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

a reply to: hutch622

That's a huge stretch to get a shootdown to fit.

a reply to: lovebeck



Pilot error to that extent will cause a plane to break up in flight.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Does huge equal impossible , there are air to air stinger right .

a reply to: hutch622

The odds of that are only slightly better than the earlier suggestion that a laser was used.

A few facts:

We have an aircraft type with a known issue with the pitot tubes that has caused one crash previously. We have an aircraft with reported technical problems for the week prior to the accident. The aircraft flew for an airline with a previous history of maintenance problems. The pilot reported it was in poor condition technically prior to takeoff.

So let's jump to it was shot down because a terrorist group known to lie about their accomplishments said they did.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I am not jumping to any conclusions , i just threw something out there , i mean 2 planes could not take down the world trade centres could they .

a reply to: hutch622

That wasn't just for you. That was for the thread in general as much.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Pilot error to that extent will cause a plane to break up in flight.

But what will cause pilot error to that extent?

What about hacking? Could this be a first major case of an airline being taken down by hackers? Although if that were the case, I would think it'd be more like serious military computer experts than some dorks with 'anonymous' masks, living off Mtn Dew, from mom's basement, etc.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: lovebeck

Pilot error to that extent will cause a plane to break up in flight.

Breaking on RT:

Only external force could have broken apart crashed Russian airliner – owner

No other information given, like what facts lead him to that conclusion.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I agree , given Isis production efforts in the past i would have expected a very good video of the shoot down if in fact that was what happened . Deny ignorance does not mean deny possibilities .

a reply to: 11andrew34

Frozen pitot tubes caused several incidents similar to this and led to the Air France 447 crash. The computer thinks the plane is flying to fast or too slow and if the pilots take the wrong action they get into serious trouble.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

The owner is covering his ass.

a reply to: hutch622

No but there are more realistic possibilities and there are less realistic possibilities.

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: Zaphod58

I am not jumping to any conclusions , i just threw something out there , i mean 2 planes could not take down the world trade centres could they .

Little bit different, 2 planes could and did bring down the WTC, flying around in a Small Aircraft looking like a Toyota Pick Up with a man and a MANPAD is a little bit out there.

For a start, the back blast would probably burn everyone inside, including the pilot. The wind speed against an un-aerodynamic head and MANPAD would probably be too much for the shooter to take, you need to have access to an aircraft, a MANPAD and be able to fly close to civilian aircraft without alerting ATC and the Airforce, not to mention intelligence, to pull it all together without alerting someone.

Its just that is so far out there, its not even borderline plausible but I will ask Mythbusters to take a look....

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Rosinitiate

The owner is covering his ass.

He's still going to have to offer an explanation. You can't just say "wasn't us" and walk away.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

He doesn't have to do crap, the investigators have to come up with a cause. He has to reassure his passengers that his airline didn't screw up so they keep flying on his planes.

a reply to: Forensick

Its just that is so far out there, its not even borderline plausible

It was just an idea , but the fact that you have said its implausible must mean it cant be done , i mean that would be like putting men on the moon with the computing power of a modern wristwatch would it not .

originally posted by: Xarian6
a reply to: stumason

EDIT/ADD: I'm leaning more to a bomb on the plane, and Egypt having a critical security lapse.. i don't buy the accident theory pushed by a few influential members.. i think the only reason we're still debating anything is Russia wants to be 100% sure before it lays the hammer down in response.

They do [I]appear[/I] to be leaning towards something like a bomb, perhaps?

The Russian airline Kogalymavia has blamed "external activity" for Saturday's Sinai plane crash which killed 224 people.

One airline official said: "The only reasonable explanation is that it was [due to] external activity."

An investigation by aviation experts using data from the aircraft's "black boxes" has yet to give its conclusions.

A Kremlin spokesman has told the BBC terrorism could not be ruled out as a possible cause of the crash.

At a news conference in Moscow, the deputy director of the airline, which was renamed as Metrojet, ruled out a technical fault and pilot error.

"The only explicable reason for the plane to have been destroyed in mid-air can be specific impact, purely mechanical, physical influence on the aircraft," Alexander Smirnov said.

BBC

a reply to: stumason

You gotta look at what's not being said/pushed, it's as if the simplest answer is being completely overlooked.

what leads me to this train of thought.. is a few things.

For one, if the vid is indeed the plane in question, then they knew exactly when the event was to occur.
The plan was probably played out over weeks, they found the perfect target that had troubles already.. spotty records, gaps in security and maintenance could have given them a free run at a plane not many cared all that much about... filled with russians on it's way to russia.

There are 100's maybe 1000's of badly maintained Aircraft in our sky's,, the chances of this one suddenly failing at such a critical location swarming with angry militants is significantly lower than the chance a militant group successfully destroyed it via an organized bombing.

that's just the odd's, they are stacked against "accidental/failure" and well in favor of the latter in conflict zone.

We'll see what the data brings

a reply to: stumason

And those people are idiots who think the world is black and white and simply do not get the multifaceted and nuanced conflict going on in Syria

Blah blah, the idiots are the ones defending Proxy Terrorism as a means of subduing Syria. They aren't any better than the thugs they hired to do their dirty work.

a reply to: intrptr

And, as usual, completely missing the point I was making - namely, those people who think Syria rebels = IS, therefore the West is "arming IS" are idiots

I'm not sure why I bother, to be honest. You won't take any heed of what I say and will ramble on with your nonsense anyway. While we're on the subject, I suppose you're ok with Russia talking to the Taliban, though?

Either they're all as bad "as the Thugs hired to do their dirty work" or the world is actually a more complicated place than certain, simplistic people would have us believe.