On July 07 2013 07:31 Kamais Ookin wrote:
Can see the sarcasm from a mile away, calm down.
Can see the sarcasm from a mile away, calm down.
That's a terrible time and place to be sarcastic.
Forum Index > General Forum |
Ig
United States417 Posts
On July 07 2013 07:31 Kamais Ookin wrote: Show nested quote + Can see the sarcasm from a mile away, calm down.On July 07 2013 06:56 Ig wrote: On July 07 2013 06:53 NeoIllusions wrote: On July 07 2013 06:52 Craton wrote: On July 07 2013 04:58 NeoIllusions wrote: Looking at pictures so far, looks like most of the passengers are ok. But bothers me is how incredibly shoddy the plane looks. Sure, it might have passed inspection but it looks incredibly shaky to me. So you expect a plane that has crashed and caught on fire to look factory fresh? Yes, exactly Craton. Entirely what I meant. Care to explain why you say it looked shoddy then? That's a terrible time and place to be sarcastic. | ||
ilmeeni
Afghanistan72 Posts
On July 07 2013 07:37 Ghostcom wrote: Show nested quote + On July 07 2013 07:22 ilmeeni wrote: Seems like a pilot error - it's nigh impossible to hit the seawall with auto-land engaged. I know that it's not uncommon to land a bit short as that will make the taxiing to the terminal faster. I really hope they pilots weren't doing it in this case. There is a rumor that the pilot had called in an issue before landing - perhaps we should all refrain from jumping to conclusions and wait for the facts? Lol, a rumor eh? The fact is the plane struck the seawall. Feel free to listen to ATC chatter of the plane signing in all the way through it crashing down, it's on liveatc and similar sites. They don't mention anything being wrong. If they DID say something was wrong, there would have been pre-emptive rescue/fire department all over SFO even before the plane landed. | ||
GeNi
United States49 Posts
| ||
DanLee
Canada316 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
ODKStevez
Ireland1225 Posts
| ||
ilmeeni
Afghanistan72 Posts
On July 07 2013 07:50 DanLee wrote: rofl the tail ripped off, dat korean build quality Shitty troll but it's actually really impressive the fuselage stayed intact. | ||
Craton
United States17254 Posts
On July 07 2013 06:53 NeoIllusions wrote: Show nested quote + On July 07 2013 06:52 Craton wrote: On July 07 2013 04:58 NeoIllusions wrote: Looking at pictures so far, looks like most of the passengers are ok. But bothers me is how incredibly shoddy the plane looks. Sure, it might have passed inspection but it looks incredibly shaky to me. So you expect a plane that has crashed and caught on fire to look factory fresh? Yes, exactly Craton. Entirely what I meant. Edit: being sarcastic here with Craton. Well I'm glad you're utterly incapable of making your point. A fine example you're setting. You made a baseless claim, and now instead of defending it you're acting like an asshole. | ||
Ubiquitousdichotomy
247 Posts
![]() | ||
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On July 07 2013 07:46 ilmeeni wrote: Show nested quote + On July 07 2013 07:37 Ghostcom wrote: On July 07 2013 07:22 ilmeeni wrote: Seems like a pilot error - it's nigh impossible to hit the seawall with auto-land engaged. I know that it's not uncommon to land a bit short as that will make the taxiing to the terminal faster. I really hope they pilots weren't doing it in this case. There is a rumor that the pilot had called in an issue before landing - perhaps we should all refrain from jumping to conclusions and wait for the facts? Lol, a rumor eh? The fact is the plane struck the seawall. Feel free to listen to ATC chatter of the plane signing in all the way through it crashing down, it's on liveatc and similar sites. They don't mention anything being wrong. If they DID say something was wrong, there would have been pre-emptive rescue/fire department all over SFO even before the plane landed. Yes, the fact is that the plane struck the seawall, that however does not imply any of the stuff you implied and your baseless accusations are in bad taste. So pipe it down unless you have some actual facts to support your speculations. | ||
PhoenixVoid
Canada32742 Posts
On July 07 2013 07:50 DanLee wrote: rofl the tail ripped off, dat korean build quality What? You do realize Boeing 777s are built in the United States by Boeing, not Korea? Its good this didn't turn into a horrific tragedy, and I wish the best for anyone affected by the crash. As a Korean, I'm still concerned the country hasn't learned from the past of aviation in Korean Air, and hope they take major reforms to fix the issue of Korean airlines. | ||
ilmeeni
Afghanistan72 Posts
