Air France Target of Bomb Threat in South America Days Before Plane Lost

That's what Drudge's slug says-- but the servers seem overwhelmed and I can't pull up the page.

Here are his slugs:

Bomb threat AIR FRANCE in S America -- Days Before Flight Dissapeared over Atlantic...
May 27, 2009: 'The airport safety delayed an AIR FRANCE flight this evening before departring for Paris immediately after the company received a bomb threat over the phone at the airport of Ezeiza [Buenos Aires]'

So, five days ago a plane was threatened, searched, and cleared for flight.

The threat may have been a warning of a future bomb, not a currently-placed one.

Correction: I read the Drudge headlines as meaning the same plane was threatened, but re-reading, that doesn't seem to be the case. Just that Air France was threatened.

Posted by: Ace at 09:58 PM

Comments

1 It may have had "religious motivations."

Posted by: tachyonshuggy at June 02, 2009 10:01 PM (gljje)

2 Seems unlikely to be a big deal, or related. What terrorist group would risk setting a bomb to go off days after it was planted? Most of these bombs work on barometric pressure switches - as soon as the plane hits the right altitude, it goes off.

On the other hand, I suppose a faulty bomb could have been delayed, and terrorists in BA have bombed the Jewish Center and the Israeli embassy in the past. But the bombing just doesn't seem that likely. I spent two years in Buenos Aires, and while the beat cops are the usual corrupt and ill-equipped bunch you'd find in most of Latin America, the higher ups are well-trained, well-equipped, and pretty thorough.

Posted by: Guy in Utah at June 02, 2009 10:05 PM (V3WTz)

3 That Tri-border area down there has a lot of Muslim outlaw stuff going on. Just a thought.

Posted by: stace at June 02, 2009 10:06 PM (g/wgk)

4 I blame it on the fact that O won't embrace his inner Muslim. /

Posted by: momma at June 02, 2009 10:07 PM (penCf)

5 Islamists have routinely committed terrorism in Buenos Aires. Don't worry, Hussein is going to go lick some islamic cock in Egypt and make them love us.

Posted by: The Great Satan™ at June 02, 2009 10:08 PM (mozkX)

The debris field was 3 miles long which is alot to blame on current. If the debris was in the same current at the crash it would all move together.

Posted by: robtr at June 02, 2009 10:12 PM (H60q6)

7 By the way, why haven't we had any flack from our terrorist friends since B Hussein Obama has been dictator? Maybe France need to elect a Muslim President.

Posted by: sickinmass at June 02, 2009 10:15 PM (/i4dU)

8 The whole lightning/thunderstorm aspect to this crash has bothered me since so many experts have routinely said that as bad as weather can be - that should not have caused an all-sytems malfunction like this. I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all, but my hunch tells me this was a bomb. May not be from some terror group - could have been aimed at a few individuals.

Posted by: Sassypants at June 02, 2009 10:17 PM (OzuU3)

SinM:

I'm willing to give them ours.

Posted by: momma at June 02, 2009 10:17 PM (penCf)

10 I don't want to say "I told you so," but I find the rapidity of the dissemination of the thunderstorm scenario to be a red flag. Plus the fact that the French are consumate bullshit artists.

Posted by: flooflyparisparamus at June 02, 2009 10:19 PM (SRr22)

11 Terrorism makes more sense than a lightning bolt. And if I recall correctly, the Shoe Bomber did come out of Paris.

Posted by: shibumi at June 02, 2009 10:19 PM (OKZrE)

12 When was the last time an aircraft suddenly goes "boom" and crashes into the ocean with no outside help?

Considering that over the past decade the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, Indonesia and India have all had suffered major man-made disasters terrorist acts committed by Muslims living in their respective nations, it seems inevitable France would sooner or later be added to the list.

Posted by: Aaron at June 02, 2009 10:19 PM (gftD1)

13 If it was a bomb, how come nobody has claimed responsibility?

Posted by: Trish at June 02, 2009 10:22 PM (0U5Kd)

14 momma..
You ARE a true selfless American patriot! My hat is off to you.

Posted by: sickinmass at June 02, 2009 10:24 PM (/i4dU)

15 13: well, if it was a bomb intended to kill one person on board, then you wouldn't get anyone calling in to claim responsibility.

Posted by: Sassypants at June 02, 2009 10:25 PM (OzuU3)

16 The religion of peace is enamoured of things that fly .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at June 02, 2009 10:28 PM (d0YiG)

So, five days ago a plane was threatened

Maybe the terrorist was stuck in traffic.

Posted by: Noah Bawdy at June 02, 2009 10:29 PM (KUY1P)

18 13 If it was a bomb, how come nobody has claimed responsibility?

Posted by: Trish at June 02, 2009 10:22 PM (0U5Kd)

I asked that question earlier today and Jean, who seems to be very knowledgeable about state dept. and gov't type stuff, explained that some of the groups do not "announce" their strikes. Also, what Sassypants said, if the target was a specific person, no one would claim credit.

Posted by: CB at June 02, 2009 10:30 PM (9Wv2j)

19 My late night ramblings:

1. Storms wasn't that bad; all t-storms can kill, but this one wasn't exceptional.
2. The only things we know - at cruising altitude, electrical circuit warning, pressure hull breach warning, no cockpit radio call - do not disprove a bomb and leads to some fairly exotic weather circumstances. Occams Razor actually favors a bomb.
3.   Hezbollah (and/or Iranians Quds, etc) are active in that area of South America, and have bombed before.
4.   France has done a few, seemingly small things recently that Iran/Hezbollah did not like (Base in the gulf, etc). But Quds/Hezbollah have some pretty batshit guys in the ranks and a lunatic in-charge facing an election, so a small prick may have popped somebody's gourd.
5.   A called in bomb warning may indicate some loose operational security or a less then totally committed local support group. Or, just the regular weekly whacko bomb threat.

With that I will go check the closet for monsters.

Posted by: Jean at June 02, 2009 10:31 PM (xCBQ4)

20 I'm not so sure about this theory. The reason for terrorism is to instill fear. So far no groups have made any claims to this incident. Terrorist organizations wouldn't readily concede to letting the credit for this crash go to a storm, would they? Heck, they're still trying to convince the 9/11 truther's to stop trying to diminish their role in that event. I would think that by now that some organization would have claimed credit for this, if it were indeed so.

