Posted on 11/03/2015 4:03:32 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
3)It was not the shoot down of the jet.
No, they operate to about 15k. Only major complex weapon sysrems can hit an airliner at altitude. So it’s highly unlikely at this juncture that a missle brought the plane down. A bomb onboard perhaps, but no small shoulder fired weapon is taking out an airliner at altitude.
If terrorists did get their hands on more complex stuff I would put equal odds they got it from Russia directly through seleratist rebels they have been arming and training ala the Malasian Airlines shoot down.
Russian airlines has a poor safety record.
NO!!!!!!!
15,000 nominal
18,000 MAX
It was bomb on board and why do we believe this video is the flight in question?
No blood for poppies!
The Russian Geckos we allowed ISIS to smuggle out of LIBYA -perhaps distributed by Hillary/CIA- have a range of 40K ft. Doesn’t have to be a MANPAD, they’ve already got bigger stuff.
It’s a fact, ISIS shot down a Syrian cargo plane with one last year.
Anything out of Libya is on OUR hands- we were the ones who let his arms depots get looted, and who knows what all went on in Benghazi with gun running
Maybe they used a Patriot missile /sarcasm
We don’t know the source of that video. Liveleak is hardly a great source. The video could be years old.
You see, the lack of proof of a conspiracy proves just how effective the cover-up is.
No proof. . . must have happened.
You are right about the Stinger- but ISIS has bigger stuff.
But the Russian investigators already said it was ‘external’ impact
I favored the bomb theory, but the Kremlin seems to have ruled that out
Two words
It’s Debka
The video was put on YouTube by ISIS people, but they took it down
LiveLeak just got it off YouTube before they removed it
Yes. . .a super-secret, double-inverted invisible missile. . .
;-)
It will be interesting to see how the Russians do this. It sounds like a bomb but usually people claim those immediately.
Another thing: This is like playing wack-o-mole. . once you knock down one crazy conspiracy another FReeper pops-up with another wild accusation: “well. . .see. . .it was. . . “
“Still could have been a bomb.”
Yes, a bomb placed aboard the Airbus is one of the two most likely causes of the disintegration of the Airbus.
The other very likely cause of the disintegration of the Airbus is the tail strike damage caused by the aircraft’s tail striking the runway while landing in about 2001. Damage was caused to the stringers, aft pressure bulkhead, tail, fuselage skin, and so forth. The Russians claimed to have repaired and maintained proper inspections, but stress cracks in the composite structures can in many cases be difficult to impossible to detect without destructive testing methods.
The Soviet-Russian Tupelov TU-144 was designed with metal wings using single large castings, rather than numerous small metal castings fastened together to form a wing. When a stress fracture developed in the small casting, the fracture stopped spreading when it reached the edge of the small casting piece. Because the Russians chose to cast the wing in large single castings, stress fractures developed in the wing and were able to suddenly and catastrophically fracture through the entire wing before anything could be done to prevent a major emergency or loss of the aircraft. The TU-144 crash at the Paris Air Show was caused in part by the failure of the wing/s due to the G-forces encountered as the aircraft went into a dive and tried to pullout as they restarted its stalled engines.
In this new era of large commercial aircraft being built with composite materials as large and monolithic structures, some aeronautical engineers are questioning whether or not they may be prone to undetected stress fractures after so many cycles of pressurization-depressurization, G-force stresses, temperature changes, and other stresses. Since this Airbus was subjected to some very serious tail damage in about 2001, it is fair to assume the aircraft would be a likely candidate for a previously unseen stress fracture failure of the aft section of the Airbus. If so, the flash of heat observed by the intelligence satellite may have been caused by the an APU (Auxillliary Power Unite) located in the tail of the aircraft as the aft section of the fuselage and the tail broke off. Otherwise, the old damage and/or faulty maintence may have damaged the controls in a way which forced the elevator to pitch the nose of the aircraft towards the ground, and the aircraft’s increased speed in the dive caused the aircraft to breakup and explode.
Yes. Interesting. I favor the simplest and most likely theory—it broke apart because of shoddy maintenance. Of course, Russia will never admit that one of their jets fell apart and will do everything they can do to cultivate wild conspiracy theories.
According to Debka, they got SAM-8s via Libya...
40K ft range
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.