Conspiracy Theories That Were Proven True, Conspiracy poll results (Page 10)
Science would indicate that because the same thing did not happen to all aircraft with the same system it was not that system that caused it.
DEEP dysanthropy: science also states that there is no impossibilities, only gradient probabilities. not every pinto went up in flames due to rear collision; however, it was still a distinct possibility
DEEP dysanthropy: please discuss my recent posts with an airline mechanic, if you wish. they would know much more than i...
DEEP dysanthropy: gheeze, duncan. i think this is merely a breakdown in communications. there was a post on page 3 or 54 which stated that the idea of an engineer to pass live current thru a fuel tank was flat out ridiculous, this is the statement i9 challenged py posting the example of modern fuel pump assemblies IN AUTOMOBILES. i was trying to show that current within a fuel tank was not flat-out ridiculous, and , in follow up posts i also stated that it would take an airline mechanic to verify the fuel system design in said aircraft. i merely stated a possibility which was previously assumed to be "ridiculous", and i wasnt supporting the conspiracy, either way. i was merely correcting a flaw in logic, and not endorsing or demeaning the ct, itself, to which i am totally indifferent, tbh.
You were talking about this just now so what do you mean about a " breakdown in communications. "
If one aircraft had a design fault like an ignition spark in the fuel tank then there would be several examples of failure.
On Apollo 13, and electrical issue caused the explosion. At the time, the most complicated mechanical machine ever built, and they had electricity working with pure oxygen. I'm sure a design change was made as well.
Or perhaps Apollo 1 when 3 astronauts died when the oxygen in their capsule ignited due to an electrical issue. Another complicated mechanical machine where electricity was in contract with oxygen.
So, I think it was more of a workmanship issue regarding the fuel tank on Flight 800 that allowed the explosion. So as to not allow another workmanship issue to happen again, the design was changed.
chronology: The cause of the fire that killed the 3 Astronauts may have been related to other gases than oxygen. Oxygen by itself will not, and cannot burn. Most likely NASA had to keep the explanation for the fire a secret due to not wanting to give the Soviets any details of their Space Capsules.
A point that seemed a little odd was that in their early Space Flights, NASA used regular high end Radio wavebands for their earth to space communications. This led to numerous wise guys breaking in on NASA radio communications as Spacecraft passed over their country. Some of the joke radio calls were really weird. One Guy was playing recordings of Indian Chants and drums during one NASA Mission. Astronauts sometimes responded with 'less than polite' comments to the crank callers.
From the official investigation:
Cause of the Apollo 1 Fire
"...Although the Board was not able to determine conclusively the specific initiator of the Apollo 204 fire, it identified the conditions that led to the disaster. These conditions were:
1. A sealed cabin, pressurized with an oxygen atmosphere.
2. An extensive distribution of combustible materials in the cabin.
3. Vulnerable wiring carrying spacecraft power.
DEEP dysanthropy: "If one aircraft had a design fault like an ignition spark in the fuel tank then there would be several examples of failure."
it is logical to reason that such a design flaw could have affected several jets; however, that doesnt mean it definitely would be a recurring tragedy. an airline technician could have made a 1 time mistake during maintenance to the fuel relay system, failed to notice damage to a vapor seal, failed to identify a faulty/overvolting, power generator/transformer/regulator circuit, or overlooked a rarely defective component.
also, it could have, perhaps, been a design flaw in the relay system, which only surfaced that 1 time, due to the exact nature of the maintenance inspection schedule and critical inspection points, violent turbulence, unexpectedly extreme temperature changes.
if this was a 1 time incident, perhaps it was only so because the design or maintenance error was corrected for other jets of the same design
you know, i shouldnt have to throw out hypotheticals.
i already told you to consult an airline mechanic,if you are at all interested in verifying or,nullifying(what you would really like to do) this setback to your "disproof"
my only interest in this thread is confronting the (half-educated) assumption that electrical current inside a fuel tank is a "ridiculous notion", by posing the example of the tank-internal electric fuel pumps of every modern petrol car.
even if you do consult with an airline mechanic, and he says that, yes, it is possible- that still does not mean that it is definitely the case with flight 800- it only means that what you quickly claimed as ridiculous may be remotely passable.
