Posted on 10/31/2015 12:30:35 AM PDT by tcrlaf
Edited on 10/31/2015 4:06:49 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
According to Egypt’s security forces, as cited by Reuters, a technical fault was to blame for the crash.
Search and rescue teams are finding bodies in a radius of up to 5km (3.1 miles) from the crash site. Approximately 150, some burnt, have been pulled out of the wreckage so far.
The sources say the aircraft took almost a vertical trajectory as it plummeted down. Large parts of the fuselage burned in the process.
Vertical descent and burning prior to impact are concerning...
How do we know they don’t have something with more range, that is larger than what someone can carry??
True, we need to be prepared though.
Found the link I was looking for
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3354901/posts?page=96#96
A passenger carrying only Russians crashes near Syria where there is an ongoing military campaign. Looks like someone have just sent Putin a clear message.
Heat seeking missile is exactly what I was thinking.
They might, but then it wouldn't be a MANPAD (Man Portable Air Defense) system, so no Hillary.
I know everyone is assuming a shoot-down. But, Airbus planes use a ‘fly-by-wire’ system. The pilots have a joystick they use to fly the plane, not a ‘wheel’, like Boeing aircraft do. With most Boeing aircraft, there is still a connection to the control surfaces, so the pilot has some control of the plane in case of a hydraulic system failure. It makes it VERY hard to steer, but it’s there.
What if the fly-by-wire system failed? The pilot would have no control over the plane. Conceivably, the plane could transition to a nose-WAY-down attitude with the pilot not being able to do anything. (Remember, reports are saying he radioed an in-flight emergency due to a ‘technical fault’.)
As for the burned bodies....if a plane, carrying an almost-full load of fuel, slams into the ground and explodes, you bet there will be burned bodies.
I am not totally dissing the idea of a shoot-down, but there are other possibilities. Sabotage? On-board bomb?
(Yes, I know these have been covered.)
Perhaps I misread...
I took the report to indicate burning in the process of the dive, the immediately preceding statement.
If the burning was post impact, that changes my perception of the report significantly.
And coffee, coffee will help me understand.
Breaking: ISIS affiliate in Egypt claims they shot it down.
ISIS group claims revenge for Russian airstrikes.
Not saying you’re wrong, just another possibility.
Enjoy your coffee.
The sad thing is given the current regime and our media, the disinformation is ferocious versus the precious bits of truth that manage to escape and make it to the people.
If they are finding bodies (and other crash debris?) more than 3 miles from the crash site, I would say that indicates that the aircraft broke up at altitude.
So ... not technical failure? Consistent with SAM?
ISIS claims responsibility for Russian jet crash
Maybe 9-11 terrorist type plane takeover?
The plane was at cruising altitude, the safest part of any flight. Am I wrong to strongly suspect the ROP is completely reponsible? If so, I can't wait to see Putin's response.
More likely a bomb or mechanical failure.
If isis actually did it as they claim look out below. The russians will hunt them down and destroy them. There will not be any strongly worded response.
We are what we experienced when. Putin was a young man during the years of the Afghanistan war, he was 27 when it started and 37 when the Berlin wall came down. Just like the legacy of Vietnam shaped some of us, like Schwarzkopf and Tommy Franks who swore never again, the events of Putins early adulthood shaped him. He will not lose a war with isis. That is my bet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.