitched over and if you watched the video the plane slid backwards before it nosed over. It nosed over as pilots are trained to nose down to gain airspeed and hope for a recovery.
The rest is meaningless as the Bagram crash was the result of a lose load, not stalling.
Stalled aircraft do not crash tail first.
That depends on center of gravity actually.
The 747 in Bagram had an aft CG after the load inside let loose. It crashed nose first.
Having a cg within the flight envelope obviously it would. Just because the cg is outside the normal flight envelope does not put it behind the center of lift. Wings will not completely stall unless accelerated. The washout in the design of the wings prevents the tips from stalling when the root of the wing is completely stalled. A stall at the tip causes a wingtip to drop violently.
Flying hours do not necessarily equal flying ability.
An aircraft stalling has nothing to do with the condition of the engines. Gliders don't fly in a stalled condition. Capt Scully (of Hudson River fame) didn't stall the aircraft when the engines stopped.
A stall is an aerodynamic condition, not an engine condition. (Ok, yes, turbine engines can stall, but that's a different issue).
Looks like a possible stall to me too. Thats what happens when it tilts nose up. Could have been a flap system failure also.
It's a great maneuver for an emergency landing in a helicopter, but, not for a plane.
Experienced pilots???!!!
Looks like he was coming in too low and tried to gain altitude by pulling on the stick, a "no no" at that low altitude and landing speed.
The truth is that the 777 and most modern airplanes can take off, cruise and land without pilot control.
Therefore most of the pilots don't fly their airplanes often.
So that the 9,000 flight hours that you mention may only be 200 hours of manual flying.
Don't blame the engines, it was the pilot.
Chalky has proven the white hut can run itself too, on autopilot.
Thanks Mr. TSB. I guess all the experts can go home now.
Huuh? I am currently an A330 (Type rated in the 767, 757, A330, A320, 737, E190, E170 and L382) pilot and I have never heard of a transport category airplane that takes off itself. Even most drones are piloted for takeoff and landing. As far as autolanding, we never do that unless it is weather below 1600 RVR (or feet visability). Even in the Airbus we "handfly" normally from say 1000 feet or higher on apporach through landing and always on takeoff. But I am a US pilot and I can't speak for foreign airlines.
As far as the glideslope goes, modern transport category airplanes have internal capability to generate an "artificial" glideslope from GPS and other information. We actually fly these approaches when there is no ILS available.
At this time, we only know they crashed short of the landing zone. The NTSB will find out why.
Autofixer you have a few more hours in the cockpit than I do, but even with the glideslope OTS on a clear sunny day, you shouldn't need any of that mumbo jumbo if you have a bit of stick and rudder training. Some of these pilots need to fly a Super Cub and learn how not to ground loop. Vasi works great for telling you you are too low. I find it hard to believe they had some sort of engine troubles, (both engines mind you, the 777 will fly just fine in a descent with light fuel with one engine) and ended up too low. I really find it hard to believe its mechanical. We'll find out soon enough.
They were way too low to start with. I wonder if they were on an instrument landing. Looks like the pilot tried pulling up at the last second and caused the stall. From where I sit, this doesn't look like pilot error yet. But, a small screw up by the crew can often lead to this kind of disaster. The tapes and black boxes will tell the full story in time.
Reading the twittter stream:
Stall warning 4 secs prior to crash
Voice recorder logged pilots initiating go araound 1.5 secs prior
Call to increase speed 7 secs before crash
Pilot warns "I have trouble" secs before
in Ingrish?
International Flight rules and laws REQUIRE that ALL Commercial Pilots speak English. Even on Domestic French Flights the Pilots speak English to the Ground Controllers and to one another.
Of course to demand that a American is able to learn a Foreign Language is absurd. Most Americans lack any capacity due to their inherently lower intelligence. You demonstrated that with your racist and xenophobic comment.
How does that feel you racist jerk???