Here's a link that someone mentioned today. My name is Tim, but this Tim's meteorological explanations goes way beyond 'my pay grade'.

http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/

This reasoning still seems a lot more plausible than the bomb theory. At least so far.

- Tim

Posted by: Tim at June 02, 2009 10:31 PM (67Ljm)

21 Ace, yu guys have put a lot of threads up about this plane. I speed read but I'm certain someone posted this very idea within hours on one of your threads but i think it was poo pooed cause everyone said it wasn't a bomb is no one claimed responsibility.

Posted by: muffy at June 02, 2009 10:32 PM (zplc6)

22 You are all such racists to blame Islam for such an event. Everyone knows it was the Baptists.

Posted by: T DUB at June 02, 2009 10:32 PM (B8gqF)

H. Reid on Sotomayor:

"I understand that during her career, she's written hundreds and hundreds of opinions. I haven't read a single one of them, and if I'm fortunate before we end this, I won't have to read one of them,” the majority leader told reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday.

This ass is one of those 'leading' us?

Posted by: momma at June 02, 2009 10:33 PM (penCf)

24 19 Hello !

Posted by: Closet Monster at June 02, 2009 10:33 PM (KUY1P)

25 Tim, won't you think twice the next time you need to take a plane? Won't you look at your fellow passengers a little longer? Won't you decide not to take the airbus if you can avoid it?

Posted by: muffy at June 02, 2009 10:33 PM (zplc6)

26 There's no one under here.

Posted by: Monster Under The Bed at June 02, 2009 10:33 PM (KUY1P)

27 CB, the term is "let the act speak for itself" - not sure I said that earlier today though.

Posted by: Jean at June 02, 2009 10:34 PM (xCBQ4)

28 13 If it was a bomb, how come nobody has claimed responsibility?

Nobody truly claimed responsibility for 9/11. The government had to figure out who did it, which may be difficult to do in this case since the evidence is in a bunch or little pieces sprinkled over an ocean.

Posted by: Aaron at June 02, 2009 10:35 PM (gftD1)

SinM

Your #7 post, when page has just loaded, only says "Muslim President'. if you scroll down and back up it is fine.

That is too f'in funny.

Posted by: momma at June 02, 2009 10:35 PM (penCf)

30 22 You are all such racists to blame Islam for such an event. Everyone knows it was the Baptists.

It's not the Baptists. The only thing they destroy are high school prom dances.

Posted by: Aaron at June 02, 2009 10:38 PM (gftD1)

31 I was under the impression that aircraft lighting strikes, though rare, do happen, but do not typically cause crashes. I checked online, and one of the first results I came across said that the last crashed caused by lightning was in 1967 due to a fuel tank explosion.

So lightning related crashes seem rare, though such a lightening-induced explosion might resemble a bomb blast, no?

Posted by: Fortunate Son at June 02, 2009 10:39 PM (FaLC9)

32 27 CB, the term is "let the act speak for itself" - not sure I said that earlier today though.

Posted by: Jean at June 02, 2009 10:34 PM (xCBQ4)

I believe you did, Jean, at least the sense of it. And I'm so glad to see you pop right in and clarify what I was trying to remember of your comments. I always find a lot of value in what you have to say!

Posted by: CB at June 02, 2009 10:42 PM (9Wv2j)

33 CB, it wasn't me from earlier - you referring to kbda's post

121 I will admit that my first thought, when I woke up and saw this news yesterday morning, was a bomb. However, it doesn't seem like anyone would wait this long to claim credit if that were the case, does it?

That's a lingering myth from the old PLO and European Leftist terrorism habits. Al Qaida doesn't seem to feel the need to claim responsibility afterwards, their modis operandi tends toward cryptic warnings of things to come.

That said, until there is recovery of wreckage everything is speculation. Given our DemSM habits of getting shit wrong, I'm not even sure it's been verified that there were thunderstorms at the time, only that they're common at this time of year. I'll guess however that there were storms and that they might have either caused the crash directly, or finished off the plane if there was a pre-existing problem due to either design, pilot error, or poor maintenance.

Posted by: kbdabear at June 02, 2009 04:36 PM (93F13)

Posted by: Jean at June 02, 2009 10:43 PM (xCBQ4)

34 I thought I read in one of the articles that family members of the passengers were recieving text messages with such sentiments as I love you and I'll miss you around the same time that the crew radioed about electrical trouble. This could indicate that the passengers knew at the very least that the plane was in deep trouble. If there were a bomb, it would have to be a very small, well placed bomb that would fatally wound the aircraft, but not blow it apart, such as the one that brought down flight 800 over Lockerbie, Scotland did. It is plausible, in that every modern airport has increased security since 9/11, and an explosive device large enough to blow a plane apart would be difficult to place on a plane without inside help. Or it could have been electrical problems, like the official version, or it could be a lightning strike ( though planes are designed to withstand those). We may never know for sure.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at June 02, 2009 10:43 PM (Poe30)

Saw a great bumpersticker at Zazzle

CHANGE. It takes a Carter to get a Reagan

Posted by: Cromagnum at June 02, 2009 10:43 PM (SPCUB)

36 Well, I'm fairly certain that if this turns out to be terrorism, it will be from some sort of "right wing extremists" that have nothing to do with the Religion of Peace. And if the press (yeah, we're looking at you not so Great Britain) deviates from this meme, the American MSM will simply explain that these were not true Muslims, and were perverting their faith.

Have I covered everything?

Posted by: shibumi at June 02, 2009 10:43 PM (OKZrE)

I hope the investigators are able to find the cause whether it be a bomb or freakish storm. If one of my loved ones was on that plane, I would want to ultimately know the cause. Closure and stuff.

Posted by: Trish at June 02, 2009 10:45 PM (0U5Kd)

38 By the way, I call BS on the whole concept of threatening a specific plane. Why would a terrorist do that? Actually, why would a terrorist announce anything beforehand? At the very least, targeting a national airline makes a whole lot more sense than a specific flight...