im not for or against conspiracies, im just standing up to a half-educated assertion about the existence of electrical current inside a fuel container.
your thesis- that "this fuel explosion did not occur, nor bring down flight 800" may be spot on true; however, your supporting argument is faulty, in that you made an assumption about something without any expertise on the matter. was it a reasonable assumption- yes; however, that yes is only a yes if the pinnacle of your mechanical abilities are airing your tires, and, perhaps, changing your oil without stripping or cross threading the oil plug in an alternating fashion- ass opposed to doing both, every oil change.
anyone who knows a lick about fuel relay systems since the 1990's can tell you that your assumption was reasonable- albiet flat out ignorant of modern mechanical design.
i have had a mechanical, engine mounted, fuel pump from a 75 spitfire, which i regularly had to disassemble at stoplights, and "reassemble" in a working fashion- trying to have the fix ready when the light turned green- if i recall, it worked off a vacuum pressure/diaphragm system (memory is a bit fuzzy, tho)
i had an 83 honda accord with an electric fuel pump mounted in the rear wheel well, which made a clicking sound- informing me it needed a replacement- one that i do not quite recall giving it.
i had an 81 3 series beemer, with an electric fuel pump/fuel meter assembly dropped into the fuel tank from under the back seat cushion. that was the easiest one to repair, AND it never blew up my fuel tank.
i cant say that ive ever heard of a short in the relay system, which caused the tank to burst; however, once again, i direct you to seek out the knowledge of a boeing mechanic, or engineer, to inquire about this design in jets, and any chances of such a malfunction- as well as consider the speed and turbulence aircraft are subject to, compared to cars, before you say anything absolute, either way, regarding a subject where you portray so little expertise, you make me look like Lee Iaccoca.
your thesis- that "this fuel explosion did not occur, nor bring down flight 800" may be spot on true; however, your supporting argument is faulty, in that you made an assumption about something without any expertise on the matter. was it a reasonable assumption- yes; however, that yes is only a yes if the pinnacle of your mechanical abilities are airing your tires, and, perhaps, changing your oil without both stripping and cross threading the oil plug each oil change- but, rather, in alternating changes.
dont feel bad, duncan- my dad tried to teach me how to change the oil when i was about to get my license at 16, and all he taught me was how to strip that oil plug. lucky for me, all of us are capable of much more than our genetic code, it just takes commitment and desire to clear most every hurtle.
DEEP dysanthropy: and, ya. i remember dropping quite a bit of fuel tanks from beneath the beds of some pretty big 1/2 tons, when i worked in a dodge shop, to get to that internal fuel meter/pump assembly.
. they say cars run off 12 volts; however, that is just the current of the battery. the alternator itself can widely vary from 13.5 or so, in a very low idle, to 18+ volts, (in the absence of a working voltage regulator). a properly working voltage regulator will max around 15.5 volts, with 14.5 being perfectly acceptable for a warmed up engine, and a steady idle.
now, if your voltage regulator goes out on you, well, thats when your power can shoot up to 18+ volts at increased revs- enough volts to boil the battery acid and cause the top to blow off ( i have only seen the extreme case of the battery exploding with the unsealed batteries with water reservoirs). your headlights will noticeably noticeably brighten and dim when you change revs, or change engine power usage- with, say, air conditioning, or a high wattage stereo
with the voltage regulation at around the average 15.5v, and around the usual small car 60-80 total alternator amps (@ amps x volts=watts)this average car can produce a total of 720-960 watts of power with the voltage circuit working up to par the same car with the faulty regulator at the dangerously high 18V would increase the total wattage to 1164- 1564, average. of course , the 18 volt mark wouldnt be hit, even with a non-existent regulatur, except past idling rpm's, or when the alternator is stressed from hi currrent draw, like in a car with the high powered competition amps and subs, which are often wired directly to the battery, with, say, a 50 amp fuse, for a 400 watt sub, and sub cab and 200 watts for the cabin speakers, and you fail to put a capacitor on the battery, to save up current from lull movements, in order to add boost to the loudess movements.
