Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
laserthing
Exakt vad jag sagt hela tiden mot motarbetats av massa hasbara troll i tråden
Det är en missil som sänkt planet och ISIS eller någon annan kalle anka organisation har inte de vapen som krävs utan det är en terror stat som ligger bakom och det finns bara en i området
Citat:
Beheading 2 big lies
When anything big happens, such as the U.S./Israeli/whoever shootdown of a Russian airliner, troll teams test the water in think tanks trying to dream up whatever lie works. The two big lies are mechanical failure, and "tail strike damage" resulting in the tail falling off and causing the crash. Let's slay those quickly here . . . . . .
1. How can the tail falling off rupture all forward mounted fuel tanks, spray fuel all over the cabin and cause the plane to fall to the ground in a flaming mess, with pieces scattered everywhere? The reality in the wreckage proves a missile strike, if the tail fell off there would be two big pieces on the ground showing almost all of an airplane in the two, not two big pieces with a bunch of little pieces that have been burned to smithereens scattered across a 5 KM radius.
And the other big lie being told was : 2. The plane was a hunk-o-junk the pilot complained about all the time, and he even radioed in a malfunction (during some gray period near the end that is never defined). And I'll tell you why it was never defined: Because the plane went from cruising speed to terminal falling velocity in a fraction of a minute, and if the pilot did get word out of a malfunction, he did so while experiencing no less than 2 g's of deceleration as the fragments of the plane caught the wind and the wires ripped out of the radio. There was no time to assess what happened, and since missile strikes are not on everyone's mind when they go for a ride, he figured something happened with the plane.
Well, the plane was NOT a hunk - o - junk. France made it. It was inspected regularly and still within its service life. The fact the pilots were not happy with it because it was hard to start is irrelevant, if a car won't start easily it does not mean that the back doors are going to fall off on the highway all by themselves.
And "the tail blew out" lie really irks me, because: It is based upon a single incident where a different airplane did not get a proper inspection after it struck it's tail on the ground during landing, and a big piece blew out of it in flight. This happened ONE TIME in all of aviation history, and now we are supposed to believe that a Russian airline with no history of tail strikes suffered the exact same fate "just because" while it was flying near very hostile territory? Figure the odds, the white wash crew just chaps me.
