Jiml1126 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2488 times:
US denies a recent internet rumor of the newest theory of how CI611 crash.
The new theory involves with the US un-manned spy plane.
The rumour said:
US sent a unmanned spy plane from an undisclosed airport from Japan. The plane was heading towards South China Sea to detect the latest military practice by China. However, this spy plane collided with the China Airlines 747 on Taiwan Strait, causing the 747 to break apart, and both crashed into the sea.
The rumour also "explained" that the 4 big dots on the radar screen. One of the dot was moving in the opposite direction than the other 3. Those 3 dots were ripped-apart CI 747-200, and the other one flying opposite direction was the Spy plane.
It also states that the CIA is involved with this investigation, and US never sends personnel to Taiwan when a plane crashed. But they did this time. Even Mainland China trying to use fishing boats to detect the latest move from Taiwan.
Aviation Security Council Executive Young Kay and US has both denied the rumour.
Dragogoalie From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 1220 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 2 days ago) and read 2258 times:
And when they accidentally sunk a Japanese fishing boat...They admitted it and claimed responsibility, same with the embassy...You who think this was a US spy plane are full of crap and you know it. If the object moving in the opposite direction on the radar was indeed a spyplane, ATC would have told them about it, not just let it hit the plane. Not to mention I highly doubt the unmanned spyplanes are flown blind. They have to have some sort of radar or such. With millions and millions of dollars going into its production, I'm sure they took into account that there are other planes in the sky. Keep dreaming though. Its just so sad that people are always looking for a way to bring the US down because they themselves feel inadequate.
Voodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2014 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2161 times:
>Trust me, if you knew anything about aerospace engineering, you'd know it was limited to a ceiling of >25,000 feet (it is propellor driven). What you've just said proves how far fetched this theory is.
Just as a point of info (not an endorsement of this theory)...
The Predator, as used in Afghanistan, is a prop.
But the newer long distance UAVs under development are, indeed, jets.
Voodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2014 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2146 times:
Global Hawk, which has a wingspan of 116 feet (35.3 meters) and is 44 feet (13.4 meters) long, can range as far as 12,000 nautical miles, at altitudes up to 65,000 feet (19,812 meters), flying at speeds approaching 340 knots (about 400 mph) for as long as 35 hours. During a typical mission, the aircraft can fly 1,200 miles to an area of interest and remain on station for 24 hours. Its cloud-penetrating, Synthetic Aperture Radar/Ground Moving Target Indicator, electro-optical and infrared sensors can image an area the size of Illinois (40,000 nautical square miles) in just 24 hours. Through satellite and ground systems, the imagery can be relayed in near-real-time to battlefield commanders.
J.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 653 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1998 times:
I'll bet the U.S was also to blame for Korean Air 007. I'll bet the idoit flying Singapore Airlines 006 was a secret, high level but poorly trained CIA saboteur.
Yes, we shot down a A300. Accident. but it was mentioned that the people MAY have been dead before the plane was shot down.
Yes, we sank a Japanesse fishing boat. Did we use torpedos or Harpoons? No. Again accident.
Yes, we bombed a Chinese embassy. Accident? Probably not. Just a lesson. So straightin' up and fly right.
What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1975 times:
This theory is silly. Perhaps the UAV was knocking on the cockpit door 10 minutes before deciding to hit the plane. That would explain the sounds on the CVR. This rumor was probably created by the same people that actually believe 9/11 was concocted by the US government.
As far as the Iran Air A300 goes, there are stories that the passengers on board had the cotton burial sheets prescribed by Islam and were all men. The story goes that these were political prisoners that Iran was trying to get rid of anyway. I don't know if it is true. In any case, the US acknowledged responsibility and offered compensation.
QatarAirways From Qatar, joined Sep 2008, 0 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (11 years 6 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1955 times:
"As far as the Iran Air A300 goes, there are stories that the passengers on board had the cotton burial sheets prescribed by Islam and were all men. The story goes that these were political prisoners that Iran was trying to get rid of anyway."
This is just a theory similar to the above saying that a UAV hit the CI 742. What I find peculiar was that the theory the UAV hit the CI 742 sparked a lot of anger and critiscm while the one about the IR A300 recieved no objection. Men, Women and Children were onboard and I believe the member "Marco" new someone onboard or a relative of someone on board.
Ryanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4706 posts, RR: 26 Reply 24, posted (11 years 6 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1930 times:
This "rumour", remains one, that's all. If there was any speculation, don't you think it would have made front page news by now?
It is ridiculous that a UAV can be flying at FL200 and above because based on specs, they cannot go beyond FL 130. They go out of control above 12000ft because of range of control. Plus a maximum speed of a UAV enough to tear a 747 apart? Now that I gotta see! Think about the physics involved, even if it was flying at the opposite direction. All the UAV would do is tickle the fuselage and maybe cause a hole like the Oceanic 747 in the movie Critical Decision or Executive Decision, dependingon which part of the world you are from.