Posted by: flooflyparisparamus at June 02, 2009 10:47 PM (SRr22)

39 As soon as this happened the story was that plane crashed shortly after takeoff.

Then, inexplicably, the plane made it all the way to Africa where it flew into a "very violent storm" - many times it was noted that there is "no radar over much of the Atlantic".

This morning plane parts and an oil slick where discovered near the plane's departure route. Everyone wondered...what could it be? Apparently many large airplanes go missing virtually everyday, so finding one isn't really conclusive proof of much of anything.

Just another cycle of never ending bullshit.

Posted by: The Haimster at June 02, 2009 10:48 PM (Wcyfd)

40 Lightning could bring down a fly-by-wire Airbus in some exotic circumstance. But, how would that induce a pressure breach and render the flight crew incapable of making a mayday call. The lightning would have had to caused an explosion, so the results would look a lot like a bomb. And, unless some debris shows up with RDX all over it, I don't think we will able to discern the truth.

Posted by: Jean at June 02, 2009 10:49 PM (xCBQ4)

41 Posted by: Jean at June 02, 2009 10:43 PM (xCBQ4)

Now why did I think that was you? Oh, well, at least I mixed you up with somebody smart!!

Posted by: CB at June 02, 2009 10:50 PM (9Wv2j)

42 I still say they crashed onto some really wierd island.

Posted by: Noah Bawdy at June 02, 2009 10:50 PM (KUY1P)

43 "42 I still say they crashed onto some really wierd island.

Posted by: Noah Bawdy at June 02, 2009 10:50 PM (KUY1P)"

and now they are ""LOST"?

Posted by: muffy at June 02, 2009 10:52 PM (zplc6)

44 By blaming it on the weather you don't have to respond to the high probability that it was islamic terrorism. How progressive. I'm surprised white heterosexual Christian males weren't blamed.

Posted by: The Great Satan™ at June 02, 2009 10:52 PM (mozkX)

45 43 "42 I still say they crashed onto some really wierd island.

Posted by: Noah Bawdy at June 02, 2009 10:50 PM (KUY1P)"

and now they are ""LOST"?

Posted by: muffy at June 02, 2009 10:52 PM (zplc6)

That's a given.

Posted by: Noah Bawdy at June 02, 2009 10:53 PM (KUY1P)

46 In all seriousness it seems that flight was the entire world on that one plane and it seems as though the entire plane is wishing that they are somehow all okay.

Posted by: muffy at June 02, 2009 10:53 PM (zplc6)

47 planet, not plane having keyboard issues.

Posted by: muffy at June 02, 2009 10:54 PM (zplc6)

48 Stupid keyboards.

Posted by: Noah Bawdy at June 02, 2009 10:55 PM (KUY1P)

By blaming it on the weather you don't have to.....

You being the French.

Posted by: The Great Satan™ at June 02, 2009 10:55 PM (mozkX)

50 One Eyed Jack: where did you read about loved ones receiving texts from passengers telling them "I love you"? I haven't read that in any of the articles today. I keep checking SkyNews for more updates.

Posted by: Sassypants at June 02, 2009 10:56 PM (kvh8d)

51 Paging palin steele! palin steele to the troll podium.

Posted by: torabora at June 02, 2009 10:57 PM (k54fQ)

52 Thanks CB

OneEyedJack

The only radio traffic I read about were automatic maintenance transmissions that, at least on one aircraft I am familiar with, have a local "battery". Those transmissions could have been sent after the plane broke up without main bus power. They are very short, data bursts.

Posted by: Jean at June 02, 2009 10:58 PM (xCBQ4)

53 I wish I remembered Sassy, I read quite a few things I'm linked to, and the specific sites just become a jumbled blur after a while. And come to think of it, I may have heard it during a news report on the radio, as I am near one most of the work day.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at June 02, 2009 10:59 PM (Poe30)

54 Re: specific flights receiving threats in advance:

Pan Am flights between Frankfurt and the US were threatened before Pan Am 103. 16 days prior to the bombing, the US Embassy in Helsinki received that specific warning.
Of course, the Embassy didn't bother telling anyone.
Didn't want to give the threat-makers publicity.

I shit you not.

Posted by: Cathy at June 02, 2009 11:19 PM (pqrDp)

55 well its a 3 mile debris field and a 35 mile wide debris field...why is reporting so hard? if its the latter there is no question it blew up...only by what means.

Posted by: evil libertarian at June 02, 2009 11:22 PM (/LywR)

56 Cathy, something in Islam about telling somebody the knife is coming.

Posted by: Jean at June 02, 2009 11:23 PM (xCBQ4)

57 Since this wasn't an American flight, if there is terrorism involved I'm sure that Cahrsel Jonshno will blame European Nazis and demand that Geert Wilders and Pam Geller be arrested for mass murder.

That old "no one has taken credit" as I said earlier today was a leftover modis operandi from the 70s and 80s PLO and Eurocommunist terror groups. The Troofers still hang onto that as one of their key pieces of "evidence" that 9-11 was an inside job. AQ tends to warn cryptically before the act and keep their mouths shut afterwards. They even deny responsibility after we've arrested the terrorists.

I'm still leaning towards a hidden problem with the plane that made it unable to withstand any severe turbulence OR a fault in the inflight computers that badly misdiagnosed a problem.

Posted by: kbdabear at June 02, 2009 11:24 PM (93F13)

58 Yeah, I really think this whole episode smells of bomb. Whether terrorist-related or not, that's what I feel. It really creeps me out.

Posted by: Sassypants at June 02, 2009 11:24 PM (6gH6z)

59 The bomb possibility is entirely plausible. It makes a hell of a coincidence, however, that they were flying through borderline severe weather through the heart of the storm system, and not the shortest route through, that makes me lend more credence to the notion of it being storm-related. There were a few good targets on that plane, to be sure, but as said before, isn't the point of terrorism to create terror?

If it were me bombing a plane, I would jump all over the story to say that I blew it up in a storm. The storm blowing things around probably has some elements to do with why the debris field is as large as it is.

