Blankbarcode wrote:Hopefully you're not lumping in those who were cautious to jump to a conclusion either way, given how dangerous assumptions can be in a politically unstable environment.
One would hope not....
cpd wrote:That's a strange reason to turn back. Why wouldn't they just fly on to the destination and at least burn off some of the fuel load during the flight instead of returning immediately with a very high amount of fuel onboard?
All else equal, the last thing a crew would do if they discovered they were overweight would be an immediate return for an overweight landing. That's just dramatically increasing your chances of an unsafe outcome to the situation.
tu204 wrote:With all this info, my question is why was someone filming the night sky on their phone when the missile was fired? We see the entire sequence from launch to detonation.
Not trying to spur any conspiracy theories, but why?
I'm trying to get my head around this also. I could maybe understand if it was during the day where the plane was visible....but during the dark whilst driving along the motorway?? WTH
par13del wrote:I guess you have not been reading this thread from the start when:
1. A USA IBM hit the a/c
2. Uncontained engine failure caused the GPS failure
3. Uncontained engine failure could produce the results in the videos
4. It was shot down
5. Pilots were busy solving the technical issue that they strayed from flight path resulting in potential missile fire
6. Pilots made a 180 turn without communication with ATC
How dare people keep an open mind and discuss possibilities. There was literally one person discussing ICBMs so why do you try and suggest that everybody was taking that as a leading theory?
dopplerd wrote:Now that Iran has claimed responsibility for launching the missile that downed the 737 it is time for the US to disclose any US military assets it had overflying the area.
Yes but don't hold your breath governments are never trustworthy when it comes to disclosing such information. And anyway could have been Israeli or Saudi UAVs in addition to (or instead of?) US ones.
dopplerd wrote:The tragic mistake of the missile launch does not exist in a vacuum and end with the launch button pusher at the control panel.
Indeed but it seems that this discussion is not the place for nuance nor for the discussion of contributory factors.
Lootess wrote:Then there was the fact they removed the bodies and bulldozed the site within a day,
This is straightout misinformation. The bulldozer was first reported as being there 48hrs after. Actually clearing the site was later still.
AirWorthy99 wrote:So the argument that the aircraft was passing or going into a sensitive area doesn't make any sense. Its the Iranian blaming the pilots.
It certainly seems that way.
AirWorthy99 wrote:This is Iran's version if IR655, using the same arguments the US used for downing that plane.
Well it's contributing factors isn't it. Swiss cheese model and all that.
Daimler wrote:Also, UIA (plane owner) held a press conference about the crash and how they cooperated with investigation and they made a note on why the plane was delayed - basically there was too much hand and regular baggage registered for this flight, captain made estimations on total plane weight and ordered to remove some of the baggage from the cargo hold:
https://censor.net.ua/news/3169383/zaya ... deniya_mau
Interesting, so that fairly clearly ends speculation of transponder issues or mechanical malfunctions, at least at the time of pushback.
washingtonflyer wrote:US government paid $61.8 million in 1988 dollars ($134 million in today's dollars). As to acknowledgement into in the incident, it happened within a day...
How many years did they coverup the fact that the Vincennes was in Iranian Waters? Six years!
SVNFSM wrote:Drones (like the MQ-9 that took out Soleimani) have a ceiling of 50,000 ft. What a coincidence that an American/Israeli/Saudi drone just happened to be in the same vicinity and showed up on radar at that exact same moment deep within Iranian terrtory, right?.
You think that the UAV was only over the Iranian capital for a short space of time? The Global Hawk (which would be a much more appropriate piece of equipment for keeping an eye on Tehran) has a range of more than 24 hours.
DeltaMD90 wrote:It's all very messy. Mistakes happen. That's why there are precautions, that's why civilians should not be flying through war zones (which Tehran was that night)
I broadly agree with you but unfortunately the lines have been blurred in recent decades. Barely anyone declares war anymore - stealth attacks are the status quo.
In this situation where do you declare "it" to be a warzone and that civilian aircraft should not fly? When the US kills the Iranian General - knowing that retaliation will likely come somewhere, somehow in the future? When Iran retaliates knowing that the US is likely to retaliate back? And where do you declare to be a warzone? UAE because it's seen as an American proxy by the Iranians? Qatar because the US Navy has a big base there? Same looking at Iran - is Tehran a warzone - hundreds and hundreds of kilometres from the Iraqi border? Is Bandar Abbas a warzone because the US is likely to retaliate against Iranian oil infrastructure? Very soon you can end up declaring the whole of the middle east as a potential warzone.
SFOtoORD wrote:zeke wrote:Moving the wreckage to a hanger where it can be secured is normal.
Do you have evidence that this is actually what is happening as much as I appreciate the half page of copy and pasted text?
Do you have evidence that the wreckage was dumped/destroyed?
2175301 wrote:.ICAO did an investigation and confirmed that the US Navy did in fact try to contact IA Flight 655 on both military and civilian frequencies (a total of 10 attempts).
There were two attempts on civilian frequencies and in both cases refered to the flight as "Unidentified Iranian F-14". The flight was identified and was in contact with civilian ATC. Please stop trying to blame the aircrew.
JetBuddy wrote:The Smolensk Air Disaster in 2010.
Is there any evidence that was intentional?
kennethP3 wrote:UpNAWAy wrote:You might ask what they are trying to accomplish shooting unarmed protesters in the streets?
A ruling regime shooting unarmed protesters to maintain power is not unheard of
Unfortunately the powers at be will often take extreme measures to entrench their power. Very sad that political dissent and protest is only available to a relatively small portion of the world's population.
2175301 wrote:For those looking to show how "ethical" Iran is
2175301 wrote:At least in "ethical" Iran...
Literally nobody here is calling Iran ethical.
MAH4546 wrote:sovietjet wrote:Why does the CCTV footage have a date of 2019-10-17??
Iran does not use the Georgian calendar.
Gregorian calendar but yes, you are correct.
flybucky wrote:This is believable. The U.S. could have launched a cyberattack on Iran's radar and military communications systems to try to prevent them from launching more missile attacks to Iraq
Maybe but we're never going to know for sure. Iran could have made it up to divert attention from their military's own failings. And it's not as if the US will admit to such a hacking.