ikolkyo wrote:

scbriml wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

The Iranians coming out and saying "The pilot tried to return the airport and failed" just smelled like total BS looking at the information we had from the beginning.

Except the plane clearly turned from its original NW heading to a SE one. So there is that.

Can I see this information? I have not come across this at all.

It's in this thread, probably a few pages back - an excellent map showing the ADSB track and crash location.

That video looks pretty damn authentic to me... We will see, though.

edu2703 wrote:

Alleged video of a missile hitting the aircraft. Can't confirm the authenticity

https://twitter.com/NarimanGharib/statu ... 6937928705

Where are the navigation lights / strobes on the 737????

Polot wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

The Iranians coming out and saying "The pilot tried to return the airport and failed" just smelled like total BS looking at the information we had from the beginning.

Well they are right that it appears the pilots tried to return to the airport but failed. The crash site is not where the satellite data is lost and suggests the crew was turning the plane back. The question is why-

1) Actual technical issue like major uncontained engine failure that did catastrophic damage?

2) Accidental missile hit?

3) Bomb/other act of sabotage?

The crash site is only like <10 miles away from the last transponder position no? I believe the non-cockpit sections of MH17 continued to "fly" undirected for as long as another 1.5-2 minutes after its hit before impact so I'm not sure how much you can really read into that.

btfarrwm wrote:

brodeurprice wrote:

sergegva wrote:

This also stood out to me. The Reuters report quoted Canadian intelligence, and you can be sure that they were in contact with the Americans before coming to the conclusion the plane wasn’t shot down.

One explanation for the revelations coming out today about satellite data is simple. It took time to extract the satellite data, analyze it and get the appropriate de-classification for people to be able to discuss it with sources in the press.

Furthermore, accusing a country of shooting down a civilian airliner is a pretty big deal, so no one wants to do it officially without proper evidence on hand, evidence that you need time to process.

Viper911

Here:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukrainian ... ls-believe

Pentagon believes that it was a missile.

I haven't seen to many videos of missile strikes but wouldn't there be a fire coming from the 737 right after it gets hit by missile from all the fuel? That video shows what would appear to be a missile hit something and then there is nothing afterwards.

washingtonflyer wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Alleged video of a missile hitting the aircraft. Can't confirm the authenticity

https://twitter.com/NarimanGharib/statu ... 6937928705

Where are the navigation lights / strobes on the 737????

My opinion... the only reason you see the plane in the first place is because of the explosion.
The fast approaching light is the rocket imo.

Blankbarcode wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Blankbarcode wrote:

Reminder to fellow members that even if you end up being right about the missile, it's still not ok to jump to conclusions in the future.

"Told you so" messages expected to flood in any time now

It’s not jumping to conclusions when the evidence is staring you right in the face.

It still is if there is no credible source. With all due respect, you as a member of the public, presumably thousands of miles away, know nothing. I know the current age allows for instantaneous results and data, but events like this don't follow that logic. ESPECIALLY in the fog of war.

I’m a professional pilot I know what causes aircraft to fall to the earth in a ball of fire......and it isn’t an overheated engine, it isn’t an in a un-contained engine failure.

How many Un-contained engine failures have we seen just in the last 2 years? Non have punctured the fuel tank and blew up an airliner.

Engine fires can be extinguished by the pilot. And in no case should an engine malfunction cause an airliner to fall 8,000 feet straight down in a ball of flames, I don’t care if both pilots on the flight deck were the worst at the airline.

The last plane I can think of that fell out of the sky in a ball of flames was TWA 800.....jury is still out on whether or not that was a missile or the empty center fuel tank.

Also there were pictures that showed shrapnel damage, people who were military can identify that.

So you may not know anything as a member of the public but there are members here that do know a lot.

washingtonflyer wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Alleged video of a missile hitting the aircraft. Can't confirm the authenticity

https://twitter.com/NarimanGharib/statu ... 6937928705

Where are the navigation lights / strobes on the 737????

I knew everyone would have a cow about that. This is obviously taken with a shitty smart phone camera. Look at how faint even the rocket plume from the SAM is. I wouldn't expect to see anything in the night sky with that camera other than a VERY bright illumination such as fire.

The strange thing from the start, in my opinion, was the initial Iran statements that the aircraft crashed due to a technical fault. Such things normally take days to determine; and there is no way that anything can be concluded conclusively immediately; except knowledge of a SAM missile firing towards an aircraft (which the people involved may have not have told the upper levels of the government about). It instantly spoke to someone trying to control the story - and not wait for any results.

