Russian Airliner

[davedan]

A Russian airliner broke apart and disintigrated while flying over the Sinai Penninsula killing 224 people. ISIS is claiming responsibility. The only problem is that Infrared Satellites detected a heat burst in the area at the time of the incident, the kind of heat burst rules out a missile launch. However, forensics of the crash and the bodies supposedly does not fit with a bomb going off from inside. That means the plane may have been taken down by some sort of "directed energy weapon". ISIS doesn't have this sort of technology.

While it may be impossible to tell for sure what happened with the Russian flight. In the end, the facts of the matter may not matter. What matters more may be what Vladamir Putin thinks happened. If Putin thinks the US is secretly behind ISIS and that the Russian plane was taken down ISIS or by an US energy weapon (right or wrong), then this incident could be a major provocation leading to war.

This isn't the first airliner to go missing or to be shot down in the last couple of years. Putin will also not like low oil and gas prices. Russia looses money when global oil prices drop below 50$/barrel. China looses money every time the US devalues our currency throught quantitative easing/money printing. In our current economic system, Walmart dictates the price and not the producer/manufacturer. So, as the US devalues our currency and prices at Walmart stay the same, its the manufacturers in China that get the pinch. This is economic warfare.

[JohnnyL]

No way Isis shot it down. And no way a bomb blew it up from the inside--never happened, never will on those types of planes.

[SmallFarm]

Satellite weapon?

[iWriteStuff]

Much simpler explanation:

[shadow]

No way Isis shot it down. And no way a bomb blew it up from the inside--never happened, never will on those types of planes.

Why couldn't it have blown up from the inside? Putting a bomb on a plane doesn't seem far fetched at all. It wouldn't even have to be a big bomb.

[Lizzy60]

It is not beyond Putin (or his henchmen) to have done this, and then to engineer the blame to fall on the US, giving him another reason to attack the US when he decides the time is favorable.

He is alleged to have done the same thing on a smaller scale (apartment buildings, a theater) in Russia, in order to solidify his power among the Russian people.

[Fiannan]

It is not beyond Putin (or his henchmen) to have done this, and then to engineer the blame to fall on the US, giving him another reason to attack the US when he decides the time is favorable.

He is alleged to have done the same thing on a smaller scale (apartment buildings, a theater) in Russia, in order to solidify his power among the Russian people.

Are you sure? I heard that ISIS converted Bigfoot and he sneaked on the plane wearing a burka and became a martyr for Allah.

[Elizabeth]

[JohnnyL]

It is not beyond Putin (or his henchmen) to have done this, and then to engineer the blame to fall on the US, giving him another reason to attack the US when he decides the time is favorable.

He is alleged to have done the same thing on a smaller scale (apartment buildings, a theater) in Russia, in order to solidify his power among the Russian people.

It likely wouldn't have been beyond the USA (see Operation Northwoods, 9/11).

[Todd]

No way Isis shot it down. And no way a bomb blew it up from the inside--never happened, never will on those types of planes.

I'm sorry. Can you please explain why a bomb cannot blow up an A321-200, from the inside? I'm pretty sure it's been done before, like Pan Am Flight 103, a 747 that was blown up (from the inside) over Lockerbie.

[JohnnyL]

Most airplane crashes have been black ops, and I have little doubt this one was, too. Search almost any of the big crashes--Lockerbie, Malaysia, 9/11, etc.--you'll find some great analyses showing official story--a terrorist bomb, usually--was, at best, extremely unlikely. Look at this one--"technical problems", some reported--yet no conversation between the pilot and ground?? Even if the engine had gone out, there would have been communication, a mayday at the very least.

Flight was at 31,000 feet--no weapon a terrorist would have could reach that high, much less hit it.

A very big bomb could blow up a very big plane. Those explosions you see on TV, where a small thing of C-4 blows up a huge house? No. Powerful, yes, but for certain reasons. Besides, terrorists aren't going to have C-4 unless Americans gave it to them. Oklahoma City bombings, one van did all that? Hardly. That was the result of multiple bombs, and I don't think they were made out of fertilizer.

Research sites that tear official crash stories to pieces.

[davedan]

my real point is not bomb vs laser but more what Putin thinks. Either was he's gonna blame the US.

[jsbaugh]

Most airplane crashes have been black ops, and I have little doubt this one was, too. Search almost any of the big crashes--Lockerbie, Malaysia, 9/11, etc.--you'll find some great analyses showing official story--a terrorist bomb, usually--was, at best, extremely unlikely. Look at this one--"technical problems", some reported--yet no conversation between the pilot and ground?? Even if the engine had gone out, there would have been communication, a mayday at the very least.

Flight was at 31,000 feet--no weapon a terrorist would have could reach that high, much less hit it.

A very big bomb could blow up a very big plane. Those explosions you see on TV, where a small thing of C-4 blows up a huge house? No. Powerful, yes, but for certain reasons. Besides, terrorists aren't going to have C-4 unless Americans gave it to them. Oklahoma City bombings, one van did all that? Hardly. That was the result of multiple bombs, and I don't think they were made out of fertilizer.

Research sites that tear official crash stories to pieces.

Tinfoil hat much? A very small bomb could easily bring down a jet especially at 31k feet. Rip a hole in the tail and watch the plane decompress and fall apart. It has happened on smaller planes a few times and inside the US.

