224 feared dead in plane crash in Eygpt

fits

homerjay2005 wrote: »

more to do with our taxation laws than anything else. i doubt many young Irish people are even employed in those companies, considering most of them are actually based abroad.

I was being sarcastic. Of course its about tax.

Fr_Dougal

BBC and Sky reporting that there may have been an explosive onboard the flight.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34724604

http://news.sky.com/story/1581778/no-10-explosive-device-may-have-downed-plane

The Russian jet that crashed in Egypt "may well have been brought down by an explosive device", Downing Street has said.

So is it possible that it really was ISIS? Or at least a group associated with them.

The_Valeyard

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So is it possible that it really was ISIS? Or at least a group associated with them.

All speculation, but yeah, suppose it is possible.

Well, they did claim responsibility quite soon after the attack, I believe?

Amirani

Flights to UK from Sharm el Sheikh all stopped pending investigation.

Saipanne

I wonder which Abrahamic religion caused this...

Autonomous Cowherd

Still following this closely. I suppose it is quite possible that the explosion that is bing talked of may have originated in a technical fault. From most sources I have seen till now there is mention often that none of the wreckage has explosive residue...I suppose they mean the bad sort of intentional explosive? It still may have been a mechanical failure of airplane not related to terrorism. I will wait to see what the investigators say, as terrorism really is a dangerous outcome. I note also that the Russian investigators and media are being reserved and professional and not speculating overly much.

The_Valeyard

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well, they did claim responsibility quite soon after the attack, I believe?

And everyone dismissed it very quickly. May have jumped the gun early there?

JohnDee

The Egyptian authorities dismissed ISIS claim/terrorism very quickly......but then again with their reliance on tourist revenue they would wouldn't they.

RobertKK

US believe a worker at the airport is responsible for the bombing of the plane.

Talking about it on CNN, they said the holy grail is to have a person working at an airport with access to sensitive areas for the security of the plane.
Speculated there could be more of these type of people working at other middle eastern airports.

BoJack Horseman

Always wondered, why the hell do airports spend so much time searching passengers when the guy deliverng cans of cola for the planes use can be delivering anything really.

asherbassad

JohnDee wrote: »

The Egyptian authorities dismissed ISIS claim/terrorism very quickly......but then again with their reliance on tourist revenue they would wouldn't they.

So massacres at Luxor, or a coup that saw the deaths and maimings of thousands, the ongoing tortures and killing of activists and opposition political figures over the course of the last 10 years, they just took in their stride, that never put off a tourist... but they feared losing a load of holiday dollars over this even though their tourist industry is a fart in the pot compared to the cash they receive from the pentagon?

Great analysis there.

Let me guess...they crack down on local lads whistling at blondes from Denmark because it could crush their economy.

:pac:

asherbassad

Amazing isn't it? For 14 years we are taking our fcuking shoes, belts, knickers, baby food and what not off at airports according to american protocol and still the idiots can't prevent this yet they know immediately what happened.

Can we start carrying a bottle of water back onto a plane now and have our toothpaste back because your measures to keep everyone 'safe' are so effective?

asherbassad

seamus wrote: »

Looks now like mid-air mechanical failure caused the aircraft to break up, which makes me glad to say I was wrong.

Although IS got roundly mocked for claiming responsibility for this, there are some rumblings that it could have been an explosive device that caused it to break up.

I'd say you're wrong again.

asherbassad

seamus wrote: »

No you're right, they don't. Aircraft have even lost big chunks of their fuselage mid-flight and still landed safely.
Allegedly the pilot had expressed concerns about the state of the aircraft (according to his wife), so a very poorly maintained aircraft could potentially break up like this. The wind forces at hand are pretty huge, so loss of integrity in one part of an aircraft can lead to the whole thing being ripped apart by the stress. Very rare though.
A Russian authority trying to distance itself from culpability is what it sounds like. "We couldn't possibly be liable here, it must be something else".

I would treat any statements from the Russians about this with extreme suspicion.

An external collision means it either collided with another aircraft (at 10,000m, could only be military), or was hit by a missile. The lack of any debris from another craft would require the second scenario, which limits the culprits pretty much either to the Egyptians, or an ISIL group operating a SAM.*

Neither of which sound very plausible. If it had been Egypt, they probably would have owned up to it. If it was ISIL, the web would be flooded with videos of the weapon firing its missile.

A breakup from within sounds most likely, whether that's a mechanical issue or an explosive device.

* Or off-the-wall scenario three where a jet fighter engaged and downed it

BULLSH!T

asherbassad

seamus wrote: »

No you're right, they don't. Aircraft have even lost big chunks of their fuselage mid-flight and still landed safely.
Allegedly the pilot had expressed concerns about the state of the aircraft (according to his wife), so a very poorly maintained aircraft could potentially break up like this. The wind forces at hand are pretty huge, so loss of integrity in one part of an aircraft can lead to the whole thing being ripped apart by the stress. Very rare though.
A Russian authority trying to distance itself from culpability is what it sounds like. "We couldn't possibly be liable here, it must be something else".

I would treat any statements from the Russians about this with extreme suspicion.

An external collision means it either collided with another aircraft (at 10,000m, could only be military), or was hit by a missile. The lack of any debris from another craft would require the second scenario, which limits the culprits pretty much either to the Egyptians, or an ISIL group operating a SAM.*

Neither of which sound very plausible. If it had been Egypt, they probably would have owned up to it. If it was ISIL, the web would be flooded with videos of the weapon firing its missile.

