It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It’s rare to see physics being used as an effective tool to comment on current events, but astrophysicists Tom van Doorsslaere and Giovanni Lapenta of the Belgian KU Leuven used some simple Newtonian mechanics to show that both the Russian and Turkish accounts of what happened with the downed jet can’t be right.
On the Russian map, it can be seen that the plane makes a ninety degree turn after it was hit, which is quite impossible. According to the physicists, the only way this could be achieved is if the momentum of the incoming rocket was so much larger than the momentum of the jet that the latter would be negligible. “A change of course of 90 degrees can only be achieved with an object that’s many times heavier or faster than the jet,” the physicists write. From this we can conclude that the jets were not actively trying to avoid Turkish territory, which is the Russian side of the story. Physics 3, Turkey 0, Russia 0.
Personally I think both sides are at fault, though Turkey are the bigger transgressor in this instance.
The Acting Undersecretary of the Ministry summoned the Ambassador of the Russian Federation in Ankara to the Ministry and strongly protested this violation, demanded that any such violation not be repeated and affirmed that, otherwise, the Russian Federation will be responsible for any undesired incident that may occur.
originally posted by: intrptr
Belgium is NATO, of course they want to sow confusion about it.
They want us focused on whose side the jet was on, that part is clear. The Russian jets are helping the Syrians.
originally posted by: Belgianbloke
So everyone is lying, ha go figure.
Question is... Why would Russia be lying if it could easily prove that the Turkish government is lying. the Math proves it.
So could it be, the Russian bomber came from a totally different direction, maybe a classified base in a neighboring country? That would explain why they would rather give a bogus flight plan.
Just guessing here.
originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: djz3ro
Now I am not saying yes Turkey was right, nor am I saying Russia was right...but they both could have avoided this that's for sure.
This is an independent analyse from a teacher at a college lol. No agenda there.
But if you read the article it says BOTH stories are bogus.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Belgianbloke
This is an independent analyse from a teacher at a college lol. No agenda there.
But if you read the article it says BOTH stories are bogus.
Hah, Universities have big agendas. To make good robots of their students. The article stated that both can't be right. I agree. One side is lying.
Question is... Why would Russia be lying if it could easily prove that the Turkish government is lying.
Hope this doesn't come across negatively but did you read the article linked? It states categorically that both sides are wrong not that both sides can't be right…
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: djz3ro
There is a flaw. It misinterprets the turkish warnings. The warnings were they were approaching Turkish airspace and to turn south. Secondly it also claims, incorrectly, the warnings were given once they entered Turkish airspace, which is incorrect.
The warnings occurred prior to entering turkish airspace.
originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Belgianbloke
Question is... Why would Russia be lying if it could easily prove that the Turkish government is lying.
Here is a better question...if they have it why haven't they shown it?
originally posted by: djz3ro
originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: djz3ro
Now I am not saying yes Turkey was right, nor am I saying Russia was right...but they both could have avoided this that's for sure.
Absolutely. There was no good reason for this to have happened.