Tall Tom
I Cor 13
How did we get from white commercial French pilots having to speak English to white American pilots having to speak it and it became razzzist?
Obviously, I'm a lower intelligence white American English speaker, so you'll have to splain it ta me...in French ;-)
He misjudged the speed & altitude to hit the runway.
"From where I sit"
You pass judgment like your royal family passes stools.
Tail sections scattered on the apron, impact zone on the breakwater, plane doing a belly-flop and breaking off its' landing gear, eyewitness accounts and videos proving the facts, and YOU sit up in your porcelein STOOL and decide that the 'evidence' is not 'WORTHY'?
TRULY, I have never seen one so POMPOUS, and CONDESCENDING, in all my life.
Beam Me Up Scotty
I saw the same thing, it looked like he cut power (dropped) at the last second or a mechanical malfunction.
Here's an overhead view of SFO...
http://aerialarchives.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/San-Francisco-International-Airport-SFO-Aerial-Photos/G0000RppYNq2Ys84/I0000DPgobUybeSc
I don't know how he could miss it but he was still too low for that length runway, all of them are over a mile long.
http://www.globalair.com/airport/apt.runway.aspx?aptcode=SFO
You are completely and totally wrong. The black boxes have been recovered. It was an increasingly common problem; "pilots" who don't know how to go back to the basics of aerodynamics and aircraft control and prioritize. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the engines. If I was flying that aircraft everyone would have landed safely in Paris. Pilot training consists of playing video games wtih computers. it's a disaster.
Add one to the list of reasons why we don't fly anymore. Pilots make pretty good money, when we get on board we expect the pilot to be flyin' the freaking plane!!!!!
Sorry , but i call that BS. read the tapes of the last 4 mins in the cockpit. those french copilots had NO idea what they were doing... and the cpt came back to late from shagging his french sluts (alright, i'm making the last part up... but do read the tape transcripts
REALLY?
The FRENCH?
WOW!
That's a NEW TWIST!
STRANGE, this was a SOUTH KOREAN airliuner.
What is the probability of a mechanical failure at that exact moment? I'll rely on the ewitnesses that said the plane was so low it looked like it was crashing. Plus, if they blame the aircraft, people will be less likely to fly and goose Obomber's GDP numbers. If they blame it on a Korean pilot, then its simply a one in a zillion human error; or they change some reg to "fix" the issue. As I posted yesterday, If have been in 2 hairy landings on China Airways flights - I would get a hotel room and wait for another airlines b/f I fly them again, if they are even in business. While I was in China, there was a domestic plane crash...
The preliminary data that came back from the black boxes says that the pilots left the engines on idle almost all the way in....
Not standard procedure by the way...
We can rebuild him.
We can make him better.
Stronger.
Faster.
OMG! OMG! OMG!
(Enter Mr. T, and Farah Fawcett, SANS their CIA handlers)
'Listen, baby, we have stuff you never heard of.' 'YEAH.' 'Honey, have you ever heard of a Mockingtbird?' 'HELL, YEAH!'
Well, no, and you smell really bad, so move away from me.
'Oh, honey, we smell just fine.' 'Hell, yeah?'
'Anyway, we want you to watch a few movies, and tell us what you think.'
"Well, i think you are going to fuck with me."
'No, we woldn't do that, would we? 'Hell, no!'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFhEN8PcgVE
Forgive me if it's been posted already...I know we've got a few S0 fans in the crowd
AsianaAirlines Boeing 777 goes down five minutes before this one on the other side of the globe.
...wasn't pilot error, perhaps?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCSn0LqdDgE&feature=c4-overview&list=UUTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ
I am getting all my sunspot news from that guy from now on!
Sgt_doom is seldom wrong, and even then he has been only slightly off!
So, even given insufficient data and going be early circumstantial evidence, I will go out on an artificial limb and hazard a guess or hypothesis (educated guess for the riff-raff out there):
the primary cause was avionics computer malware, which caused the landing sequence to skip to engines going reverse thrust to brake the aircraft, causing it to lift up and crash tail first to the ground on the landing sequence.