A breakup from within sounds most likely, whether that's a mechanical issue or an explosive device.

* Or off-the-wall scenario three where a jet fighter engaged and downed it

End of any credibility any post you ever make again might have.

asherbassad

I suppose it only stands to reason now that if ISIS knocked this plane out of the sky and murdered 200+ Russian civilians including women and children then Russia should go all out and incinerate every single IS camp, depot, training site, the lot.

Bomb everything that even looks like a kid with a black flag. Arrest and torture and kill everyone and everything that even looks like an ISIS person.

That would be the American response if a US passenger airliner was blown up so I would imagine it ought to be acceptable for the Russians to blow a hole in the world when their citizens get offed too.

Yes?

darkpagandeath

asherbassad wrote: »

I suppose it only stands to reason now that if ISIS knocked this plane out of the sky and murdered 200+ Russian civilians including women and children then Russia should go all out and incinerate every single IS camp, depot, training site, the lot.

Bomb everything that even looks like a kid with a black flag. Arrest and torture and kill everyone and everything that even looks like an ISIS person.

That would be the American response if a US passenger airliner was blown up so I would imagine it ought to be acceptable for the Russians to blow a hole in the world when their citizens get offed too.

Yes?

Great fairytale when exactly has that ever happened ?

Autonomous Cowherd

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Great fairytale when exactly has that ever happened ?

After 9/11. No?

darkpagandeath

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

After 9/11. No?

Thousands of dead multiple plane strikes on a world renowned land mark in America. is slightly different. All a direct Terrorist organised plot and action.

Autonomous Cowherd

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Thousands of dead multiple plane strikes on a world renowned land mark in America. is slightly different. All a direct Terrorist organised plot and action.

Uh, the point was that in the wake of approximately 3000 US deaths there have been MILLIONS of civilians in Middle East who have lost their lives as direct and indirect result of US response. It is known as ''The War on Terror.''

darkpagandeath

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

Uh, the point was that in the wake of approximately 3000 US deaths there have been MILLIONS of civilians in Middle East who have lost their lives as direct and indirect result of US response. It is known as ''The War on Terror.''

No, the point was in relation to a bomb on one plane then the goal post got moved. This is a tragic event if a bomb still could be mechanical. But comparing 9/11 to this is ridiculous beyond belief.

Autonomous Cowherd

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No, the point was in relation to a bomb on one plain then the goal post got moved. This is a tragic event if a bomb still could be mechanical. But comparing 9/11 to this is ridiculous beyond belief.

I was not comparing the two events.
Read back and see what the train of thoughts was.

Asherbassadd was being somewhat ironical wondering if Russian response to a terrorist attack would be commensurate with US response to their terrorist attacks.
You suggested a response lacking in proportion by US forces was a ''great fairy tale''.
I responded by suggesting that evidence in history shows that US response to terrorism has not been proportionate and is therefore not a great fairy tale.

That is all I was saying.

darkpagandeath

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

I was not comparing the two events.
Read back and see what the train of thoughts was.

Asherbassadd was being somewhat ironical wondering if Russian response to a terrorist attack would be commensurate with US response to their terrorist attacks.
You suggested a response lacking in proportion by US forces was a ''great fairy tale''.
I responded by suggesting that evidence in history shows that US response to terrorism has not been proportionate and is therefore not a great fairy tale.

That is all I was saying.

I know exactly what one means, It's more directed at that other poster and what was posted is a Fairytale. This not the Russians 9/11 did Holland go and bomb the middle east ? I find it very interesting the Same Russian media disregarding the BUK missile as it did not support their narrative. Now using American and Western MSM to backup their claims about a bomb. It could be a bomb but the plane had also suffered a tail strike in the past. It's not like it was in an area planes were already getting shot down in like Mh.

Autonomous Cowherd

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I know exactly what one means, It's more directed at that other poster and what was posted is a Fairytale. This not the Russians 9/11 did Holland go and bomb the middle east ? I find it very interesting the Same Russian media disregarding the BUK missile as it did not support their narrative. Now using American and Western MSM to backup their claims about a bomb. It could be a bomb but the plane had also suffered a tail strike in the past. It's not like it was in an area planes were already getting shot down in like Mh.

Actually if you would read the sources correctly the Russians have said very little about what caused the plane to crash..in fact from the beginning they have denied rushing to terrorism as an explanation. It is US and UK sources that first came forward with the explosion theory and are now consolidating towards a bomb theory. The Russian media so far are only reporting these US and UK assessments, but no authority has come forward from Moscow Yet with a conclusion.
Personally I still have not got any certainly about what happened in this tragic case. I also do not think Russia would respond drastically to the terrorist downing of the aircraft if such was the case, just as Netherlands did not.

On a side note, but relevant since the whole area seems such a flash point and minds are being concentrated by a civilian plane crash, an interesting article for anyone interested in whole Russia/US geopolitics in present time is this one...Just had a gawk at it.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article189146.html

nullzero

As for comparing this incident to something else I think the closest comparison would be the Lockerbie bombing.

threeball

nullzero wrote: »

As for comparing this incident to something else I think the closest comparison would be the Lockerbie bombing.

How can you compare it to anything when you don't know what brought it down?

donegaLroad

How was a device planted on the plane? That is the biggest worry for airline companies at the minute.

Could it have been that the bagage handlers were involved while loading the plane?

kneemos

The Americans have detected a heat flash from their military radar apparently.
Dunno if that signifies a bomb on the aircraft or a missile.