The other thing is that the suddenness of the event spoke to bomb or missile as the most likely cause based on prior events, although in theory some catastrophic malfunction could account for it (but, that kind of event is very very rare).

Flight 655 on July 3, 1988 was a tragedy, and people can legitimately debate many things about the following investigation and the results. One thing not debatable is that on July 4, 1988 President Reagan released an official statement that the US had indeed shot down Flight 655 by mistake.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/04/worl ... ogin=email
(you will have likely have to create a "free" email log in to see the original NY times page and read the statement).

A full competent investigation will in fact prove a missile hit (all pieces gathered together in a warehouse/hanger and inspected); or something else.

Will Iran admit it which shortens the investigation (and focuses it elsewhere as the US Navy did their investigation), will they conduct a full proper investigation, or whitewash things and limit information during the investigation?

I hope for the best in this.

Time will tell...

Have a great day,

Wouldn't the plane still have lights on? Why don't we see the plane? And why does a guy just happen to have his cell phone centered on the strike?

Sadly, the fog of war, the need to react to a perceived threat quickly, fear of not stopping a threat, has happened too often with aircraft having military missiles shot at them and destroyed. That is most likely what happened here.

adamant365 wrote:

What about the possibility that there was some technical fault that caused/required them to turn right (slightly) off the SID putting them on a direct trajectory for the air defense site. Air defense site quickly reacts and fires a missile. Impact was at the time ADS-B ceased. Aircraft still partially controllable makes a further right turn to return to the airport. The second missile is launched sometime during the turn and impacts the aircraft shortly before it crashes (see the flash on the video shortly before the impact with the ground) and deposits its guidance unit in the vicinity of the crash site.

Plausible?

Yes, that would ould fill some more blanks in missile theory and also provide explanation why iranians (maybe honestly) thought that it was technical fault alone that was responsible for the crash, and only a hour or two later a video of a fireball emerged, with Iranians probably shocked at that moment...

washingtonflyer wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Alleged video of a missile hitting the aircraft. Can't confirm the authenticity

https://twitter.com/NarimanGharib/statu ... 6937928705

Where are the navigation lights / strobes on the 737????

Good question! Maybe that footage is from a trill where it hit its target.

smokeybandit wrote:

Wouldn't the plane still have lights on? Why don't we see the plane? And why does a guy just happen to have his cell phone centered on the strike?

Waaaaaaay too far to see with this type of camera.
Maybe he heard rockets firing and something flying?
Remember they were expecting potential retaliation from US.

If it was a technical malfunction, Iran may not have been lying when they said it had a tech issue and tried to return to the airport. Because now it looks like a combination of technical malfunction and a shootdown.

As far as the Reuters report that said it was a technical malfunction:

1. Maybe there really was a technical malfunction just before the missile strike so western intel was accurate but not the complete story.
2. May have been intended to deescalate tensions

The theory that somebody mentioned about a small engine fire and sound of an explosion shortly after takeoff catching the attention of Iranian AA on the ground thinking it was either afterburners from a military aircraft or that they mistakenly believed the explosion sound of the engine fire to be bombs dropped from that plane is the theory that makes the most sense to me so far. It explains why none of the 36 plane that departed before it were shot down, since none of them would have have the engine fire.

THS214 wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

CO787EWR wrote:

"[email protected]: US officials are confident Ukrainian Flt 752 was shot down by Iran. US intelligence picked up signals of the radar being turned on & satellite detected infrared blips of 2 missile launches, probably SA-15s, followed shortly by another infrared blip of an explosion."

https://twitter.com/krisvancleave/statu ... 2086675459


US officials believe an Iranian SA-15 downed the 737-800

Let me unpack that tweet:

1. U.S. Officials are confident Flight 752 was shot down by Iran
2. U.S. Intelligence picked up signals of the radar being turned on
3. Satellite detected infrared blips of 2 missile launches
4. Satellite detected another infrared blip of an explosion.

(SA-15 Gauntlet / 9K330 / Tor-M1 are all the same system)

This is as close to confirmation we can get. If you believe U.S. Officials. And I know not everyone will.

https://twitter.com/krisvancleave/statu ... 75459?s=20

The current theory is that it was an accident. Which makes sense because:

1. This crash happened after Iran had launched 20 missiles towards Iraq
2. Iranian military was expecting American retaliation in form of air strikes, and SAM system crews were likely on high alert and nervous.