Probable origin: the malware was either introduced by accident, or purposely, during the cyber onslaught from North Korean hacking teams against South Korea.
[Disclaimer: sd normally doesn't use the term, "cyber," to describe anything computer-related, but is keeping in context with the newsy sheeple out there.]
NO, DICKWEED.
The ILS was turned off, and the VFR rules weren't followed.
The Kack pilot was totally inept, so he slammed the tail down on the runway.
SD nornmally tries to play the facts against the 'conspiracy'. Nothing to see here, folks.
.
So that makes your comment a six sigma event.
By the way, that was a brilliantly executed setup fot it.
That could so easily have had a much worse outcome.
Imagine what the people on the plane at the end of the taxiway thought as it went by...
That was my first thought.
They were thinking how glad they were not on that flight after saying OMG OMG OMG 100 times.
you filmed the whole thing :-)
oh, lord have mercy...
I don't think god had much to do with it, even if the spectator blamed it on him/her/it.
"I don't think god had much to do with it..."
Obviously not – he was much too busy looking after the multitude of professional athletes who give thanks to him – excuse me – Him, after a home run, game-winning jumper, technical knockout, etc.
Note to pilots, arrogantly trot the skyway then point to the sky and cross your chest before he entering the cabin.
Yeah, its usually bad form to spike the plane at the one yard line.
Yeah. I agree. You don't get a Touchdown. You might get a Turnover.
Tall Tom
I Cor 13
Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God...
It sounded like the guy taping it thought that his God was on the flight Rocky.
Are you so sure that the spectator "blamed it on him/her/it."
What if in the same situation the person started to doing a meditation chant? Would you assume they were blaming the Universe or the Budda or...???
You're managing to make some really big assumptions about the thoughts of another person (foolish enough) but then add that the guy is probably already "in shock" and I think you are way out on a limb.
Why concern yourself about how someone else chooses to calm themselves when they've just witnessed what looks like (at first glance) a whole lot deaths all at once?
I don't think god had much to do with it
Don't be a prick.
"God" is the word people use when grasping for a way to express something ultimate or extreme.
Oh I thought this was a video of the global economy. NEED MOAR PRINTING!!! NOSE UP!!! NOSE UP!!!
What happens when a plane that flies itself stops flying itself?
Why the pilot takes over, of course.
What if the pilot is really just somebody hired to keep the seat warm because the plane flies itself?
Exactly. The "pilots" are excellent attorneys being well schooled in hundreds of meaningless FAA regulations; and have memorized many, many, switches and routines; unfortunately they don't actually know what keeps an airplane in the sky and what is important for them to do; when as you say, it stops flying itself.
The local Fox affiliate, KTVU, showed nonstop coverage of this instead of the Giants-Dodgers baseball game.
Now that demands government intervention to reconstitute misaligned priorities for the benefit of the children.
<crying>
Its fucking hopeless knukles, someone was inconvenienced by a tragedy.
Well, it went badly for the lawyers. That could easily have resulted in nothing but body bags.
There once was a very horny rooster, spent all day fucking everything in sight. Hens of course, but he'd fly down and nail cows, pigs, goats...anything that moved.
The old farmer came up to him one day and said "Rooster, you're gonna fuck yourself to death one of these days."
The rooster just smiled, dry humping a horse leg.
One morning the old farmer came out back to the barnyard and there was the rooster, flat on his back, wings sprawled out, claws straight up in the air.
The old farmer laughed and said "See, told ya!"
The rooster opened one eye, smiled and said "Shhh, buzzards."
Moral of the story, a lawyer will fuck anything, anyone, anywhere, anytime...and smile about it.
Shit far. Got two in the family, and I was sure I had heard every great lawyer joke.
That, I can use. Muchas Gracias nmewn.