Posted by: tmi3rd at June 02, 2009 11:27 PM (MLaAD)

From NYT:

U.S. Releases Secret List of Nuclear Sites Accidentally

http://tiny.cc/pvPQu

Posted by: paranoid polly at June 02, 2009 11:32 PM (YLNjm)

61 #20 Tim:

Nice link, thanks.

I don't think though that a turbulence argument can be made using the two referenced disasters in his write up. First, both occurred over land, not water. Second, the Russian flight may have exceeded the maximum altitude for the aircraft, which led to the crash. Third, since the 1967 accident, there have been numerous improvements in onboard, and ground based radars. As far as technology goes, 1967 is practically ancient history.

Posted by: DngrMse at June 02, 2009 11:33 PM (ngyL+)

62 DangerMouse-

Where they were over the ocean, there isn't radar that can reach them, unless there just happened to be an AWACS bird anywhere nearby. Word has it that their onboard radar was down for some reason.

Posted by: tmi3rd at June 02, 2009 11:36 PM (MLaAD)

63 Admittedly, I haven't read a whole lot about it and I have not turned on the news in a good long time.
So perhaps there is something I'm missing...

As a former aircraft dispatcher and a current Aviation Communications Supervisor at ORD, I find it a bit puzzling.

Even with loss of radar, it is really not that difficult to fly around a thunderstorm. Your run of the mill thunderstorms rarely have tops over 35,000 feet.
Climb high enough and you're out of it.

I don't know what the radar looked like that night. Maybe it was a hurricane of a storm that was 100 miles wide and had tops to 60K.
Then WHY WERE THEY DISPATCHED on that flight route?
The job of a dispatcher is to route AROUND storms, not through them. It's very easy to do and frankly, the computer does most of the work. It's easier to route a commercial plane around a big nasty storm than it is to make a decent lasagna. Look at Flight Tracker during any gnarly hurricane. Not only are planes flying, they're flying damn close to the hurricane itself without endangering themselves.
I don't know any other extenuating circumstances, and I do know that the vast majority of a/c accidents are pilot error, at least to some degree.

Maybe it was just a perfect storm of terrible shit that happened - mechanical failure, pilot error, terrible weather...
But damn that'd be some shitty luck.

[Ramble, ramble, muse, muse.]

Posted by: Cathy at June 02, 2009 11:40 PM (pqrDp)

There's no way the murderous bastards would kill one person, much less more than 200, and not have broadcast it over the radio.

They are not a humble bunch of terrorists these.

Posted by: jmflynny at June 02, 2009 11:40 PM (gmwku)

65 95 Here's a weather site that Rush mentioned, apparently someone put together a detailed analysis of the weather that AF447 would have encountered. The site is being hammered right now so it might take a while for it to load.

Posted by: Gran at June 02, 2009 01:11 PM (8RQx0)

Cathy, have you seen this link from the earlier thread? It's pretty amazing what this guy put together.

Posted by: CB at June 02, 2009 11:43 PM (9Wv2j)

66 Tim's link to the other Tim's weather analysis shows a t-storm in the area, but that it wasn't particularly severe. Encountering t-storms on the that route, at this time of year is common - so that is not a significant coincidence.

Even with an updraft toppling the aircraft into a tumble that tore it apart, I would expect some sort of cockpit message. These days the exotic weather scenarios are less likely then a bomb assembled in a bathroom. Despite what Al Gore says weather isn't changing and I cannot recall a similar instance that matches the circumstances.

Posted by: Jean at June 02, 2009 11:44 PM (xCBQ4)

67 Cathy-

Funny you should mention that. My wife has her dispatch license, but Lockheed paid better for Flight Services, so she did that instead. She's also a meteorologist.

Anyway, listed tops on those thunderstorms was 51K, and they were flying 028 at FL 350... check out Gran's link from the guy at weathergraphics.com. It sounds like it was diurnal convection (nighttime thunderstorms), and there was just enough energy available for borderline severe thunderstorms.

Again- I wouldn't discount the notion of a bomb; not for a moment. It just seems to me that it would be completely logical for them to eat enough water to snuff both engines and not be able to get the RAT generator going. If you have a chance, see if you can ask an Airbus captain whether or not there's a purely mechanical hydraulic backup if they lose electrical power. When I looked over the schematics on the A330, I didn't see one. I read somewhere that the French felt a mechanical backup unnecessary- something that Boeing pointedly doesn't concur with.

Posted by: tmi3rd at June 02, 2009 11:50 PM (MLaAD)

68 Okay, here is my put: get the timing of the automated error messages. If they all occurred in a matter of 10-15 seconds, answer = bomb. Otherwise, something else. Anyone read about the timing?

Posted by: sherlock at June 02, 2009 11:54 PM (L4jPh)

69 CB,

That's a fantastic link - thanks!

A cursory glance shows the shittiest stuff to the north and south, a decent ways from the INTOL- TASIL route.
Yyyyyup, the route they were on was definitely where they should have been.

Very, very interesting.

Posted by: Cathy at June 02, 2009 11:54 PM (pqrDp)

70 TMI,

I did notice the gnarly tops.
Those are gross.
As luck would have it, my BFF's husband flies an Airbus for US Air.
I definitely have some questions for him.

My BFF, oddly enough, is also a dispatcher, but SHE works for Honeywell - (like your wife, they paid her more) - at least she did until she had a bouncing baby boy 5 months ago and told 'em to stuff it.

Posted by: Cathy at June 02, 2009 11:59 PM (pqrDp)

71 Either the jackass that called in the bomb threat a few days ago for an Air France Argentina - Paris flight has the worst joke timing ever or perhaps that's where they should focus their investigation.

I'll be interested to know who knew what and when.
The Helsinki Embassy didn't even admit that they had had the warning for Pan Am Frankfurt - US until 11 months after Lockerbie...

Posted by: Cathy at June 03, 2009 12:03 AM (pqrDp)

72 Cathy, I figured you'd understand what you were looking at there. Good to have people here with in depth knowledge of this stuff who share it with the rest of us! My gut just keeps whispering "bomb." And I just hope it was all over very quickly, for the sake of those poor souls on board.

