[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
random

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 433350)
Message
File  []
close
S01E05-5tviL4u4-subtitled.jpg
433350433350433350
>> No. 433350 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 10:37 am
433350 spacer
Here we (very likely) go again.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50979463
Expand all images.
>> No. 433352 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 11:24 am
433352 spacer
>>433350
Personally I think it's more likely we'll see a proxy conflict within Iraq. Either way lots of swarthy types are going to be blown to pieces and the same old racist cunts aren't going to give a shit. I mean, how dare they bang on the glass of an American embassy? They should be thankful the entire city wasn't levelled.
>> No. 433353 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 12:14 pm
433353 spacer
2020 is off to a good start
>> No. 433355 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 1:31 pm
433355 spacer

22949626-7848729-image-a-213_1578057452588.jpg
433355433355433355

>> No. 433356 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 1:47 pm
433356 spacer
What's the chances of ww3 breaking out?
>> No. 433357 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 2:25 pm
433357 spacer
>>433356
Low I hope, since firing missiles contributes to climate change!
>> No. 433361 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 2:44 pm
433361 spacer
Remember when those Inupiat Saudi daft militant wogs flew those planes into the World Trade Centre? The "War on Terror" is honestly one of the worst things to happen in all of human history. The concept of "national security" at all costs has spread throughout the world like a virus and it's led the USA into a global war without end or fixed enemy.

>>433356
Iran does not want any kind of conventional conflict with the USA, at all. The US military would waltz that kind of war. The aftermath would be a complete disaster for them, but the Iranian government wouldn't be around to see it so that doesn't really do anything for them. The Iraqi government of the day is very close to Iran, so they aren't best pleased about this either, I don't know what relevance that will have going forward, but I can't see how fighting a proxy war against Iran, in a country that hates you, ends well for the US. I guess it doesn't matter very much if 95% of the conflict will be conducted with indiscriminate street annihiliating air power.
>> No. 433362 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 2:45 pm
433362 spacer
>>433357

Has no one considered the carbon footprint of a carrier strike group? Give peace a chance, lads.
>> No. 433363 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 2:52 pm
433363 spacer
>>433362
The subs and the carrier itself are nuclear at least.
>> No. 433364 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 2:59 pm
433364 spacer
>>433361

>Remember when those Inupiat Saudi daft militant wogs flew those planes into the World Trade Centre? The "War on Terror" is honestly one of the worst things to happen in all of human history. The concept of "national security" at all costs has spread throughout the world like a virus and it's led the USA into a global war without end or fixed enemy.

The US has been continually at war since 1941. The US spends more on their military than the next eight biggest spenders combined. The "War on Terror" is just a pretext for an underlying culture of militarism.
>> No. 433368 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 3:36 pm
433368 spacer
>>433362
Yes, the carbon footprint of the US war machine is significant. The Pentagon would be the world's 55th largest CO2 emitter if it was a country. it's emitted 1,212 million metric tons of greenhouse gases since invading Svalbard in 2001; 59 million tons in 2017 alone. This is more than some fully industrialised countries which is pretty mental.

It's funny how that one lad bringing it up sarcastically just opens opportunities to actually discuss it.
>> No. 433371 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 3:54 pm
433371 spacer

maxresdefault.jpg
433371433371433371
>>433364

>The "War on Terror" is just a pretext for an underlying culture of militarism.


Whelp... nothing left to do besides joining the Mobile Infantry then.
>> No. 433372 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 5:09 pm
433372 spacer

Screenshot_2020-01-03 Donald J Trump on Twitter .png
433372433372433372

>> No. 433373 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 5:23 pm
433373 spacer
>>433372
Let's be honest, for him that is quite restrained.
>> No. 433374 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 5:33 pm
433374 spacer

xzyIwSNAsyiXhfnzwgZEd_uJhfR06j3mx1gXzeU57jI.jpg
433374433374433374
>>433373

The troubling thing is that there will be enough Yanks who will just lap it up.

It's an election year, so this is likely not the last we'll hear of ol' ferret head in that respect.
>> No. 433375 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 5:46 pm
433375 spacer
I wonder what impact this will have on the violent protests going on in Iran. Seems like a bit of an own-goal in that sense.

>>433356
None. The US will get away with it and, anyway, Soleimani was a naughty bugger who likely did have various plans to harm the US.

>>433364
War is a political term without clear definition. From an American legal sense they haven't been at war since 1945 for example.
>> No. 433376 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 6:07 pm
433376 spacer
I'm finding it pretty amusing watching Reddit and social media going on about how they'll dodge the draft and other ridiculous shit as if a war has already started it's going to be the next Vietnam.