in fact, wiring your car with a stereo, and pushing the amps to their max handling, especially without using a high amperage, quality capacitor, can and may overload your alternators voltage reg circuits, leading to your first, and startling, battery cap explosion.
now, when i say high quality, i mean- using a chineese capacitor, insteat of a genuine tiawanese cap. at this point, first your battery may splash the underbonnet with all the acid, but, with continual abuse, the 1/3 increase in your wattage, resulting from going from a 12 v idle to an 18 volt accident waiting to happen may push the sub up towards 600 watts, which would cause the voice coils to short, and the heat will cause the coils to melt together, causing a drastic drop in ohmage, at which point, your amp is now being led to draw near infinite watts into a siezed driver. the blown cap, in turn, blows the voltage regulator, and, in turn, tricks the amp into o resistance mode, and ther amp fries, as it is confused into increasing towards infinite watts
now, port this over to a jet.
if an electric fuel pump uses a diaphragm suction device, and boeng would dare use chinese r voltage regulators or capacitors, that 1 weak chain could cause increasingly infinite current to flow thru the fused fuel pump diaphragm coils- possibly heating it up to the point of serious danger.
even if the electric fuel pumps are a turbine design, a single chinese capacitor in a voltage regulation circuit could cause the kind of run-away heat issue, similar to the previous description. especially a matal heat pump, any fuel-specific metal unit, caught in a run away voltage situation from a chinese capacitor could reach a combustible temperature to the fuel.
i dont support the theory- i merely direct you to consult an airline mechanic, to see if any of these systems could have come into play
dave3974: Chinese fake parts are everywhere , they can copy down to manufacturers logos and paper work , their Levi jeans are as good as the real thing ...but not at a rip off price:
But Chinese engineering has a long way to go ...so the theory is credible
chronology: It's not just manufactured goods, and not just China. I remember a long time ago talking to a Truck Driver. He had big Refrigerated wagon full of frozen chickens or something. He was trucking them to Sweden. 'When I get to Sweden I will be hauling a load of bananas from Sweden to Germany' he says. 'Never knew they grew bananas in Sweden' I joked. 'They don't they import them from Latin America', says the Trucker. Before the Gulf War in 1990 some Truck journeys were really distant at times. One Guy had a regular run from Manchester England to Saudi Arabia. Truckers keep from getting board by talking on Ham Radio to other Truckers anywhere in the world, so long as they can speak English. I was with a Guy one time who was talking to a Trucker in the U.S. 'With the American Truckers it is best when they are high in the Rocky Mountains, you can hear them clear as anything' he says.
lori100: (Before It's News)
Two more members of the international financial world have recently met their untimely and very young deaths. Both 28-year old CEO of Bitcoin Exchange First Meta Autumn Radke and the coder behind both Namecoin and Huntercoin, Mikhail Sindeyev, have recently passed away due to what are being called a ‘suicide’ and a stroke for the 27-year old Sindeyev. Are these deaths tied in to the 20+ other banker deaths and suicides reported in the news in recent weeks? Following the collapse of Bitcoin in recent days, these deaths following the collapse of the virtual currency seem to be tied together hand in hand with other events we’ve watched unfolding across the financial world in recent times.
lori100: prisonplanet---------------De-classified Vietnam-era Transcripts Show Senators Knew Gulf Of Tonkin Was A Staged False Flag Event ------------------Elected Reps. chose to hide details from American public for fear of reprisals from “the big forces” that run the media and the presidency
Thursday, Jul 15th, 2010
-------------------------Over 1,100 pages of previously classified Vietnam-era transcripts released this week by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee highlight the fact that several Senators knew that the White House and the Pentagon had deceived the American people over the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident.
The latest releases, which document skepticism over the pretext for entry into the Vietnam war, date from 1968.
Four years into the war, senators were at loggerheads with Lyndon B. Johnson. At the time Foreign Relations Committee meetings were held behind closed doors.
It would take over thirty years for the truth to emerge that the Aug. 4, 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, where US warships were apparently attacked by North Vietnamese PT Boats – an incident that kicked off US involvement in the Vietnam war – was a staged event that never actually took place.