Posted by: CB at June 03, 2009 12:05 AM (9Wv2j)

73 From a UK Yahoo News Group:

Many of those airliners that get hit by lightning are so-called fly-by- wire aircraft (meaning the controls in the cockpit are linked to the movable surfaces on the airplane by electrical wires and computers). Airbus pioneered FBW control systems in commercial airliners and the engineers in Toulouse have gone out of their way to demonstrate their products are safe in stormy weather. There are four fully redundant electrical systems on an Airbus - and if the worst happens, a manual flight control system that allows the crew to fly the plane (barely) using the rudder, differential thrust on the engines and horizontal stabilizer trim. (You may recall that is how the crew of United flight 232 managed to get a DC-10 on the ground in Sioux City, Iowa in 1989 after a complete hydraulics failure)

Goes on to mention the AAL flight that crashed in NYC in November of 2001 - how the pilot stepped so hard on the rudder pedals during override that he broke off the vertical stab and rudder (and who the hell wouldn't, poor guy), dooming the plane.

Posted by: Cathy at June 03, 2009 12:11 AM (pqrDp)

74 CB,

Me too.
And if some lousy sonofabitch is responsible, I hope he pays dearly.

I saw "7 children and one infant" on the passenger list and wanted to cry, not just for those poor babies, but for their parents. My God, to not be able to help your own children - to see their imminent doom.
Makes my blood run cold.

Posted by: Cathy at June 03, 2009 12:14 AM (pqrDp)

75 I heard there was an 11-year-old traveling alone on his way back to school. I can't imagine how his parents must feel. Just so sad . . .

Anyway, I am off to escape in a book and sleep. Good night!

Posted by: CB at June 03, 2009 12:17 AM (9Wv2j)

76 Night!

Posted by: Cathy at June 03, 2009 12:18 AM (pqrDp)

Need to know before buying lace wigs Our lace wigs are made of human hairs classified lace human hair wigs on our web. 100% Indian/Chinese remy human hair and best quality Swiss/French lace are used in lace human hair wigs. Lace human hair wig is thin, your scalp can get good breath, so you can feel comfortable just like real hair. You may find hundreds of units and almost 150+ styles of full lace wigs in our store. By using our web searcher, you may locate just the wigs you want without bitter searches. Also, you may customise lace front wigs here, all you need to do is just to follow our custom options or leave your specials in the "comments". A custom wig can be completed within 25 workdays generally. Thanks for Paypal and our Co-work World Wide Ship corporations, we can ship wigs to all over the world! Show your beauty, show your individuality, experience our wonderful service and dress you up right now!

wedding dresses wedding dress wedding gowns bridesmaid dresses bridesmaid dress

Posted by: royalmewigs at June 03, 2009 01:22 AM (stKZX)

78 Given the location of the crash site - in deep ocean waters - it will be difficult to collect enough debris to determine what happened to the aircraft. If they locate the black boxes, the cockpit recordings and aircraft status and attitude indicators will at least give some insight into the aircraft's final flight timeline. As to the bomb possibility, if one existed, it might have gone off prematurely due to turbulence. Without physical evidence, that will be hard to prove.

Posted by: ken at June 03, 2009 01:34 AM (YP8jY)

79 A lot of times makers of man made disasters practice overseas to perfect their technique. They want it to be perfect when bringing Americans the religion of peace. If this was a bomb, and if it was our Muslim friends, then maybe they wouldn't claim responsibility.

Thunderstorms aren't an uncommon event for pilots. And the whole thing reeks of something "not right."

Posted by: haikusrock at June 03, 2009 01:51 AM (y+j+h)

80 It surprised me a lot that the possibility of a bomb was dismissed so quickly, like it was almost the second "fact" that energed after the announcement of the event.

Posted by: backrow guy at June 03, 2009 01:56 AM (8ntiZ)

81 Even with an updraft toppling the aircraft into a tumble that tore it apart

I read on that site an interesting theory on a rapid updraft lifting the plane above its ceiling, bringing it to the "coffin corner" effect of a tiny 10 mph difference between high speed and low speed stall.

Another was computer maneuvers that are hard for a pilot to override, analogous to the electronic traction control found on today's cars. A rapid updraft will cause the computer to detect a climb stall imminence, and compensate but putting the nose down to regain airspeed. A rapid updraft with a sudden downdraft or shear would be fatal.

The sudden loss of cabin pressure sent automatically by the plane is puzzling. Turbulence and shear are rare in actually breaking the fuselage itself apart, rather than control surfaces.

Posted by: kbdabear at June 03, 2009 03:43 AM (93F13)

I don't understand why some folks seem to insist on the most ominous, conspiracy-tinged interpretation of a tragic event... it's like you're not happy unless it's a bomb. Maybe that's not troofer territory, but at least it's casting your eyes in that direction.

My marker's down. The plane broke up catastophically in violent weather.

Posted by: Bat Chain Puller at June 03, 2009 08:19 AM (SCcgT)

83 I don't know what happened to the AF plane but those who lean towards the bomb theory may simply be incredulous of mother nature taking out a large jet, since it rarely happens. Especially without any communication.
Conversely, those who say it must have been weather are ignoring the capabilities of terrorists who might be testing a new type of "electronic" bomb that would disable a modern fly-by-wire jet. Any test would certainly be done right in the middle of the Atlantic were an emergency landing would be impossible . The fact that there were storms there at the same time might or might not be relevant.
Two other Lufthansa flights took the same route that night one just before and one just after and they reported no problems.
I lean towards the "turbulence plus mechanical failure" theory but I would not discount terrorism.
Why even speculate? I don't think we are going to find the flight recorders.

Posted by: NortonPete at June 03, 2009 08:56 AM (fVuwW)

84 Tim Vasquez's analysis hardly rules out a bomb very firmly:

<i>[...] the cause of the downing could have been anything from turbulence to coincidental problems like a cargo fire.

My own opinion of the crash cause, as of Monday night, based on the complete lack of a HF radio call and consideration of all of the above, suggests severe turbulence (see the BOAC 911 and BNF 250 tragedies) combining in some unlikely way with CRM/design/maintenance/procedural/other deficiencies to trigger a failure cascade.</i>

I think the strongest arguments against the bomb theory are the (apparent) lack of any claim of responsiblity and the fact that the emergency occured relatively late in the flight.

