It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
No debunking and disruption. Debunking and disruption will lead to suspension.
The existence of Planet X and the truthfulness of ZetaTalk are not debatable.
This ning does not focus on religion or politics, so these types of questions will be declined as a distraction from the issue at hand.
ZetaTalk only. Posting of or discussion regarding material alleged to be channeled or otherwise relayed by entities other than the STO Zetas to anyone other than Nancy Lieder of ZetaTalk.com is not allowed on this site
originally posted by: Zaphod58
You guys do realize that accidents are more likely to happen right after an accident occurs right? It's statistically shown that after an aircraft accident, the odds of there being another one go up. There have even been cases where multiple accidents happened on the same day.
Now you have an older plane (first flew in 1996), which was designed or medium range flights, and had 32,000 cycles on it. That's a lot of cycles on an aircraft and puts a lot of wear and tear on an airframe. It had to fly through the area that hurricanes form in, which means a lot of storms, some of them strong.
So you have an older aircraft that's approaching its structural limit in cycles (if it hadn't passed it already) flying through a heavy strong storm area, with a storm known to be in the area.
I'd say it's FAR more likely that it suffered a catastrophic failure than it was shot down.