ISIS Claims It Shot Down A US Warplane Over Iraq, Crew Reportedly Killed

a reply to: intrptr

I thought it might be "phosphorus" screening not flares.

I just sent this video over to a buddy.

He's Blackhawk crew. His take is this.

"No missile at all. Anti aircraft gun from underneath to the rear. It is hit and the tail fan blows out."

That's evidently what the flashes are. AA round hits. Smoke starts then the tail blows up due to damage.

This what a TOW hit would look like.





The thing would have fallen out of the sky immediately according to him.

We should PROJECTXVN in here for confirmation. He's air crew also.

a reply to: thesungod

Those we definitly NOT flares that were fired.

I've popped flares a lot flying in Afghanistan.

They are too short lived, there's no smoke trail(video).

Even if they were chaff you'd see a lot of sparkling.

It was an AA gun that took that bird down.

a reply to: projectvxn

So that's two air crew for AA gun.

Thanks VXN.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ya know, you always seem to be johnny-on-the-spot with a lot of these threads, but never seem to have anything to back it up. Yet people still read and believe.

I find that odd to say the least.

Quite a few other posters always seem to actually have sources to back their claims, and they're always "wrong" to you because know better via your anecdotal sources.

Are you ever going to tell us WHY we should actually believe you over anybody else, or should we just trust you and your sources?

a reply to: Chickensalad

If an aircraft went down in Syria or Iraq due to ISIS we'd know about it before the family was informed. There's no hiding something like that.

The media does do a good job of reporting erroneous information, however.

Google Arrowsmith 35. I was with that unit as an augment for tier 1 missions.

Many of the news reports were outright lies that were never retracted and corrected.

a reply to: ColaTesla

No it isn't...zerohedge is a rag of anti US garbage that has been far from right many times.

a reply to: thesungod

Project agrees those weren't countermeasures.

I'm familiar with TOWs. The fireball is brief but huge, way bigger than AA rounds.



The explosion is aft, not on fuel tank or weapons stores. Not sure how an AA round bursting could generate that secondary.

Imo, The camera was focused on that bird because they were planning this way ahead of time. They had to, to figure out the route of the helos, set up the TOW in advance, shoot and track. The TOW isn't fire and forget its tracked to target by gunner on wire in a somewhat narrow field of view.

a reply to: intrptr

ProjectVXN also said AA gun.

The TOW talk is just propaganda. A TOW would have obliterated the tail. Helos have no armor in comparison to tanks and a TOW disabled a T-90 with reactive armor.

The explosion you've chosen to focus on is a secondary. AKA the bird was damaged from fire to the rear/underneath that explosion is coming from the helo, not from fire on the helo.

If it were a TOW your smoke trail would be one solid line, not choppy. That smoke is coming from hits.

I was air assalut, but only ever took small arms fire while on board Blackhawks and Chinooks. I bow out and differ to my buddy and VXN, both air crew.

a reply to: thesungod

If it were a TOW your smoke trail would be one solid line, not choppy. That smoke is coming from hits.

TOW engine is designed smokeless to prevent obscuring the target in the view finder, i.e., no smoke trail.

The explosion you've chosen to focus on is a secondary.

From what, exactly?

The TOW talk is just propaganda.

Subjective.

Further:

A TOW would have obliterated the tail.

.
Auto gyration to the ground supports that.

a reply to: intrptr

Ignoring the opinion of two in the know guys. You just want this to be a TOW to fit whatever narrative.

I'm done with ya.

Have a good one.

a reply to: thesungod

I can see what happened with my own eyes. Thanks for not answering my question.

a reply to: thesungod

Ignoring the opinion of two in the know guys. You just want this to be a TOW to fit whatever narrative.

Not admitting to being wrong is a problem with people here...don't let it discourage you.

a reply to: intrptr

Eat: Yah, go fill screen you see the smoke puffs from rockets being fired. That also lends to TOW, they never saw or detected it coming. And it exploded aft on impact wth the tail, not center like a heat seeker hitting the engines or exhaust cowlings.

TOW engine is designed smokeless to prevent obscuring the target in the view finder, i.e., no smoke trail.

Which is it? And what is the choppy line of smoke and pre explosions?

This is why I'm done with you, FYI. It's obvious you just want this to be a TOW for whatever reason.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I don't have this problem. I don't understand it.

Here's an example last post of this thread.

a reply to: Chickensalad

Because I have a long history of being right and backing up what I've said, when there's a source to back it up. I don't always post sources because sometimes it's put together through five or six different places, putting a picture together.

a reply to: intrptr

It's called an autorotation and that's not what happened.

Loss of tail rotor thrust.

The explosions are AA hits on the tail. Those shells are explosive. TOW blasts are HUGE. Which is not what we saw. We saw explosive AA hitting the tail, the oil under pressure in the tail rotor gearbox flash ignited(due to hot magnesium in the shell) and that's were you get your fireball.

a reply to: projectvxn

TOW blasts are HUGE. Which is not what we saw. We saw explosive AA hitting the tail, the oil under pressure in the tail rotor gearbox flash ignited(due to hot magnesium in the shell) and that's were you get your fireball.

Thats a huge fireball alright. Bigger even than the helicopter.



I know your experience and respect your opinion. I still say its bigger than an aa hit on hydraulic fluid. Appears to be, doesn't auto eliminate a TOW.

Isn't incendiary ammo based on Thermate?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok. I suppose I'll just take your word on it.

originally posted by: opethPA


There's plenty of "evidence". It's evident that isis is claiming responsibility is it not? That's a start. It's no proof but the claim itself is a form of evidence.

But now you are simply taking it into the ridiculous. When you keep it more relevant and realistic like this :

"I confess that i murdered the person you found dead last week in that lake"

Try and tell me this is not Seriously considered to be evidence.
DigitalVigilante420 is simply correct in stating that it is definitely evidence. I dont see why you try to downplay the fact.

a reply to: everyone

In that example there's a dead body found. I this case the only "evidence" is their claim they did it. No pictures of wreckage, no reports of an aircraft down, no video, nothing but a claim.