Number two is not correct. Radar is mostly on. Maybe they mean radar lock?

Corrected as my initially post was in the middle of post. ???

They don't provide any more information. But like you probably know, there are different levels of radar systems. The tracking radar on the Tor-M1 might have been turned on because of reports of an unkown aircraft by a secondary source. Could be visual or another radar. The Tor-M1 battery would not leave radar on continously as it leaves it vulnerable to SEAD. These are the types of details we likely won't have until the final report comes out years from now.

Rossiya747 wrote:

Here:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukrainian ... ls-believe

Pentagon believes that it was a missile.

Lets wait for the NTSB to report it, the pentagon isn't part of this investigation AFAIK

Rossiya747 wrote:

Here:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukrainian ... ls-believe

Pentagon believes that it was a missile.

Pentagon (official) or someone else?

ikolkyo wrote:

I haven't seen to many videos of missile strikes but wouldn't there be a fire coming from the 737 right after it gets hit by missile from all the fuel? That video shows what would appear to be a missile hit something and then there is nothing afterwards.

You'd need an ignition source to have a fire ... sliced open fuel tanks in a wing will just disperse into the airstream otherwise, not terribly dissimilar to fuel dumping on larger aircraft.

jwjsamster wrote:

Rossiya747 wrote:

Here:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukrainian ... ls-believe

Pentagon believes that it was a missile.

Lets wait for the NTSB to report it, the pentagon isn't part of this investigation AFAIK

Pentagon has a few tools that would give them insight into a missile launch though.

JetBuddy wrote:

sergegva wrote:

Ok... Less than 24h ago, Western intelligence agencies said: this is probably not a missile.
They added an oddly peremptory comment (similar to the "technical problem" used by Iran just after the tragedy btw): "the most likely cause of the crash was a malfunction, the source added, saying there was some evidence one of the plane's engines had overheated".

Source: Reuters (https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/western-in ... e/45481100)

And now, a Pentagon official and a U.S. senior intelligence official said "we know it was a missile" ?! This raises a number of important questions!

First, how did they know, yesterday, that one of the plane's engines had overheated?
Second, how could they change their minds so quickly?

Looks like the watchword was at first to cover up the Iranian blunder, but the information eventually leaked out. Why? Could this be an indication of an American involvement (hacking into Iranian air defence systems, or aircraft identification systems in the area?) Or just an attempt to calm things down to avoid a violent reaction from an Iran having lost face?

1. The "Western intelligence agencies" in that article was one guy from Canada.
2. The "some evidence engines had overheated" sounds like he watched flames coming from the aircraft as it fell to the ground in a Twitter video. I don't think this guy knows anything about airplanes.
3. Now - the next day - new evidence has surfaced. In the form of a radar signal detected (from the Tor-M1), then two infrared blips on the satellite data indicating 2 missiles were launched, and then another blip when the aircraft was hit.
4. They didn't change their minds.You're hearing from different people. Some within the loop, and others who wish they were.

Thanks for that interesting answer. It in turn raises the question of the power of news agencies such as Reuters, which set the tone for almost all the media in the Western world when it comes to breaking news. If the simple assumptions of a Canadian secret service someone turn into "a missile is not involved, westerners assure us", we have a big problem...

edu2703 wrote:

Alleged video of a missile hitting the aircraft. Can't confirm the authenticity

https://twitter.com/NarimanGharib/statu ... 6937928705

This basically confirms it was shot down.

WkndWanderer wrote:

Polot wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

The Iranians coming out and saying "The pilot tried to return the airport and failed" just smelled like total BS looking at the information we had from the beginning.

Well they are right that it appears the pilots tried to return to the airport but failed. The crash site is not where the satellite data is lost and suggests the crew was turning the plane back. The question is why-

1) Actual technical issue like major uncontained engine failure that did catastrophic damage?

2) Accidental missile hit?

3) Bomb/other act of sabotage?

The crash site is only like <10 miles away from the last transponder position no? I believe the non-cockpit sections of MH17 continued to "fly" undirected for as long as another 1.5-2 minutes after its hit before impact so I'm not sure how much you can really read into that.

