Was it a terror attack? 'Disintegrated' wreckage of plane carrying 116 found in Africa

There you have it folks. That's a wrap. Thanks. a reply to: bbracken677

Well thank you for that...ahem...valuable bit of information. That certainly cleared things up.a reply to: Buddyman

My condolences to those affected

a reply to: Buddyman

LOL that link...it's.. hilarious!!

Here are the rules:

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

So...what it is saying is that no one can argue or produce debunking proof...you have to swallow any wild theory.
No debate is allowed !!
I understand the politics and religion rule..not necessarily agree but hey! It's their forum.
The last one really gets me... ROFL... No other nuts other than a specific kind of nut are allowed on this site.

I have to bookmark that page...

so who shot down the algerian airplane a ufo or planet x?
I said it is the frensh no doubt

a reply to: adnanmuf

Yes, the frensh did it. The have this missile shaped like a wine bottle, powered by champagne.

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.

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.

Agree. I think people would be shocked if they knew that actual number of aircraft that crash around the world in any given month. These poor countries don't maintain their aircraft anywhere near the same way they are maintained in Europe, the Americas, Asia etc.

Besides if it was a terrorist attack why hasn't any group come forward to claim responsibility?