They're too young to remember the last couple of times, I suppose. Bless 'em.
>> No. 433377 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 7:20 pm
433377 spacer
>>433376
This isn't really comparable to any of the American-led misadventures of recent decades. Not saying you're wrong but it's more likely than it has been for a very long time.
>> No. 433378 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 7:50 pm
433378 spacer
>>433376

Agreed. Watching the soft clowns on Reddit who probably wouldn't be drafted due to short sightedness, flat feet, asthma, obesity, diabetes, or soy poisoning gibber about conscientious objection and scuttling off to Mexico (can't get me Trump, I'm behind a wall!) might be the last great comedy we get before we get cyber-warfared back into the stone age. Let's enjoy it while it lasts.
>> No. 433379 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 8:01 pm
433379 spacer

trump.png
433379433379433379
>>433350
There's always a tweet for every occasion with him.
>> No. 433380 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 8:04 pm
433380 spacer
>>433379
Thanks for copy/pasting that quote and image for those of us who don't have access to twitter or reddit, lad.
>> No. 433381 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 8:17 pm
433381 spacer
>>433380

I personally prefer not to read Trump's twitter feed if I can help it.

And I'm sure indignant shut ins on reddit and on image boards provide a fair and balanced cross section of Trump's tweets whenever they post screenshots of them.
>> No. 433384 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 8:36 pm
433384 spacer
>>433381

I think I've seen that exact quote and image tweeted two or three dozen times and I only follow a handful of people, none of whom are Trump.
>> No. 433387 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 8:48 pm
433387 spacer
Everyone wets themselves over things that don't happen episode 56
>> No. 433390 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 9:09 pm
433390 spacer
>>433381

Honestly, just go look and scroll down a page or two, and you'll see that people aren't just cherry picking. He really is like that almost all of the time.
>> No. 433393 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 9:31 pm
433393 spacer
>>433377

It confuses me really because the USA has the military might to turn Iran to glass ten times over without drafting a single soul. They have no problem at all with brute force invasions of polar countries by now, it's the aftermath they're hopeless with. Where are these daft sods getting the idea they'll be conscripted?

>>433377

>This isn't really comparable to any of the American-led misadventures of recent decades

Genuine question, but why? Other than kicking off with such a flagrant breach of international law I guess. They've at least tried to play it by the book before.
>> No. 433394 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 9:35 pm
433394 spacer
>>433393

>flagrant breach of international law

When did that ever bother the 'Murrikins.
>> No. 433401 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 11:27 pm
433401 spacer
>>433377

Middle-class Americans who were drafted in the 60s (or lived in fear of it) conspired to create a permanent underclass, so that it would never happen to their children. You don't need conscription when you have America's levels of absolute poverty and social immobility.
>> No. 433402 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 11:47 pm
433402 spacer

abughraib-DW-Politik-Bagdad-jpg.jpg
433402433402433402
>>433401

And the underclass who join up make perfect soldiers who don't ask questions and aren't bothered about the greater implications of America's military policy. Which is how you got people like Lynndie England.
>> No. 433405 Anonymous
4th January 2020
Saturday 12:18 am
433405 spacer
>>433402
No worries, there won't be any war criminals this time around, Trump'll make sure of it.
>> No. 433407 Anonymous
4th January 2020
Saturday 12:39 am
433407 spacer

File
removed
>>433393
>the USA has the military might to turn Iran to glass

It has the military might to turn people to absolute mush, as we can see here. This act will have further profound consequences, I think we should sometimes look hard at what is involved.

Don't be silly mods, this is SFW and posted by me - if other sites can have this, we can
>> No. 433408 Anonymous
4th January 2020
Saturday 12:42 am
433408 spacer
>>433387
Someone told me today that Iran is like North Korea; big on the sabre rattling and acting tough, but they'll always back down at the last moment when it actually comes down to it.
>> No. 433409 Anonymous
4th January 2020
Saturday 12:49 am
433409 spacer
>>433408

No m7, it's radical izlam. Hang gays. Hate the West. Blow up the jooz. Proper Jeremy Corbyn land. And that's from an Iranian I know. Glad the cunt is mince.
>> No. 433410 Anonymous
4th January 2020
Saturday 12:52 am
433410 spacer
>>433408
They have little conventional warfare to speak of - it is all asymmetric. They can take their time.
>> No. 433411 Anonymous
4th January 2020
Saturday 12:59 am
433411 spacer
GET SOME


>> No. 433413 Anonymous
4th January 2020
Saturday 1:16 am
433413 spacer
>>433409
I don't think he compared them to NK in favourable way, thickolad.
>> No. 433414 Anonymous
4th January 2020
Saturday 1:21 am
433414 spacer
Iran's infrastricture will be destroyed witin 20 minutes with targeted strikes. Russia sells weapons to Iran but sees izlam as a bigger worldwide threat. Russia are allies with Iran but happy to see an instability and a chance for control in the Sykes - Picot line. No I'm not GCHQlad.
>> No. 433415 Anonymous
4th January 2020
Saturday 1:28 am
433415 spacer
>>433411
That video is fucking brilliant.
>> No. 433418 Anonymous
4th January 2020
Saturday 1:32 am
433418 spacer
>>433413


