Posted on 11/03/2015 4:03:32 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
“It was apparently less than 30 minutes after takeoff, maybe it hadn’t reached max altitude?”
The aircraft was at an altitude of around 31,000 to 33,000 feet when the incident occurred, which is its cruising altitude that day.
Certainly it is possible. The reason I doubt it is because of the timing and location. Russia did not start bombing ISIS that long ago. ISIS only recently called for attacks on Russians. So sure, it certainly could be that it was worn out metal. I do not think ISIS is that lucky. They are evil. If it was an accident, they are evil enough to immediately take credit. I don’t know. They are evil enough to take the credit when it is not due. My money is on the premise that they actually had something to do with it.
There was another plane that went down a while back where they took credit and everyone said “I don’t know I don’t know...” until the pilot ended up on one of their snuff films. I don’t remember the details. Do you?
“ISIS would have had no trouble at all getting one or more crew served AA missiles that could do this, all of it thanks to Obola and The Witch.”
Those unproven assumptions have no relevance in this incident, because the visual evidence before our eyes indicates the aircraft was not struck by any shrapnel from the warhead of a missile. for a missile to have exploded and destroyed this aircraft, there must be shrapnel holes and pieces of the actual shrapnel present where we can clearly see there are none.
Apparently we denied they shot that one down, too.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30600500
Those news stories about the shoot down of a Jordanian F-16 at low altitudes with a shoulder fired are irrelevant in this case, because such a should fired weapon has no capability whatsoever to reach the 31,000 altitude of the airliner. The F-16 was shot down while at less than 12,000 foot altitude. Furthermore, the wreckage of the Airbus does not have any shrapnel damage from a missile warhead, so we know it was not shot down by a missile.
Far more F-16 fighters have been lost to engine failures and other system failures than to any kind of enemy action, so it should be no surprise the ISIS claim is a fraud.
The US probably doesn’t want it to be a missile because it probably came from Benghazi and makes us look even worse in the ME
The Egyptians are trying to salvage their tourist industry
Oddly, it’s the Russians seeking the truth for once
False flag operation.
The Russians took it down to take so folks would stop talking about the mh370 report.
We all know the Russians have fewer issues with collateral damage than others (think Moscow movie theatre).
“we know it was not shot down by a missile”
_______________________________________________________
ISIS has SAM-8s with vertical range exceeding 40,000 feet
They already shot down an Assad cargo plane with one
It’s not out of the question with them- but I think it won’t help his domestic support, polls showed Russians have little stomach for casualties on the ground in Ukraine and Syria... this might be the last thing he needed
I think it is way too early to be so sure about everything. Reports say one thing and then another. Time will hopefully tell. I still say it is all too convenient to be an accident.
No. Both have about the same range
The missile's maximum range is 4800 meters, which is comparable to the Igla, but it has a much shorter minimum range (200 meters versus the Igla's 800 meter minimum). It is one of the fastest MANPADS missiles, traveling at Mach 2.2. 7. Proliferation.
Given the description of the scattered debris, it sounds like Lockerie and the Pan Am jet that was blown up in the 1980s.
With NDI inspections, there is not much of a risk for undetected stress fractures/failures.
“Also look at what happened to a 131st Tactical Fighter Wing F-15 when it prematurely cracked and broke apart in mid-air, grounding the fleet of F-15 aircraft.”
The portion of the canopy rail that failed was not subject to NDI inspections that would have caught it. The canopy rails were over-built and all that BUT that rail was somehow thinner than all the other rails in the F-15 fleet—hence the failure.
Post 47 and 66, please.
The claims of a missile just don’t add up to me... easy to smuggle shoulder fired can’t reach 30k+... SAM type systems are big, complex, require training, and leave a trace that anyone looking for would catch if it were used.
Most likely and probable caus if it was blown up, is simply some fundamentalist infiltration on the ground planting a bomb or other sabotage, or you had a Muslim Russian on the plane with a bomb and yes they do exist (Crimean Tartar etc).
That's about as massive of a structural/radical depressurization as you could expect, and the plane did not completely break apart in the air... in fact it landed safely, with only 1 casualty a stewardess who was not buckled in at the time of the failure.
United 811 had a major decompression as well, caused by a cargo door opening and busting through the fuselage.... it too did not break apart. Explosive decompression even massive ones like these don't seem to blow airplanes apart in air, even when flying at 500 MPH plus when the events occur. Other crashes blamed on structural failures that I can recall didn't break up in flight... I recall one where the real cargo door was repaired but only used 2 instead of 3 rows of rivets so the flex of pressurization/depressurization eventually lead to it just tearing apart in flight with massive decompression and loss of the airplane.
This plane is spread across 8 miles, it came apart in the air... meaning it broke up in the air, I have a hard time believing bad maintenance would have caused this to happen. I will happily sit back and accept someone with far more knowledge than myself on this, if they claim otherwise... an explosive decompression can certainly lead to the loss of an aircraft, but to completely break apart in air from a undetected stress fracture I would think would be unlikely.
Explosions are generally required for such things.. TWA 800, Lockerbie etc.
“ISIS has SAM-8s with vertical range exceeding 40,000 feet”
The maximum altitude for the SA-8 GECKO 9K33M3 Osa-AKM is 12,000 meters.
“They already shot down an Assad cargo plane with one”
Which aircraft was that?
What does that have to do with the Russian Airbus that has no missile shrapnel in it that is required for a missile of any kind to shoot down the Airbus?
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.