Posted by: anonymous irishman at June 03, 2009 09:24 AM (x9YXK)

The bombers never claimed responsibility for Lockerbie. Crash scene investigation and detective work led authorities back to Libya. Why doesn't it make sense for terrorists to blow up a plane over the ocean without a claim of responsiblity? If they are testing out a new way to blow up a plane mid-air, having it over deep water at high altitude leaves precious little behind for investigators to piece together in order to discover the nature of the event, but they [the terrorists] learn that their plan worked the first time and can work again, maybe on a larger scale. It is fairly well known following the 9-11 investigation that a plan called Bojinka called for blowing up multiple airliners over the Pacific Ocean. And if it was Islamonazies, then they only care that Allah knows what they did, not that we do, dirty kuffir that we are.

All that said, I don't necessarily believe that the plane was bombed, only that we can't discount that possiblity since there is no evidence of any cause at all yet.

Posted by: Syracuse1989 at June 03, 2009 09:38 AM (0vFVj)

86 Why are people saying no one is claiming responsibility? Someone already did; the guy who called in the threat in advance.

Posted by: Ella at June 03, 2009 09:48 AM (huf8h)

I think the bomb threat was a coincidence that just happenned to happen. The threatener and the bomber are unrelated. That's my speculation.

The next step is to scour the passenger manifest. My guess is that the bomber will pop out, perhaps as a Muslim radical. The step after that, done weeks or months from now is to find metal parts of the wreckage with explosion pitting on it.

Posted by: Tantor at June 03, 2009 09:58 AM (SWvPS)

88 a touch more on this at http://personafile.com/pxhC

Posted by: pbx at June 03, 2009 10:33 AM (MobLv)

89 There has been more information disclosed about the series of electronic messages sent by the AF plane. I have been following this on airliners.net and a number of posters mentioned the following article from time.com of all places.
http://tinyurl.com/qcue3n
It seems that there is a known problem with the flight control computers.
A Brazilian source leaked the series of messages and a German poster on airliners.net (post 73) who is very knowledgeable about the Qantas incident mentioned in the Time article, says that the sequence of events is very similar. Autopilot disengaged, switched to backup computers etc, etc. I don't profess to understand the sequence but it appears that the AF plane had a computer failure and broke apart at a very high altitude scattering debris all over the place.

Posted by: NortonPete at June 03, 2009 01:05 PM (fVuwW)

90 This is the link to the airliners.net post of "GlobeEx" who is a aeronautical engineer of some type. There are some mistakes with English but the science has been noted by a number of other posters as well thought out.
http://tinyurl.com/onm8s3

Since Airbus knows about this problem I wonder how long the information will take to come out.

Posted by: NortonPete at June 03, 2009 01:31 PM (fVuwW)

91 The core of the new information is below. This information needs a lot of analysis. It could be faults that led to the accident or the results of the accident as the aircraft broke up.

Sources within Air France reported, that the automatic message did not only report an electrical short circuit, but also the loss of cabin pressure. This information has been confirmed by FAB, who also stated, that the position of the airplane was given as N3.5777 W30.3744 in that message.

New information provided by sources within Air France suggests, that the ACARS messages of system failures started to arrive at 02:10Z indicating, that the autopilot had disengaged and the fly by wire system had changed to alternate law. Between 02:11Z and 02:13Z a flurry of messages regarding ADIRU and ISIS faults arrived, at 02:13Z PRIM 1 and SEC 1 faults were indicated, at 02:14Z the last message received was an advisory regarding cabin vertical speed. That sequence of messages could not be independently verified.

ACARS is the radio data system
ADIRU is a heading reference system
ISIS is alternate instruments (IIRC)
PRIM is Primary Computer
SEC is Secondary Computer

Posted by: Jean at June 03, 2009 02:32 PM (L64A6)

92 Didn't see your second post Norton as I have been reading from your first link for an hour.

Posted by: Jean at June 03, 2009 02:37 PM (L64A6)

93 The message number has changed at airliners.net. I gave the poster credit and did this screen capture of he/she's post, but I can't post it here it is getting rejected because of something. I think it is important.
Again from a post on airliners.net by a poster called GlobeEx I think the number is #71 in the 8th chapter of the posts.

Posted by: NortonPete at June 03, 2009 03:37 PM (fVuwW)

The bomb scenario is highly plausible. A phone threat days earlier could have been textbook psyop conditioning – send everyone to high order, cause a bunch of delays, and folks begin to think it’s just a woof ticket and get lax.

Posted by: Roc at June 03, 2009 04:48 PM (IrbU4)

95 Norton I posted the text here because it was hard to find on that forum. You can't follow internal links back on their comment engine.

Posted by: Jean at June 03, 2009 08:11 PM (xCBQ4)

96 Hi all. I don't own a cell phone or a pager. I just hang around everyone I know, all the time. If someone wants to get a hold of me, they just say 'Mitch,' and I say 'what?' and turn my head slightly. Help me! Help to find sites on the: Buy and sell text books. I found only this - buy fiction books. Coffee buy the book is a local bookstore and coffee shop in historic downtown pulaski, virginia. Your wedding day memories will last a lifetime with contempo gift book from online bridal store. With best wishes :-), Lyris from Malta.