I hope Poorple Aki feels your muscles in a dark lane.
>> No. 433419 Anonymous
4th January 2020
Saturday 1:37 am
433419 spacer
>>433414
You think you know what you're talking about, but you really, absolutely, don't have a flipping clue. If only the US had someone half as smart as you in government right now.
>> No. 433420 Anonymous
4th January 2020
Saturday 2:42 am
433420 spacer
>>433411


>> No. 433421 Anonymous
4th January 2020
Saturday 3:50 am
433421 spacer
>>433407
Someone disagreed with you, m8. More than their job's worth, most likely. On the balance of things, seeing as it's not even Salmonella or whatever his name is anyway, I figure best delete it to be safe... for work, obviously.
>> No. 433426 Anonymous
4th January 2020
Saturday 9:24 am
433426 spacer
>>433407
I'm gonna get proper spoiler/NSFW images done soon on a standalone copy and then I'll find a way of contacting you so I can merge. This half-assed SFW bullshit was a big mistake.

Though in my state last night I did hide the thread after half seeing that image.

>>433420
👍
>> No. 433449 Anonymous
5th January 2020
Sunday 9:35 pm
433449 spacer

maxresdefault.jpg
433449433449433449
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51001167

>Mr Trump has again threatened Iran that the US will strike back in the event of retaliation for Soleimani's death, this time saying it could do so "perhaps in a disproportionate manner".

It's happening.
>> No. 433450 Anonymous
5th January 2020
Sunday 11:50 pm
433450 spacer
>>433449
>Iran has declared that it will no longer abide by any of the restrictions imposed by the 2015 nuclear deal.

...
>> No. 433451 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 2:21 am
433451 spacer
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-iran-business-ties-trump-didnt-disclose

>In response to decades of U.S. and global sanctions, the Revolutionary Guard has created hundreds of private companies that work as a loose network, allowing the Revolutionary Guard to conceal the movement of sanctions-evading money into and out of Iran, purchase crucial components for weapons of mass destruction, and evade sanctions in other ways. These companies follow a similar pattern: they are, typically, construction or engineering firms run by veterans of the Revolutionary Guard that appear, to the outside world, as independent companies but act under the direction of Guard leadership.

>Strikingly, the Treasury did not name Azarpassillo, an Iranian firm with a leadership made up of lifelong Revolutionary Guard officers.

>In fact, for the entire Presidential campaign, the Trump Organization knew that it was actively involved with a company that was likely laundering money for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. This is not a wild conspiracy theory; it is an acknowledged fact, confirmed by Alan Garten, the Trump Organization’s general counsel, and not disputed by the White House or any of the people involved.

Whoopsie.
>> No. 433455 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 8:08 am
433455 spacer
>>433451
It really doesn't matter. Neither his supporters nor his party colleagues give the slightest shit about what the people on the other team perceive as his wrongdoing.
>> No. 433459 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 8:59 am
433459 spacer
>>433455
This is so true and it doesn't seem there is anything to be done about it, other than legitimately hoping they skew older and waiting for them to die off. I don't mean that maliciously, but if a massive portion of America's voting populace and political elite are bonkers-loony-psycho-weirdos who couldn't give a hoot about... anything, what else can you do?
>> No. 433460 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 12:32 pm
433460 spacer
>>433459

>but if a massive portion of America's voting populace and political elite are bonkers-loony-psycho-weirdos who couldn't give a hoot about... anything

I think the problem is that checks and balances don't really apply to American foreign policy in that respect. If you've got people voting for you who will struggle to find England on a world map, much less Iraq or Iran, and if you've got a news media that is generally a mouthpiece for the U.S. government, then you cannot expect people to give a hoot either way. They will be fine with the U.S. military bombing some third-world shitehole country with smelly brown-eyed people to a cinder, as long as prices for burgers and gasoline petrol stay affordable.
>> No. 433462 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 1:53 pm
433462 spacer
>>433451

>Trump’s top lawyer at the time, Jason Greenblatt, oversaw the contract with the Mammadovs and is now at the White House, serving as an adviser on the Middle East. An Orthodox Jew, Greenblatt is known as a supporter of Israel and an antagonist of Iran.

How very anti-semitic for a newspaper like the New Yorker. After last year's election campaign we should all be well aware of this insidious kind of prejudice.
>> No. 433497 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 12:42 am
433497 spacer
Uh oh...
>> No. 433498 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 12:59 am
433498 spacer
>>433497

Nice knowing you, lads.
>> No. 433500 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 7:27 am
433500 spacer
Ukrainian commercial airliner crashed 8000ft out of Tehran, Iranians suggesting it was an engine failure due to a fire, but the videos of it coming down as a big ball of flame would suggest otherwise - that's just not how that would look.

