Air France airliner with 228 aboard disappears over the Atlantic

[The Brain]

Cal's theory of multiple independently placed bombs by AQ, PETA and WHO is way out there in crazy territory IMHO.

[DisturbedPervert]

On the other hand, it's rare for them to bring down a jetliner without saying anything.

Maybe they're ok with people thinking it was an accident.  And then another plane will disappear next month, and the next.

[Caliga]

I don't buy this stall theory.  I think it's unlikely that, with three pilots aboard (and one presumes at least two on duty at the time), that they wouldn't have said something to ATC, even if it was "hey, we're going down".

[Ed Anger]

Airbus = tail falls off. Everybody dies.

[The Brain]

What was their cruising altitude? Takes a long while to fall 30,000 feet.

[Caliga]

What was their cruising altitude? Takes a long while to fall 30,000 feet.

Yes, which is part of the reason I made my comment re: stall.  I would guess they were at like 39,000 feet or so.

[grumbler]

Terrorists set off bombs every single day that kill people without making a statement to anyone.

Examples?  And how do you know the attacks are made by terrorists if no one claims responsibility for them?

[grumbler]

I think it's a mistake to presuppose rational thinking when trying to dissect what terrorists do and why they do it.

Disagree.  They are wacko but not always irrational.

[Neil]

On the other hand, it's rare for them to bring down a jetliner without saying anything.

Maybe they're ok with people thinking it was an accident.  And then another plane will disappear next month, and the next.

Their goal isn't to kill people.  It's to cause terror.  Accidents don't cause terror.  Bombs do.

If their goal was just to kill people, they'd just go nuts in a shopping mall with an AK-47, and it would be a lot more cost-effective than putting a bomb on a plane.

[Caliga]

Disagree.  They are wacko but not always irrational.

I actually don't think we're in disagreement.  I just meant one should not assume that their behavior is *always* rational as I took GF's post to mean.

[grumbler]

Disagree.  They are wacko but not always irrational.

I actually don't think we're in disagreement.  I just meant one should not assume that their behavior is *always* rational as I took GF's post to mean.

You are correct.  I misread the post, but your meaning is clear and I just missed it.

[jimmy olsen]

On the other hand, it's rare for them to bring down a jetliner without saying anything.

Maybe they're ok with people thinking it was an accident.  And then another plane will disappear next month, and the next.

Their goal isn't to kill people.  It's to cause terror.  Accidents don't cause terror.  Bombs do.

If their goal was just to kill people, they'd just go nuts in a shopping mall with an AK-47, and it would be a lot more cost-effective than putting a bomb on a plane.

That would totally terrorize America. Just look what a few guys with AK-47s did in Bombay.

[grumbler]

That would totally terrorize America. Just look what a few guys with AK-47s did in Bombay.

Violence in general (even random violence) doesn't "totally terrorize America."  A few guys in Bombay with AK-47s didn't terrorize America, either.

It is purposeful violence that is indifferent to the identity of the victim that terrorizes.  The DC sniper was a lot scarier to people than M-13, even though the two probably killed the same number of people in that time period.

[jimmy olsen]

That would totally terrorize America. Just look what a few guys with AK-47s did in Bombay.

Violence in general (even random violence) doesn't "totally terrorize America."  A few guys in Bombay with AK-47s didn't terrorize America, either.

They terrorized India though, which was what I meant and you know it.

If 10 terrorists ran around a major American City and killed nearly 200 civilians then America would be terrorized.

[Warspite]

What does a state of being "terrorized" involve?