They don’t fly “undirected” they generally follow the momentum they had. Based on the crash location and last transponder location with direction of the plane’s travel it is hard to see how the debris can end up where it was unless the pilots were purposely turning the plane. But I suppose it is technically possible a missile could do enough damage to result in an uncommanded turn but still be “flightworthy” enough to keep it from immediately plummeting straight down.

smokeybandit wrote:

Wouldn't the plane still have lights on? Why don't we see the plane? And why does a guy just happen to have his cell phone centered on the strike?

Looks like he was walking his dog and probably heard a missile launch so he quickly took a video and then barely caught the impact. Someone wrote, that the suspected launch site was very close to the impact zone.

KPDX wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Alleged video of a missile hitting the aircraft. Can't confirm the authenticity

https://twitter.com/NarimanGharib/statu ... 6937928705

Where are the navigation lights / strobes on the 737????

I knew everyone would have a cow about that. This is obviously taken with a shitty smart phone camera. Look at how faint even the rocket plume from the SAM is. I wouldn't expect to see anything in the night sky with that camera other than a VERY bright illumination such as fire.

How can you be sure this footage shows the hit on the Ukrainian plane?

Rara wrote:

The probability of a missile is still way overrated in this thread. Yes, it's a distinct possibility that the plane was shot down, but the likelyhood is far smaller than many here make it out to be.

In the history of aviation, only a small number of civil airliners were actually downed by missiles. It's an extremely rare occurence. Technical incidents, on the other hand, have caused thousands, probably ten thousands of fatal crashes.

People put a lot of stock in the fact that the crash coincided with military action by Iran. That's certainly notable, and it raises the relative merit of the missile theory. At the same time, let's not forget that in many places in the world, both current and historical, military tension and civil aviation exist side by side. In many places of in the Middle East, for instance, there is a constant possibility of bombing / missiles, and yet passenger planes land and depart all the time without being accidentally shot down. During the Cold War, tensions were often extreme and air strikes or missile assaults were something many countries reckoned with or prepared for, and yet airliners were almost never shot down (but came crashing down for other reasons all the time).

I struggle to think of any passenger airliners brought down so quickly with unsurvivable consequences by an uncontained engine failure, although of course the scenario is possible.
In contrast, I can right away think of a number of cases where passenger airliners were brought down by missiles.

German news channel n-tv reporting that based on US intelligence sources Iranian air defense accidentally shot down PS752. US sattilites monitored missle launch. It’s being reported in their ticker. Iranians deny.

jwjsamster wrote:

Rossiya747 wrote:

Here:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukrainian ... ls-believe

Pentagon believes that it was a missile.

Lets wait for the NTSB to report it, the pentagon isn't part of this investigation AFAIK

The NTSB will never see a thing from this accident. They are not welcome in Iran.

smokeybandit wrote:

jwjsamster wrote:

Rossiya747 wrote:

Here:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukrainian ... ls-believe

Pentagon believes that it was a missile.

Lets wait for the NTSB to report it, the pentagon isn't part of this investigation AFAIK

Pentagon has a few tools that would give them insight into a missile launch though.

They would, but we need an official impartial report.

Iran says it was a technical fault, America says it was a missile, both have interest in being right for their own agendas. Potato, potato. Neither can be trusted when it comes to this frankly.

jwjsamster wrote:

Rossiya747 wrote:

Here:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukrainian ... ls-believe

Pentagon believes that it was a missile.

Lets wait for the NTSB to report it, the pentagon isn't part of this investigation AFAIK

I doubt the NTSB will be a part of it either

CriticalPoint wrote:

jwjsamster wrote:

Rossiya747 wrote:

Here:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukrainian ... ls-believe

Pentagon believes that it was a missile.

Lets wait for the NTSB to report it, the pentagon isn't part of this investigation AFAIK

The NTSB will never see a thing from this accident. They are not welcome in Iran.

The iranian AIB has already stated their willingness to cooperate with the NTSB and ukranian officials.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4d1aea51&opt=0

washingtonflyer wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Alleged video of a missile hitting the aircraft. Can't confirm the authenticity

https://twitter.com/NarimanGharib/statu ... 6937928705

Where are the navigation lights / strobes on the 737????

Phone camera probably couldn't pick it up.

jwjsamster wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

jwjsamster wrote:

Lets wait for the NTSB to report it, the pentagon isn't part of this investigation AFAIK

The NTSB will never see a thing from this accident. They are not welcome in Iran.