However, the records now show that at the time senators knew this was the case.
In a March 1968 closed session of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Albert Gore Sr. of Tennessee, the father of former vice president Al Gore, noted:
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
“If this country has been misled, if this committee, this Congress, has been misled by pretext into a war in which thousands of young men have died, and many more thousands have been crippled for life, and out of which their country has lost prestige, moral position in the world, the consequences are very great,”
Senator Frank Church, Democrat of Idaho, said in an executive session in February 1968:
“In a democracy you cannot expect the people, whose sons are being killed and who will be killed, to exercise their judgment if the truth is concealed from them,”
Other senators were keen to withhold the truth about Tonkin in order not to inflame public opinion on the war:
Senator Mike Mansfield, Democrat of Montana, stated, “You will give people who are not interested in facts a chance to exploit them and to magnify them out of all proportion.”
Mansfield was referring to the proposed release of a committee staff investigation that raised doubts over whether the Tonkin incident ever took place.
The committee decided in the end to effectively conceal the truth, with Senator Church noting that if the committee came up with proof that an attack never occurred, “we have a case that will discredit the military in the United States, and discredit and quite possibly destroy the president.”
He also noted that if the senators were to follow up on their skepticism over Tonkin, “The big forces in this country that have most of the influence and run most of the newspapers and are oriented toward the presidency will lose no opportunity to thoroughly discredit this committee.”
lori100: ...and...another death--------The New York Post Reports On This Ongoing Trend:
A Manhattan trader was killed Tuesday morning by a speeding Long Island Rail Road commuter train, marking at least the seventh suicide of a financial professional this year.
Edmund (Eddie) Reilly, 47, a trader at Midtown’s Vertical Group, jumped in front of an LIRR train at 6 a.m. near the Syosset train station.
chronology: Lori, we have already dealt with the Tonkin Incident. It did happen, The North Vietnamese themselves say it happened.
Eighth finance pro this year in apparent suicide
A 28-year old Manhattan investment banker has died after an apparent suicide, police sources said. Kenneth Bellando, who worked at Levy Capital since January, was found dead on the sidewalk…
Ms_Mafdet_The Great: Fluoride:
Idk how much clearer this can get..
While the whole fluoride "deal" is not really a conspiracy theory, there STILL are plenty of ppl who do not [wish to] see the evidence re. how toxic the substance is....
If you do even a little "Googling", you will find studies done even as far back as the 60's which conclude Sodium-fluoride is a TOXIC substance. I could list some here, but why ?
I don't wish to spoon-feed too many people. And these links should suffice for the time being methinks anyhowz..
(Edited by Ms_Mafdet_The Great)
chronology: Lori, you are just seeing mysteries where there are none. Example, no one has ever suggested sweet Sharon Tate knew Charles Manson. as one of Sharon's friends said; 'she was so lovely, she never used drugs, and when she was pregnant she never even drank wine'. There was no connection at all between her and Manson. Yet a few days before she was murdered Sharon visited a place up in Big Sur, guess who els was there on the same day? right first time, Manson. Seems Manson was singing some songs for visitors to the place. No doubt some people see Manson as stalking dear Sharon, but likely it was just coincidence.
morning_glorie: or perhaps when they coincidentally met ... she caught his eye and that is when he focused on her and maybe he thought she came across as some stuck up establishment type like maybe she didnt respond to his act and maybe he wanted to see her brought down and saw her as vulnerable because of her delicate condition and maybe he overheard her discussing her location and thought about how close he was living to her and thats how it all began....justa thought.....
chronology: morning. Interesting to read your thoughts. But Manson seems to have been unaware dear Sharon was there. He seems to have chosen 10050 Cielo Drive simply because Terry Melcher had lived there once and knew the lay out of the house after visiting Melcher in the house. He had called at Cielo when Sharon lived there in March before the crime, but only saw her briefly. Melcher was avoiding Manson after becoming alarmed at his thuggish behaviour. He was with Manson one time when Manson became involved in a drunken brawl with another Guy. If you have a girlfriend like Ms Candice Bergan, that is not the kind of company you want to be near her.