...and this is why we don't believe the Government, folks.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

could it be that the planes wing did clip the hanger and that contact spun the plane round and it ran into another hanger . .... how many car accidents do we see the car ending up on the opposite side of the road of the initial crash

i don't see this as a false report but more of a report that does not give enough information of the facts

reply to post by tom.farnhill


Well, I had looked at that possibility and actually, it was my first thought before starting the thread. I got to looking hard at the photo I linked in the OP though and those wingtips... I know planes are generally lighter than people assume that are. However, they aren't feather weight...and so, it would take a fair bit of contact and force to turn one hard into the side of a building. Particularly with how this jet has the vertical tips (I know there is a proper name for those..I just can't name them.. Hmmm) I can't see much of any damage to the wing tips at all. Much less damage to indicate one formed a partial pivot point to turn the whole aircraft into a head-on with the side wall of the hangar.

Of course, Phage came and gave us the links last night to pretty well settle the mystery. (I got Phaged...who woulda thunk it? lol) It's appreciated though, because it did seem to confirm that it wasn't wing related. It jumped the chalks during an engine spin up test and off it went.... *WHAM* ...and a new Hangar door was formed. lol...

NTSB investigation and determination to follow.....

Did the Challenger jet collide with the hanger?

-or-

Did the hanger collide with the jet?

Maybe they're talking about the other set of wings.

You know, the ones that stick out the front of the nose of the plane ?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Ha!

Still, it's better they discovered the pilot was a complete gimp BEFORE they took off!



'A wing'..well...technically a wing did hit a hanger..along with the cockpit, the other wing, the entire fuselage...so partially right at least.

A bit like Obama being transparent...as most of his lies often are very transparent.

It's not a false report, it's just a very very inaccurate report fielded by an incompetent reporter who by all accounts must of seen the aforementioned picture as it was related to the story, and issued by an even more-so incompetent FAA toolbag. These are the type of people protecting our skies and giving us the stone cold facts? Uh-huh I feel pretty damn safe, and informed.

Also since that picture (or one very similar) was included in the original article/report then whomever was associated with that should commit suicide for the benefit of mankind as they shall not reproduce. I'm talking editor, writer, the fool who attached the picture of an airplane with "a wing smashing through an empty office hangar" and those who were supposedly set to double check the report for facts and accuracy. Sorry if I seem over zealous but it's my most sincere desire that people question the "news" that is presented to us and ask questions..Because as it stands no one in media is held accountable for their ever growing inaccuracies and that's totally unacceptable in my eyes...

I'm sorry. Why do you have to be so judgemental on the government?

Isn't it just as possible that the Jet did hit with it's wing and then the hanger got pissed and tried to eat it?

Stranger things have happened.....

Originally posted by miner49r
NTSB investigation and determination to follow.....

Did the Challenger jet collide with the hanger?

-or-

Did the hanger collide with the jet?

edit on 14-6-2013 by miner49r because: (no reason given)

I guess you got to it first. So if two people convieve it then it is a possibly is it not?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

You might have noticed...the thread and story is not only NOT about believing the media report and initial version of the events, as reported, but actually highlighting HOW inaccurate it was vs. the visual evidence anyone could plainly see themselves.

I noticed that your claim was that the government provided faulty information. You didn't seem to consider that it was the media who screwed it up.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

You might have noticed...the thread and story is not only NOT about believing the media report and initial version of the events, as reported, but actually highlighting HOW inaccurate it was vs. the visual evidence anyone could plainly see themselves.

I noticed that your claim was that the government provided faulty information. You didn't seem to consider that it was the media who screwed it up.

Well such distinctions wouldn't serve his anti government ideology and crusade.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

You might have noticed...the thread and story is not only NOT about believing the media report and initial version of the events, as reported, but actually highlighting HOW inaccurate it was vs. the visual evidence anyone could plainly see themselves.

I noticed that your claim was that the government provided faulty information. You didn't seem to consider that it was the media who screwed it up.

Indeed. I believe I'd explained that in the other note. The media story, when I'd come across it, had what you see quoted in the OP plus about 2-3 sentences which simply indicated their information was uncertain beyond the FAA statement they've received and updates would be following when they were available. It was so little, in fact, I'd actually worried a Mod might have gotten particular about the fact I'd literally quoted over 50% of the text of the story in what little you do see there.

So... It's possible that the news station was so inept that they actually messed up the one and only source they'd had at that moment in time, for any information at all. Seriously, you're right and that is possible.

It's also possible they got whoever was manning the desk at the FAA Office for the Los Angeles area and the person who answered simply gave whatever he'd heard by 2nd or 3rd hand as the only thing he knew to say, rather than simply saying 'no comment, due to a lack of any reliable information at this time', as he probably needed to.