The iranian AIB has already stated their willingness to cooperate with the NTSB and ukranian officials.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4d1aea51&opt=0

That doesn’t mean they will be invites to the crash site. That could be a simple phone call for answers about questions about a 737.

jwjsamster wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

jwjsamster wrote:

Lets wait for the NTSB to report it, the pentagon isn't part of this investigation AFAIK

Pentagon has a few tools that would give them insight into a missile launch though.

They would, but we need an official impartial report.

Iran says it was a technical fault, America says it was a missile, both have interest in being right for their own agendas. Potato, potato. Neither can be trusted when it comes to this frankly.

The plane was delayed so there might have been an technical issue but to report it right after the accident as a cause is a whole another level of "we figured it out while there's still flames on the ground"

Another confirmation from Ukrainian investigators, who are currently in Iran, with pictures that both engines of the plane were neither on fire nor disintegrated in flight.
https://censor.net.ua/news/3169058/na_d ... stoyatelna

So accidental strike by Iraninian SAMs is probably the only reasonable explanation left.

jwjsamster wrote:

Rossiya747 wrote:

Here:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukrainian ... ls-believe

Pentagon believes that it was a missile.

Lets wait for the NTSB to report it, the pentagon isn't part of this investigation AFAIK

The Pentagon would definitely be involved in any preliminary US investigation.

LEJCargo wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

Wouldn't the plane still have lights on? Why don't we see the plane? And why does a guy just happen to have his cell phone centered on the strike?

Looks like he was walking his dog and probably heard a missile launch so he quickly took a video and then barely caught the impact. Someone wrote, that the suspected launch site was very close to the impact zone.

But note how long the sound of the impact took to reach the filmer. And how did he know where to point the camera?

I'm not saying it's fake, just if he captured the impact, he got real lucky

xmp125a wrote:

adamant365 wrote:

What about the possibility that there was some technical fault that caused/required them to turn right (slightly) off the SID putting them on a direct trajectory for the air defense site. Air defense site quickly reacts and fires a missile. Impact was at the time ADS-B ceased. Aircraft still partially controllable makes a further right turn to return to the airport. The second missile is launched sometime during the turn and impacts the aircraft shortly before it crashes (see the flash on the video shortly before the impact with the ground) and deposits its guidance unit in the vicinity of the crash site.

Plausible?

Yes, that would ould fill some more blanks in missile theory and also provide explanation why iranians (maybe honestly) thought that it was technical fault alone that was responsible for the crash, and only a hour or two later a video of a fireball emerged, with Iranians probably shocked at that moment...

I partially retract my previous statement. I don't think there was anything wrong with the aircraft at all prior to the incident occurring. Looking at tracks of several previous flights, many take the same path with the 10 degree or so turn to the right. I saw on pprune there is a SID that matches the track pretty well.

As for the new video, it definitely fits the circumstances. Aircraft flying right to left (westerly), missile flying left to right from the air defense site to the west. That puts the viewer about 1-2 miles south of the missile impact which matches perfectly with the center/south side of Parand. Immediately after impact, a glow is seen from the aircraft which would be an initial fire, possibly due to engine fire/failure from the missile. Chilling...

LH600 returning to FRA.

JetBuddy wrote:

THS214 wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

Let me unpack that tweet:

1. U.S. Officials are confident Flight 752 was shot down by Iran
2. U.S. Intelligence picked up signals of the radar being turned on
3. Satellite detected infrared blips of 2 missile launches
4. Satellite detected another infrared blip of an explosion.

(SA-15 Gauntlet / 9K330 / Tor-M1 are all the same system)

This is as close to confirmation we can get. If you believe U.S. Officials. And I know not everyone will.

https://twitter.com/krisvancleave/statu ... 75459?s=20

The current theory is that it was an accident. Which makes sense because:

1. This crash happened after Iran had launched 20 missiles towards Iraq
2. Iranian military was expecting American retaliation in form of air strikes, and SAM system crews were likely on high alert and nervous.

Number two is not correct. Radar is mostly on. Maybe they mean radar lock?

Corrected as my initially post was in the middle of post. ???

They don't provide any more information. But like you probably know, there are different levels of radar systems. The tracking radar on the Tor-M1 might have been turned on because of reports of an unkown aircraft by a secondary source. Could be visual or another radar. The Tor-M1 battery would not leave radar on continously as it leaves it vulnerable to SEAD. These are the types of details we likely won't have until the final report comes out years from now.