Posted by: Lyris at July 19, 2009 09:15 AM (SuE0x)

ãäÊÏíÇÊ ÔãæÎ ÇäÓÇä

ÇßÈÑ ÊÌãÚ ÎáíÌí ÚÑÈí

ãäÊÏì

ãäÊÏì ÔãæÎ ÇäÓÇä

ÊæÈíßÇÊ ãÇÓäÌÑ - ÈÑÇãÌ ãÇÓäÌÑ - ÊæÈíßÇÊ ãÇÓäÌÑ ãáæäå

ÔãæÎ

ÔãæÎ ÇäÓÇä

ÔÈßÉ ÔãæÎ ÇäÓÇä

ÕæÑ ááÊÕãíã - ÕæÑ ááãÕããíä - ÎáÝíÇÊ ááÊÕãíã

ÎØæØ ÚÑÈíå - ÎØæØ ÇäÌáíÒíå - ÎØæØ ááÝæÊæÔæÈ ÔãæÎ

ÝÑÔ - ÝÑÔ ááÊÕãíã - ÝÑÔ ÝíßÊæÑ - ÝÑÔ ÝæÊæÔæÈ

ÝáÇÊÑ - ÎÇãÇÊ - ÎÇãÇÊ ÖæÆíå - ÈÇÊÑä - ÇÓÊÇíáÇÊ

ÏÑæÓ ÝæÊæÔæÈ - ÏÑæÓ ÓæíÊÔ ãÇßÓ

ãáÝÇÊ ãÝÊæÍå - ãÄËÑÇÊ - ÎØæØ ÓæíÊÔ ãÇßÓ

ÑãæÒ ãÇÓäÌÑ - ÇÈÊÓÇãÇÊ ãÇÓäÌÑ - ÇíÞæäÇÊ ãÇÓäÌÑ

ÑÇÈØÉ ÚÔÇÞ ÇáåáÇá(ÇáÒÚíã) ÇÎÈÇÑ ÇáåáÇá Çáíæãíå-ÕæÑ -áÞÇÆÇÊ

ÑÇÈØÉ ÚÔÇÞ ÇáäÕÑ(ÇáÚÇáãí) ÇÎÈÇÑ ÇáäÕÑ Çáíæãíå-ÕæÑ -áÞÇÆÇÊ

ÑÇÈØÉ ÚÔÇÞ ÇáÇÊÍÇÏ(ÇáÚãíÏ) ÇÎÈÇÑ ÇáÇÊÍÇÏ Çáíæãíå-ÕæÑ -áÞÇÆÇÊ

ÔÚÑ - ÔÚÑÇÁ - ÞÕÇÆÏ

ÎæÇØÑ - ÈæÍ - ÚÐÈ ÇáßáÇã

ÞÕÕ - ÑæÇíÇÊ

ÕÍå - ÇÚÔÇÈ - ÊÛÐíå

ãØÈÎ - ÇßáÇÊ - ãÔÑæÈÇÊ

ÏíßæÑ - ÏíßæÑÇÊ - ÛÑÝ äæã

ÇÒíÇÁ - ÝÓÇÊíä - ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ - ãßíÇÌ

äßÊ - ÝÑÝÔå - ÇÓÊåÈÇá

ÑíÇÖå - ßæÑå - ÇÎÈÇÑ ÇáÑíÇÖå

ÈÑÇãÌ - ÔÑæÍÇÊ - ÊÍãíá ÈÑÇãÌ

ÝÑÔ - ÎØæØ - ÓßÑÇÈÒ - ÕæÑ ÊÕÇãíã

ÊæÈíßÇÊ - ÊæÈíßÇÊ ãáæä

ÕæÑ ãÇÓäÌÑ - ÕæÑ ãÇÓäÌÑ ááÔÈÇÈ , ÕæÑ ãÇÓäÌÑ ááÈäÇÊ

ÕæÑ ãÇÓäÌÑ - ÕæÑ ÈäÇÊ ááãÇÓäÌÑ

ËíãÇÊ - ËíãÇÊ ááãÇÓäÌÑ - ÎáÝíÇÊ ãÇÓäÌÑ

ÑãæÒ - ÑãæÒ ãÇÓäÌÑ - ÇíÞæäÇÊ ãÇÓäÌÑ

ËíãÇÊ ÌæÇá - ËíãÇÊ äæßíÇ - ÇáÚÇÈ ÌæÇá

ÑÓÇÆá - ãÓÌÇÊ - æÓÇÆØ

ÈáæÊæË - ãÞÇØÚ - ãÞÇØÚ ÖÍß

ÕæÑ - ÛÑÇÆÈ ÇáÕæÑ - ßÇÑÊíÑ

ÍáÞÇÊ ãÓáÓá ÞáæÈ ááÅíÌÇÑ -ÝÏíæ ãÓáÓá ÞáæÈ ááÅíÌÇÑ -ãÔÇåÏÉ ÍáÞÇÊ ãÓáÓá ÞáæÈ ááÅíÌÇÑ

ÍáÞÇÊ ãÓáÓá ÑÍáÉ ÇäÊÙÇÑ-ÝÏíæ ãÓáÓá ÑÍáÉ ÇäÊÙÇÑ-ãÔÇåÏÉ ÍáÞÇÊ

ÍáÞÇÊ ãÓáÓá ØÇÔ ÇáÌÒÁ ÇáÓÇÏÓ ÚÔÑ -ÊÍãíá ÍáÞÇÊ ãÓáÓá ØÇÔ 16-ÝÏíæ ãÓáÓá ØÇÔ 16

ãÓáÓá åÏæÁ äÓÈí - ÍáÞÇÊ ãÓáÓá åÏæÁ äÓÈí

ÍáÞÇÊ ãÓáÓá ÈÇÈ ÇáÍÇÑÉ 4-,ÝÏíæ ãÓáÓá ÈÇÈ ÇáÍÇÑÉ 4-ãÔÇåÏÉ ÍáÞÇÊ ÈÇÈ ÇáÍÇÑÉ 4

ÊÛØíå ãÓáÓá ÈÞÇíÇ áíá- ÍáÞÇÊ ãÓáÓá ÈÞÇíÇ áíá

ØÑíÞÉ Úãá æÑÞ ÚäÈ-ÎØæÇÊ ÊÍÖíÑ æÑÞ ÇáÚäÈ-ØÑíÞÉ Úãá æÑÞ ÚäÈ Ýí ÇáÈíÊ ÈÇáÕæÑ

áÞíãÇÊ ÇáÞÇÖí - áÞíãÇÊ ÑãÖÇäíå

ãÔæíÇÊ ÑãÖÇä 2009 ãÔÇæí ÑãÖÇäíå -ØÑíÞå ÇáÏÌÇÌ Úáì ÇáØÑíÞå ÇáÇíØÇáíå

æÌÈÇÊ ÑãÖÇäíå - æÌÈÇÊ ÑãÖÇäíå-ÇáÓáØÇÊ-ÇáãÞÈáÇÊ-ÇáÔæÑÈÇÊ-ÇáãÚÌäÇÊ-ÇáÍáæíÇÊ-ÇáãÔÑ æÈÇ