[shadow]

Yep, planes are not some sturdy structure. They're actually quite thin skinned. A small bomb could take one down quite easily. And big booms can come from small bombs. Heck, a nuke can fit into a briefcase.

The question would be, one that could still allow people to wear a tin-foil hat, who done it?

[JohnnyL]

Airplanes seem to be weak, but as with most engineering, much stronger than they seem.

During the Lockerbie trial defense proved that a SUITCASE full of explosives in a baggage container could not have caused it--even that much would have had to been put right up against the fuselage to do what they claimed it did.

How are you going to rip a hole in the tail with an explosive? When has that been done?

Inside the US? When, where, which?
"Smaller"--sure, it would work with a Cessna. This was an Airbus.

Davedan,
Yup. But he's going to decide WHO could have done it, and who couldn't have. And unfortunately for the USA, I think he's pretty clear on who that WHO is and isn't already. There will be war with them before too many more years, and it won't be good for us, though it might be worse for them.

[skmo]

Besides, terrorists aren't going to have C-4 unless Americans gave it to them.

In 9th Grade Science, I learned how to make something very similar to the performance of RDX (the explosive component in C4.) The US may have control over C4, but Semtex is still available in lots of black markets around the world.

[skmo]

Airplanes seem to be weak, but as with most engineering, much stronger than they seem.

Also, as with most engineering, if you learn where the weaknesses are, a small explosion can cause a huge amount of damage. This problem only gets exacerbated when it's applied to a vehicle flying at 500knots some 30,000 feet in the sky.

Ask Sully Sullenberger how much damage even something as innocuous as a goose can cause to an Airbus 320.

[JohnnyL]

Let's talk reality here.
You could put a 300 ton bomb inside of most anything and blow it up.
A terrorist.
What will he be working with?
How will he be able to get it on the bomb, where will it be, how will no one notice it BEFORE it gets on the plane, or AFTER especially.
That kinda limits things, no?

[skmo]

Let's talk reality here.
You could put a 300 ton bomb inside of most anything and blow it up.
A terrorist.
What will he be working with?

The local grocery/hardware has everything one would need to make an exceedingly powerful explosive. It's not getting the ingredients, it's knowing how to use them. If I learned these things before I could drive, don't you think terrorists know as well? My knowledge was used for silly teenage pranks and foolish immature antics before the days when terrorism was a concern unless you were in Northern Ireland or the Middle East.

How will he be able to get it on the bomb, where will it be, how will no one notice it BEFORE it gets on the plane, or AFTER especially.
That kinda limits things, no?

How hard would it be to figure out who a baggage handler at an airport is and either bribe or blackmail them into helping? Now to compound that, how hard would it be to do that in Cairo where there are already many fanatics who justly or unjustly loathe the USA?

[dauser]

Mess with Israel...lose an airliner.

[JohnnyL]

"FSB head Alexander Bortnikov said a bomb containing the equivalent of 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of TNT went off aboard the Airbus, causing it to break apart in the air, which explains why the fuselage was scattered over such a large territory. I can certainly say that this was "a terrorist act," Bortnikov said."
Impossible. The Lockerbie trial already proved you would need a lot more of stronger stuff to do the job, even back then. Of course, not that that would affect the official story...

[Robin Hood]

"FSB head Alexander Bortnikov said a bomb containing the equivalent of 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of TNT went off aboard the Airbus, causing it to break apart in the air, which explains why the fuselage was scattered over such a large territory. I can certainly say that this was "a terrorist act," Bortnikov said."
Impossible. The Lockerbie trial already proved you would need a lot more of stronger stuff to do the job, even back then. Of course, not that that would affect the official story...

1kg of TNT (equivalent) would certainly bring down an airliner.

[JohnnyL]

"FSB head Alexander Bortnikov said a bomb containing the equivalent of 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of TNT went off aboard the Airbus, causing it to break apart in the air, which explains why the fuselage was scattered over such a large territory. I can certainly say that this was "a terrorist act," Bortnikov said."
Impossible. The Lockerbie trial already proved you would need a lot more of stronger stuff to do the job, even back then. Of course, not that that would affect the official story...

1kg of TNT (equivalent) would certainly bring down an airliner.

Nope.

[Dash jones]

"FSB head Alexander Bortnikov said a bomb containing the equivalent of 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of TNT went off aboard the Airbus, causing it to break apart in the air, which explains why the fuselage was scattered over such a large territory. I can certainly say that this was "a terrorist act," Bortnikov said."
Impossible. The Lockerbie trial already proved you would need a lot more of stronger stuff to do the job, even back then. Of course, not that that would affect the official story...

1kg of TNT (equivalent) would certainly bring down an airliner.

Nope.

It probably could I think, especially if it were near either the fuel lines or wing roots (where fuel is kept in many planes). Once the jet fuel catches, it's all over.

[Todd]

"FSB head Alexander Bortnikov said a bomb containing the equivalent of 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of TNT went off aboard the Airbus, causing it to break apart in the air, which explains why the fuselage was scattered over such a large territory. I can certainly say that this was "a terrorist act," Bortnikov said."
Impossible. The Lockerbie trial already proved you would need a lot more of stronger stuff to do the job, even back then. Of course, not that that would affect the official story...

1kg of TNT (equivalent) would certainly bring down an airliner.

Nope.

Sorry Johnny, but I'm gonna have to side with the bow man on this one. And yes, I do know one or two things about commercial airplanes.