That is possible.

What about my other post where I challenged you? No answer you accept?

KPDX wrote:

As expected, some are already showing their true colors - upset that this isn't the airplane's fault. I can't understand how this wasn't obvious as day from the beginning.

Exactly this!

Honestly, the most significant piece of evidence by far was the ridiculous odds of a plane crashing in Tehran mere hours after Iran had just fired anti-US missiles into Iraq from a military base almost directly below the planes path - and having it simply be a coincidence! That's not to mention the even more ridiculous odds that the mechanical issue would be one that completely cuts off all communication with not one shred of evidence of a problem.

True colors have been shown by all on here that tried desperately to use scarce and questionable physical evidence to support any other theory (i.e. "missile wouldn't have made it go down to the right," "the crash scene doesn't 'look' like it was a missile," etc.).

It reminds me of the people that said (and some still say) that the 9/11 Pentagon crash was a hoax because "that's not what the hole would look like if a 757 crashed into the Pentagon." In any type of air disaster (or any disaster for that matter), all bets are off. We have no idea where the missile hit, how it affected the control, whether pilots were incapacitated, etc. All we knew is that the odds were astronmoically small that a coincidence like that would occur in that place at that time. enilria did a great job of explaining this much earlier in the thread.

Really shameful.

smokeybandit wrote:

LEJCargo wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

Wouldn't the plane still have lights on? Why don't we see the plane? And why does a guy just happen to have his cell phone centered on the strike?

Looks like he was walking his dog and probably heard a missile launch so he quickly took a video and then barely caught the impact. Someone wrote, that the suspected launch site was very close to the impact zone.

But not how long the sound of the impact took to reach the filmer. And how did he know where to point the camera?

I'm not saying it's fake, just if he captured the impact, he got real lucky

Just go outside and you will see planes from quite a distance.
Now pull out a cellphone and record and let me know how did it go.
I live near approach to an airport. I can clearly see window lights but my iPhone 10s still won't pick it up on photo. Video even worse.

smokeybandit wrote:

So let's suppose for a minute it's a missile. How do you confirm that based on wreckage?

Start comparing the explosives in other missiles from the batch against the traces left on the plane, like they did with TWA800

I feel like the airliners.net community is more competent than any of the governmental agencies that investigate aviation accidents.

ikolkyo wrote:

I haven't seen to many videos of missile strikes but wouldn't there be a fire coming from the 737 right after it gets hit by missile from all the fuel? That video shows what would appear to be a missile hit something and then there is nothing afterwards.

SAM missiles explode in the vicinity of the aircraft, effectively spreading large shrapnel field at high velocity. In case of an airliner (which is a big target), the engines, the tanks and the cabin would instantly become swiss cheese and ignite as fuel would start to spray all around, including the (swiss cheese holed) engines that were at working temperature a second before. But it would not ignite from the explosion immediately. When it would ignite, you would see ever increasing fireball, as there would be large jets of fuel leaking from the holed tanks and feeding the fire, along with air due to airspeed.

PixelPilot wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Alleged video of a missile hitting the aircraft. Can't confirm the authenticity

https://twitter.com/NarimanGharib/statu ... 6937928705

Where are the navigation lights / strobes on the 737????

My opinion... the only reason you see the plane in the first place is because of the explosion.
The fast approaching light is the rocket imo.

I thought it was the other way around at first but after your post I took another look and I also think it's indeed the missile you see coming from the left and the plane is coming in from the right which you can't see before it was hit, after it gets hit you see it burning.

PixelPilot wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Alleged video of a missile hitting the aircraft. Can't confirm the authenticity

https://twitter.com/NarimanGharib/statu ... 6937928705

We need to wait for confirmation but this looks bad :/

I cannot verify location, but that is a surface to air intercept. A pretty big warhead too, it seems to be far more than a man carried rocket could have.

What I don't know is where that was, when something was hit, or what was hit.

Lightsaber

LEJCargo wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

Wouldn't the plane still have lights on? Why don't we see the plane? And why does a guy just happen to have his cell phone centered on the strike?

Looks like he was walking his dog and probably heard a missile launch so he quickly took a video and then barely caught the impact. Someone wrote, that the suspected launch site was very close to the impact zone.

That camera was ready. See how fast that projectile moves?