ÈÑäÇãÌ ÇáÑíá ÈáíÑ 11 ááÌæÇá - Ñíá ÈáíÑ ÌæÇá äæßíÇ real player 11 ÚÑÈí

ËíãÇÊ ÑãÖÇäíå- ËíãÇÊ ÑãÖÇä- Ëíã ÑãÖÇäí -ËíãÇÊ ÇÓáÇãíå -Ëíã ÑãÖÇäí20009

Posted by: www.s5e5.com/ at August 13, 2009 04:42 AM (1Q+vN)

Posted by: retailike at October 17, 2009 11:43 AM (zFgZJ)

99 I like it.Cool post. I wear nike sb ,play with nike dunk...Nike dunk sb is very fashion and comfortable.I like it very much. And I have many pairs of nike shoes.

The Likedunksb.com have Dunk SB Low ,Dunk SB High , Dunk SB Mid ,Girl Dunks, New Dunks and Nike Dunk SB For Sep .

Cheap Dunks or Discount Nike Dunks on sale

Posted by: cheap nike dunks at October 23, 2009 07:21 AM (MoAfI)

100 UGG Classic Cardy Boot makes me different form the other girls. The UGG Bailey Button Boot is a good choice for female. If you want to be more attractive this winter,the UGG boots will make your dream come true.

Posted by: uggs boots on sale at October 23, 2009 11:04 PM (/BNGt)

101 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

Posted by: hair straighteners at October 24, 2009 12:12 PM (9oMrs)

102 UGG Classic Tall is one of our brand's heritage styles. The UGG Classic Tall features genuine twin-face sheepskin for refreshing comfort.UGG boot Sheepskin boots are the taller version of UGG Australia's signature luxury sheepskin boot.UGG Classic Tall is a classic article for autumn and winter seasons. It has become a new favorite for fashionable ladies.

Posted by: ugg classic tall at October 27, 2009 06:17 AM (64hga)

103 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

Posted by: fdsfds at October 27, 2009 09:57 AM (8kvkz)

Posted by: ugg boots at October 27, 2009 12:42 PM (pgfU2)

105 Your post very good,thanks for sharing!Are you also like these:ugg boots uk,buy ugg boots,australia ugg,cheap ugg boots,ugg boots,ugg boots sheepskin,womens ugg boots,ugg australia boots,cheap ugg boots

Posted by: australia ugg at October 27, 2009 02:34 PM (c6EK2)

106 Our website htttp://www.widelybuy.com provide many kinds of UGG Boots.For example,the UGG Classic Tall,Ugg Classic Short,Ugg Ultra Short,Ugg Sundance and so on.In order to meet your demands as possible.We will give you the best service to satisfy your request.We also will give you the reasonable price on the basis of equality and mutual benefits.Free shipping fee and no tax 1 week to you door!

Posted by: xlzhengnan at October 30, 2009 01:04 AM (Mj2H/)

107 i like the article!thank you!!

Posted by: Bailey Button UGGs at October 30, 2009 12:35 PM (xTjoi)

108 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa

Posted by: airforceoneshop at November 03, 2009 03:14 PM (LHCCE)

109 discount Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefree shipping

Posted by: reviewups at November 06, 2009 02:00 AM (XxrVz)

110 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

Posted by: mbt shoes at November 08, 2009 09:31 AM (QhfLM)

Posted by: reviewups at November 10, 2009 05:11 PM (UHjri)

Posted by: ugg boots at November 12, 2009 02:48 AM (IeIJx)

113 one day i went shopping outside,and in an ed hardy store,I found some kinds of ed hardy i love most they are: ed hardy sunglasses ed hardy sunglasses ED Hardy Mens Hoodies ED Hardy Mens Hoodies Ed Hardy Womens Tops Ed Hardy Womens Tops Ed Hardy Womens Shoes Ed Hardy Womens Shoes ED Hardy Swim Trunks ED Hardy Swim Trunks links of london links of london Gucci shoes Gucci shoes buy wow gold buy wow gold cheap wow gold cheap wow gold ed hardy ed hardy Thanks of your infomation i have read it is very help full for me.

Posted by: ed hardy clothing at November 13, 2009 09:52 PM (Cgt7y)

114 nike dunk sb

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

Posted by: nike dunk sb at November 14, 2009 01:56 AM (APB+g)

115 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

Posted by: cheap at November 14, 2009 05:26 AM (s7MB5)

116 I love Women's UGG Classic Cardy Boots 5819 very much.The Women's UGG classic tall boots makes me carzy this year.And aslo the new design UGG Bailey Button Boots is aslo a good choice in 2009.

Posted by: UGG Bailey Button Boots at November 14, 2009 11:31 AM (Ht2aH)

117 Do you like sports? If you like it,the NIke Air Max TN and Nike Air Max 360 is a good choice for you.And now the there is a good news,CheapNike Air Max running Shoes is waiting for you.I think The New Nike Air MAX 2009 Running Shoes makes you great comfortable.

Posted by: Nike air max at November 14, 2009 11:58 AM (Ht2aH)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 06:44 AM (xpuiO)

119 If you are looking for buying a quality pair of warm sheepskin boots you really need to try the ugg classic tall boots. The quality of the it means that they will last 4 or 5 times as long as the cheaper copies and the level of comfort they provide to the wearer is much higher.So when it comes to you finding a pair of ugg boots that will match up to any outfit in your wardrobe then it is worth considering investing money in a pair of Ugg classic tall this

Posted by: ugg classic tall at November 17, 2009 06:55 AM (CsraQ)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 12:20 PM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 01:32 AM (C/zDM)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 07:25 AM (C/zDM)

123 UGG BOOTS

Posted by: UGG BOOTS at November 18, 2009 09:29 AM (WPYlQ)

Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.0571 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0081 seconds, 132 records returned.
Page size 119 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.