The rooster can be anybody, bankers, lawyers, politicians...it works, enjoy ;-)
They need to interrupt all Sports Games and provide continuous coverage of the 100 people who die every day, and countless injured every day, from Auto Accidents. Is the loss of their lives and their injuries any less tragic than that caused by the Airplane Crash?
Why aren't those incidents given continuous coverage...Breaking News... Mother with Four Kids plowed into by Businessman in a hurry. Mother killed two children seriously injured...Breaking News...Elderly Man is run over by crazed Teenager Texting while Dri...Breaking News...
It can be continuous Coverage.
However it will not SELL ADVERTISER'S GOODS. People will turn that off if it was done daily. So they prempt a Sports Game to show an isolated event and HYPE IT. And the event is LESS TRAGIC than what happens every single day in America.
It make no sense but it makes a lot of Dollars for the Broadcasters.
Tall Tom
I Cor 13
They're gonna blame this on the sequester. That's why they turned the landing system off...
Please, don't give them any additonal ideas.
Boeing is now safe
No, that's not it. Homeland Security clearly needs more funding. And more ammunition.
Oh Lord Have Mercy!
Is that Trayvon or George's voice?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru8IbRaHC2g
:D
Listen to that dumb cunt in the background.
Redundant
Paul Krugman sitting behind a pc somewhere, typing away...
Paramedic #1 : "Captain, #3 forgot to fill the body wagon with petrol!"
Captain to paramedic#1 : Thank God you were at yelling distance, my cell phone isn't charged! By the way did you see that fireball on runway 28?"
Paramedic#3 : " Tell the Captain to turn off my X-BOX, I'm in route to the 'Airport ARCO' to fill up the body wagon..."
Captain to paramedic #1: "WTF? I told paramedic #2 to take care of that shit on pizza Thursday."
Paramedic#1 to captain: "Sir, he retired last month at full pension, and is in Cabo marlin fishing."
Too bad Hani Hanjour wasn't the pilot – the landing would've been a piece of cake.
That tight 360 degree turn around and into the Pentagon past all of it's airplane and missile defence systems while Cheney was calling the shots not to shoot it down was unbelievable for a failed rookie non-pilot.
As in "I don't believe it".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour
Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta testifying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
I have an old, old friend who works just outside the Pentagon. He was at the crash site before any first responders. I asked him if he saw plane parts, and he said yes. He said there were parts from the inside of the cabin with logos and such on them. Sorry, but it wasn't a missile. Maybe the pilot had better training.
Your friend is a bald faced liar... sorry... there were no plane parts... where are the engines, the wheels... like with EVERY other crash?? Planes do NOT vaporize... in the pentagon OR in a field.
This dispute can easily be settled through a careful review of the mutiple, high-quality videos taken that day of "the most heavily guarded structure on earth". Oh, wait...
Wanna bet? You clearly haven't a clue what happens to an aircraft when it hits a wall at 500 mph?
http://youtu.be/RZjhxuhTmGk
Actually, two of my friends were in the Pentagon that day. Believe alternate universe scenarios if that is your predilection. I realize no one is going to argue you out of them, but the story is accurate. Unless, you have eyewitness accounts and you personally know the investigators then your "evidence" is no better that those you insult. My guess is that you have to fit your beliefs into the whole "Inside job" conspiracy theory. Have fun.
there were over a dozen cameras pointed at the pentagon on 9/11. only one video is on the web, and it's a mighty shitty one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg
and take a look at the black box data for the flight path. http://youtu.be/DzR-q0ijbV0
pretty impressive shit for an amateur pilot. that and no air defense. at all. above the pentagon...?
If Hani had been flying, the aircraft would have disappeared into the seawall, like the 767 disappeared into the WTC tower, instead of splattering all over the place.
This makes things much easier for the cleanup crew.
So this is what they mean when they talkabout a hard landing in asia
????? I think its called a Happy Ending.
The pilot(s) beefed the landing.