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
25 N79969: QatarAirways, I think the difference is this: regardless of whoever was aboard the Iran Air airplane, the US admitted the mistake and paid up. In the
26 Cx flyboy: If a 747 is travelling at speed, it doesn't take much of an impact to bring it down, and a UAV, if a direct hit could very easily bring a 747 down. Th
27 VirginFlyer: Ryanair!!! I have no idea how much water this UAV theory holds (probably none), but a decently sized UAV, such as Global Hawk (wingspan of 116 feet an
28 Wingman: Everything points to the French...possibly the Belgians. Clearly french-speaking people were responsible for this tragedy. The only other candidate mi
29 N79969: Wingman, I think you have solved it. Nice work.
30 Zeus01: Yes, nice work Wingman. I put all my wonders to rest. Remeber, the US is the bad guy. We only spy on people to try and destroy them because were so bi
31 Woodsboy: Its sure interesting how many of you think how utterly innocent the good old US of A is, thinking that they (we) would immediately fess up to any invo
32 UPS Pilot: I've heard it all now!! All of you that have criticized the U.S. because of accidents from the Japanese fishing boat incident to the accidental bombin
33 Alberto Riva: Couldn't it conceivably have been a fuel tank explosion like the one that most likely brought down TWA 800? Either that, or an onboard bomb. But that
34 N79969: Alberto, Actually there has been no sign of fire or explosion on the wreckage pulled up so far. This is a very strange crash.
35 Alberto Riva: Uhhh. Six niner, I had no idea that there was no sign of fire or explosion. That pretty much shoots down (sick pun intended, sorry, I need coffee) the
36 NWA742: UPS Pilot, you could not have said that better! I agree 100% -NWA742
37 Manni: Offcourse the US would denie this. Even if it is true, unless the Taiwanese show some hard evidence. Alberto Riva, "...most likely brought down TWA800
38 N79969: Manni, Let me correct, "of course the US denied- because it is utter nonsense." I repeat that we admit IR, the Ehime Maru, the Belgrade Embassy, and s
39 Travelin man: This reminds me of when the Egyptians (and others) were saying somehow the US and Israel were behind the Egyptair crash. And the TWA crash. I'm not sa
40 Voodoo: It may be getting tiring and easy, but in the end, there's only one bull in this china shop.
41 J.mo: Hmmm...They pull the ATC radar tapes from the military and civilian agencies which show the secondary radar return (civilian system), and the raw rada
42 STT757: And when the US NAVY P-3 collided with the Chinese fighter it was the agressive and highly manuverable Prop driven P-3 that crashed into the poor slow
43 STT757: Also almost all US military aircraft fly at altitudes ranging from 50,000ft to 100,000+ft. Way above civilian aircraft.
44 Chiawei: Here is the deal with this story. The appeared about 2 weeks ago on Taiwan's BBS newsgroup. It was posted by a guest user whose IP got traced to China
45 Cx flyboy: Excuse me? Chinese are barbaric? I suppose all those school killings, police brutality, proves that you are all of sweet caring loving nature? Please.
46 Dragogoalie: Okay...here's my theory (and its kinda believeable too). It wasn't the US, it wasn't China. My theory doesn't explain exactly what it is, but accordin
47 J.mo: ST757, Really....Hmm. Very interesting. I am a military air traffic controller and that's news to me. Maybe U.S. Military U-2's fly above FL600. Maybe
48 UPS Pilot: Didn't Men n Black just come out? Maybe it was ALIENS!!!!! These conspiracy theories are nuts! I have met some great people from China and Taiwan. I c
49 Red Panda: Why is it though when misfortune hits your countries my tax dollars and the people of my country are always there to help sometimes even before your o
50 Chiawei: to CX flyboy yes, Chinese are barbaric. Look at their history. Look at way they treated their own people in 1989. Hey, at least taiwanese does not use
51 Hkg82: I think this theory is one of many out there that just doesn't add up. The most likely cause it seems is a center fuel tank explosion but it appears t
52 Red Panda: Chiawei: I totally disagreed with your post above!!! You can say the Chinese gov't or/and the ruling party are barbaric, but not the Chinese! I have t
53 Cathay Pacific: BARBARIC is too soft of a word to describe chinese. The current generation of chinese are way too cocky and full of all mighty china doctrine. It is n
54 Na: This theory of a US spyplane doesn´t explain the proven data that CI611 changed height and speed over minutes before the breakup. It doesn´t explain
55 Na: From cnn.com (with my comments of mine in bold type): TAIPEI, Taiwan -- Taiwan investigators say that cockpit recordings from a China Airlines jet tha
56 Cx flyboy: Chiawai, I still completely disagree with you, but just a side note; you do know that Taiwanese are Chinese as well don't you? Don't you execute peopl
57 N79969: I wonder if CI skimped on corrosion work during heavy maintenance. The lack of evidence of a fire indicates it was structural failure of some kind. (I
58 Jiml1126: CI has told the victims of the relatives that it's not their fault. It's "something" struck the plane.
59 Dragogoalie: That "something" could be heavy turbulence....? Or one of those Flying Cows...those are mean little f**kers... --dragogoalie-#88--