On July 07 2013 08:19 Ghostcom wrote: Show nested quote + On July 07 2013 07:46 ilmeeni wrote: On July 07 2013 07:37 Ghostcom wrote: On July 07 2013 07:22 ilmeeni wrote: Seems like a pilot error - it's nigh impossible to hit the seawall with auto-land engaged. I know that it's not uncommon to land a bit short as that will make the taxiing to the terminal faster. I really hope they pilots weren't doing it in this case. There is a rumor that the pilot had called in an issue before landing - perhaps we should all refrain from jumping to conclusions and wait for the facts? Lol, a rumor eh? The fact is the plane struck the seawall. Feel free to listen to ATC chatter of the plane signing in all the way through it crashing down, it's on liveatc and similar sites. They don't mention anything being wrong. If they DID say something was wrong, there would have been pre-emptive rescue/fire department all over SFO even before the plane landed. Yes, the fact is that the plane struck the seawall, that however does not imply any of the stuff you implied and your baseless accusations are in bad taste. So pipe it down unless you have some actual facts to support your speculations. Striking the seawall does not imply the plane landed way, way short? Combine that with non-precision landing (the ILS for the runway they were using is out of service) and the fact no mayday was called. But sure, let's go with your rumor. | ||
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On July 07 2013 08:16 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: This press conference is depressing. They are saying a number of people are unaccounted for ![]() ya, around 60 people, would be pretty bad if they were found dead/missing. | ||
![]()
Live2Win
![]()
United States6657 Posts
On July 07 2013 07:59 Craton wrote: Show nested quote + On July 07 2013 06:53 NeoIllusions wrote: On July 07 2013 06:52 Craton wrote: On July 07 2013 04:58 NeoIllusions wrote: Looking at pictures so far, looks like most of the passengers are ok. But bothers me is how incredibly shoddy the plane looks. Sure, it might have passed inspection but it looks incredibly shaky to me. So you expect a plane that has crashed and caught on fire to look factory fresh? Yes, exactly Craton. Entirely what I meant. Edit: being sarcastic here with Craton. Well I'm glad you're utterly incapable of making your point. A fine example you're setting. You made a baseless claim, and now instead of defending it you're acting like an asshole. the fuck is your problem. | ||
Kamais Ookin
Canada591 Posts
On July 07 2013 07:40 Ig wrote: Calm. Down.Show nested quote + On July 07 2013 07:31 Kamais Ookin wrote: On July 07 2013 06:56 Ig wrote: Can see the sarcasm from a mile away, calm down.On July 07 2013 06:53 NeoIllusions wrote: On July 07 2013 06:52 Craton wrote: On July 07 2013 04:58 NeoIllusions wrote: Looking at pictures so far, looks like most of the passengers are ok. But bothers me is how incredibly shoddy the plane looks. Sure, it might have passed inspection but it looks incredibly shaky to me. So you expect a plane that has crashed and caught on fire to look factory fresh? Yes, exactly Craton. Entirely what I meant. Care to explain why you say it looked shoddy then? That's a terrible time and place to be sarcastic. | ||
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On July 07 2013 08:35 ilmeeni wrote: Show nested quote + On July 07 2013 08:19 Ghostcom wrote: On July 07 2013 07:46 ilmeeni wrote: On July 07 2013 07:37 Ghostcom wrote: On July 07 2013 07:22 ilmeeni wrote: Seems like a pilot error - it's nigh impossible to hit the seawall with auto-land engaged. I know that it's not uncommon to land a bit short as that will make the taxiing to the terminal faster. I really hope they pilots weren't doing it in this case. There is a rumor that the pilot had called in an issue before landing - perhaps we should all refrain from jumping to conclusions and wait for the facts? Lol, a rumor eh? The fact is the plane struck the seawall. Feel free to listen to ATC chatter of the plane signing in all the way through it crashing down, it's on liveatc and similar sites. They don't mention anything being wrong. If they DID say something was wrong, there would have been pre-emptive rescue/fire department all over SFO even before the plane landed. Yes, the fact is that the plane struck the seawall, that however does not imply any of the stuff you implied and your baseless accusations are in bad taste. So pipe it down unless you have some actual facts to support your speculations. Striking the seawall does not imply the plane landed way, way short? Combine that with non-precision landing (the ILS for the runway they were using is out of service) and the fact no mayday was called. But sure, let's go with your rumor. Unlike you I did not pretend to know what the cause was. But feel free to accuse a possibly innocent man who is most likely already feeling like shit of committing manslaughter to cut of 10 seconds of taxiing because that seems reasonable to you. EDIT: The rumor wasn't mine - you can take a look at the previous pages. My point was that there were currently multiple explanations, but you went straight to the accusations which is dumb as shit, but I guess very characteristically of an internet tough guy. | ||
