Islamic State releases video of shooting Russian plane out of the sky

a reply to: Zaphod58

For a structural failure i suppose some signs should have been detected by the pilots, do you agree (i'm no expert)? At 40 000 ft most of the strain/pressure should have been less than the take off and the immediate rising? I'm just guessing here. sorry.

It's curious that structural failure didn't gave any previous warning or signs to the pilots...

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: Zaphod58

For a structural failure i suppose some signs should have been detected by the pilots, do you agree (i'm no expert)? At 40 000 ft most of the strain/pressure should have been less than the take off and the immediate rising? I'm just guessing here. sorry.

It's curious that structural failure didn't gave any previous warning or signs to the pilots...

The strain could have weakened the repair, I'm not sure if Airbus have to do major repairs or the airline.

As far as structural failure, a rapid decompression is just that, Rapid! If it can pull a plane apart in milliseconds you don't have much chance to send warnings.

a reply to: voyger2

The structural failure would have come as a result of the oscillations the aircraft was doing.

The strain on the fuselage is actually greater while cruising. Once the aircraft is pressurized it expands several inches. That puts a lot of wear on the airframe, and is why hours are almost irrelevant when talking aircraft, and cycles are so important.

a reply to: Nikola014

The thing is, Russia hasn't been more successful. They're trying to prevent isis from taking Damascus which the US doesn't care about because they want Assad out and as of right now isis is holding a lot of territory. There's nothing to say that Russia has done much except add fuel to the fire. No one wants isis to take over Syria, but if the maps showing current territory under isis control are correct then we have only a small clue as to how bad things have gotten. Aleppo and Damascus appear to be the only somewhat safe areas in the entire country. Isis is free to attack wherever they want minus the border near Turkey and Kurdish controlled territory. They will continue to assault the smaller and indefensible towns and villages. So what exactly has Russia accomplished that no one else seems to be able to do? They've done nothing. The US has done nothing. We should leave and let this region destroy itself. The world would be better off. I say the US has played a very fragile game in that they are using the instability to get their own people installed in Syrian government, but are also trying to balance controlling isis just enough to let them cause ruckus. It's a very horrible situation. The US will not put the hammer down until Assad leaves. If Russia is so great then where have they been all this time? If you're Syrian government then you're probably thinking "it took you this long to help us? Some ally..."

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Sorry to say but that's as much of an emotional, knee-jerk reaction I've ever heard. I'm so sick of people thinking the US (and UK) are responsible for every pimple on this planet. And, by the way, your new pal Putin knows very well what it takes for terrorists to shoot a commercial airliner out of the sky. It took Russian military hardware and training to take down MH17.

Last time I checked ISIS did not manufacture their own ground to air missiles and I don't think its in Russia's best interest to supply ISIS with missiles to shoot down Russian fighters. So that leaves whom?

a reply to: glend

And yet they're using Chinese and Russian missiles as well as Singers. None of which would have shot this plane down.

The video: If structural failure occurred, the tail would have just torn off without the fire and smoke. There's nothing in the tail section of that plane to burn so furiously. Fuel is in the wings.

a reply to: glend

And you're 100% certain the plane was shot down?

a reply to: elfrog

Multiple hydraulic lines with extremely flammable fluid, as well as fuel lines for the APU all run through the tail section.

a reply to: MrSpad

oh come on putin has proved usa guilty of funding isis,but as always mr spad you step in to defend the usa,
and actually nearly everyone knows the usa have been funding isis.
funny another briccs nation needs regime change
so america not wanting to loose the petroldollar has destabalised the entire globe like a spoilt child.

SNIP

a reply to: stuthealien

Explain how everyone knows. What is this evidence? I want to see what everyone is talking about because I keep looking for something that is irrefutable and I can't find it.

a reply to: BrokedownChevy

here you go hear it from putin himself putin states america funded and armed isis

a reply to: stuthealien

No not from putin lol. I'm going to need something a little more impartial.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DerekJR321

No that's the RAT. The APU is basically a jet engine in the back of the aircraft that provides power on the ground. The RAT is used when all power is lost to provide basic controls and limited power.

Ah.. okay. Appreciate the clarification.

this is the president of russia stating on cam ,exactly who funded isis and you refuse to believe it hahaha
i guess you only believe obama!!!!

but heres more link1
link2
heres some national news paper link3
link4

im eating now so if you require further links of which there is 1000's let me know ,but im sure you will refuse to accept the truth

a reply to: DogMeat

Could they have used a drone to gain some altitude ?

a reply to: stuthealien

I don't believe either since they're in a never ending proxy war with each other. One could see how it's hard to trust either when the name of the propaganda game here is to get people on their side. I'll look at your links in a minute. I just want to be convinced and I'm highly skeptical that everything is so black and white.

Glenn died

a reply to: stumason

The plane was filled with Russians. ISIS is mad at Russia for bombing them in Syria. It came down over ISIS held territory.

Purely coincidental, of course.

Nm.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I like my three strikes better.


Edit: foul!