Hence, my thread as a half humorous, half helpful report on the whole thing.

------

I had a judgement call to make on the story and neither source, the MSM outlet or an unknown FAA desk worker, really pan out to be more reliable than the other.

I took the word of the Media based on the Helicopter crew that was transmitting Live across the link the OP story carried, sounding confused and certainly not parroting the FAA statement as the Online staff had entered it. Thus, making the little nudge over center line, in my mind, for which side to take.

(Officers and The Fire Department were on scene and still in the stages of responding while getting a handle on things, as could be seen from that live feed. No Media trucks were anywhere in sight which I could see from that low orbiting Live feed. Just the reporter flying above it.)

------

It was almost a 50/50 flip for a coin on which side was the one to base my short story on, given their inability to report what their eyes clearly told them. Which the other secondary factor. The only reason to keep their printed version, as it stood in such clear contradiction to their own Helicopter based reporter orbiting over the scene, would be if they had that contradiction out of a source they were conflicted on changing the text about until THEY knew 100% what the report really ought to be.

Sorry to make a drawn out explanation, but seeing as how you made a repeating point of bringing it up, I figured a more complete outline of my reasoning for what I still tend to feel was the right call on this, was warranted.

------

* It really does make this awkward when the full...very short...text of what I saw and was working with at the time I wrote this thread wasn't amended at the source but written entirely over. That leaves everyone guessing what the rest had actually said and what context it all appeared in at that moment.

Sorry for the confusion it seems to have caused ...and I admit I could still have called the situation wrong. I made the best call I could for a story meant to be half humorous, as mentioned above.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


It's not the first time I've seen both the media screw up a quote from the FAA, and someone from the FAA that shouldn't, make a comment and get it completely wrong. Some of them hear "media" and think "I'll be famous!" so they comment, be it anonymously or giving their name (anonymous they can go to their friends and family and say "That was me!"). First reports are so notoriously wrong I tend to ignore them until there is either evidence backing them up (even if it's just witnesses), or some information comes along that makes more sense.

And for the record, they're winglets.

A quick lesson on them:

Winglets reduce wingtip vortices, the twin tornados formed by the difference between the pressure on the upper surface of an airplane's wing and that on the lower surface. High pressure on the lower surface creates a natural airflow that makes its way to the wingtip and curls upward around it. When flow around the wingtips streams out behind the airplane, a vortex is formed. These twisters represent an energy loss and are strong enough to flip airplanes that blunder into them.

Winglets produce an especially good performance boost for jets by reducing drag, and that reduction could translate into marginally higher cruise speed. But most operators take advantage of the drag reduction by throttling back to normal speed and pocketing the fuel savings.

Several airliners use them. The Airbus A319 and A320 have very small upper and lower winglets. The longer-range twin-engine A330 and four-engine A340 have conventional winglets, as do Boeing 747-400s. Aviation Partners, a Seattle, Washington company, has a new design it calls a "blended" winglet. The Boeing Business Jet (opposite, top), a derivative of the Boeing 737, has a set of the firm's eight-foot winglets with a curving transition from wing to winglet that is characteristic of the company's design.

www.airspacemag.com...

There are several new versions of them coming out, and several different ways to get the same effect (including a rolled flattened wingtip such as the wingtip on the 767-400), but just about every new plane uses some kind of way to get the effect that a winglet gives.

If you look very closely, you can see that the end of the wing, where it connects to the chassis, hit the hangar, stopping it from going all the way through. So this isn't entirely incorrect, they just neglected to mention that the nose of the plane had penetrated the wall.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Who are you kidding? Great PhotoShop skills...

Plane crash?

It's pretty obvious that this plane never even got off the ground, at least it sure as hell looks that way from that picture. And it couldn't of been going very fast, if it was, then it would've gone deeper inside.

Looks like they took some small little accident and sensationalized it. not surprised if that were the case, not like that ever happened before.

Yep... Wings look good from here........

reply to post by Wrabbit2000
You can easily see,
It was just the front tip, off it's wing.

Hell for all we know, the hangar backed into the plane right?


I cannot believe the idiocy of the people who make these public statements sometimes.

This is kind of human nature -- CYA. That's why it is not the duty of the Citizen to be trusting Government and we've for too long followed this notion that "security" meant secrets and doing things in the shadows. As if we can bury everyone who is a problem and that ends the problem.

.. well anyway, I could imagine IN THIS CASE -- that a wing did strike the hangar, after that, the plane rotated and crashed fully into it. But like a 6-year-old explaining how the cookie jar is now broken on the floor -- it's the fault of that bad chair.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Tara wallis "and yes plane crashed into building"

Really? Is she certain it wasn't the other way around?