![]()
NeoIllusions
United States37500 Posts
On July 07 2013 07:59 Craton wrote: Show nested quote + On July 07 2013 06:53 NeoIllusions wrote: On July 07 2013 06:52 Craton wrote: On July 07 2013 04:58 NeoIllusions wrote: Looking at pictures so far, looks like most of the passengers are ok. But bothers me is how incredibly shoddy the plane looks. Sure, it might have passed inspection but it looks incredibly shaky to me. So you expect a plane that has crashed and caught on fire to look factory fresh? Yes, exactly Craton. Entirely what I meant. Edit: being sarcastic here with Craton. Well I'm glad you're utterly incapable of making your point. A fine example you're setting. You made a baseless claim, and now instead of defending it you're acting like an asshole. Seriously? You, of all the people that I interact on a regular basis on TeamLiquid, have the audacity to call me an asshole? Are you kidding me, Craton? Alright, you're right, I made a baseless claim off of this picture and indeed the fuselage looks shoddy. Could very well be as a result of the crash, instead of before, idk. But more importantly, who cares? I made a post off of a glimpse of a picture and I can easily admit that 90% (let's say 100%) chance that my comment is wrong. But you decide to jump on my offhand comment and make an equally inane post assuming I would think a crashed plane would be factory fresh. I answer sarcastically and now I'm the asshole? You are quite possibly the biggest hypocrite I know on TeamLiquid now, congrats. P.S. So mature of you to edit in that second line, just to get that comment in about calling me an asshole. Quality poster. | ||
ilikeredheads
Canada1995 Posts
Looking at the pictures.....The tail section is missing. The top of the fuselage has been blown off. | ||
Ig
United States417 Posts
On July 07 2013 10:29 NeoIllusions wrote: Show nested quote + On July 07 2013 07:59 Craton wrote: On July 07 2013 06:53 NeoIllusions wrote: On July 07 2013 06:52 Craton wrote: On July 07 2013 04:58 NeoIllusions wrote: Looking at pictures so far, looks like most of the passengers are ok. But bothers me is how incredibly shoddy the plane looks. Sure, it might have passed inspection but it looks incredibly shaky to me. So you expect a plane that has crashed and caught on fire to look factory fresh? Yes, exactly Craton. Entirely what I meant. Edit: being sarcastic here with Craton. Well I'm glad you're utterly incapable of making your point. A fine example you're setting. You made a baseless claim, and now instead of defending it you're acting like an asshole. Seriously? You, of all the people that I interact on a regular basis on TeamLiquid, have the audacity to call me an asshole? Are you kidding me, Craton? Alright, you're right, I made a baseless claim off of this picture and indeed the fuselage looks shoddy. Could very well be as a result of the crash, instead of before, idk. But more importantly, who cares? I made a post off of a glimpse of a picture and I can easily admit that 90% (let's say 100%) chance that my comment is wrong. But you decide to jump on my offhand comment and make an equally inane post assuming I would think a crashed plane would be factory fresh. I answer sarcastically and now I'm the asshole? You are quite possibly the biggest hypocrite I know on TeamLiquid now, congrats. P.S. So mature of you to edit in that second line, just to get that comment in about calling me an asshole. Quality poster. Way to overreact to getting called out. | ||
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
| ||
![]()
LosingID8
CA10828 Posts
http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/54791337536/idiots-use-plane-crash-in-san-francisco-to-mock-asians | ||
| ||
![]() StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations |
OSC
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
Wardi Open
CranKy Ducklings
Safe House 2
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Safe House 2
|
|