In all likelihood it was hit by munitions of some sort.
>> No. 433501 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 9:09 am
433501 spacer
>>433500

I don't think we should we speculating on this sort of thing, unless you're aviation crash investigator. Your reasoning sounds akin to "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to bring down the Twin Towers".
>> No. 433502 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 9:43 am
433502 spacer
>>433500

If one of the engines caught fire or if there was a leak in the fuel system, then it could have set the whole airplane on fire.

Not even the Ukrainian embassy has said that it suspects foul play, so we should probably leave it at that for now.
>> No. 433504 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 11:31 am
433504 spacer
>>433501

You're such an ignorant prick I bet you've never had your nose broken, but only because you have no friends and don't leave your house.
>> No. 433505 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 11:56 am
433505 spacer
>>433504

Lad.

https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/types-of-mental-health-problems/anger/treatment-and-support/#.XhXDDs4xn4Z
>> No. 433506 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 1:12 pm
433506 spacer
>>433505

I don't think we should we speculating on this sort of thing, unless you're [a] professionally trained mental health worker. Your reasoning sounds akin to "I'm a bumder who can't take it when people express thoughts of violence to some of the retarded shit I violently expel all over other peoples' ability to have a good conversation."
>> No. 433511 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 4:20 pm
433511 spacer
>>433501

I'm not an air crash investigator, but I work in the aviation industry and definitely know what an engine fire or fuel leak looks like, and neither involve zero comms and a transponder failure 8 minutes into the flight, I promise you that's not just speculation, that's an informed working knowledge of airliners and their emergency procedures.

It's certainly possible the entire plane instantly caught fire and the transponder and radio equipment died at the exact same time, but it's possible in the same way that your car's fuel tank could explode with no warning at all - not impossible, but would be considered a very, very unlikely freak accident. And if you happened to be driving through a minefield at the time, people would probably speculate.
>> No. 433514 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 4:28 pm
433514 spacer
>>433511
For all we know, you could be a dog.

Ease up on the remote diagnosis for now, and if the investigations say that's what happened you can come back and say SEE? I FUCKING TOLD YOU BUT NEITHER OF YOU FUCKERS WOULD LISTEN, WOULD YOU? when they come out. But at least let the investigators on the ground do their job.
>> No. 433515 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 4:31 pm
433515 spacer
>>433514

Yeah fair enough.

woof
>> No. 433516 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 4:41 pm
433516 spacer
>>433511

The plane in question was a 737-800. There has been a lot of noise about the 737-MAX on the internet recently with most of the informative noise being on .gs. Do you know much about the 737-800 specifically, is it crash prone generally like the MAX or is it relatively safe?
>> No. 433517 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 4:52 pm
433517 spacer
>>433511

So what are you offering as your educated guess what the real cause of the crash might have been?

It is interesting to see that the Iranian government was astonishingly quick to rule out militant daft woggery or any other form of deliberate armed attack against the aircraft. But then again, who would benefit from a downed Iranian airplane. Especially when Iranian authorities end up very decidedly not blaming the Americans.

On the other hand, what's also interesting is the Ukraine angle; after all, that was the plane's scheduled destination on that flight. Did this crash, if provoked, have anything to do with Ukraine being another hotbed of geostrategic jostling?
>> No. 433519 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 4:56 pm
433519 spacer
>>433517

>On the other hand, what's also interesting is the Ukraine angle; after all, that was the plane's scheduled destination on that flight. Did this crash, if provoked, have anything to do with Ukraine being another hotbed of geostrategic jostling?

Why don't you ease up on the remote geopolitics for now and if the White House press office tells us it has something to do with geostategic jostling you can some back and say SEE? I FUCKING TOLD YOU BUT NEITHER OF YOU FUCKERS WOULD LISTEN, WOULD YOU? when they come out. But at least let the White House press officers on the ground do their job.
>> No. 433521 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 5:08 pm
433521 spacer
>>433516

The 737-NG series, which includes the 600, 700, 800, and 900 models are incredibly safe and reliable aircraft. Of the 800 spec there are about 5000 in use today, making it the most widely used narrow bodied aircraft in the world.

It has the lowest non-zero fatal crash rate of any aircraft, with 0.06 deaths per million flights. There are a few commercial aircraft that have yet had a fatal crash at all, most notably the newer Airbus 'neo' refreshes and most Embraer models, but these are to be expected as the neo are very new and Embraers are domestic or very short haul.

To say that it is not crash prone would be an understatement. They can fly fine on one engine, glide well with no engines, are relatively easy to control under emergency situations, and are just all round pretty good for constant use applications - in the summer, many of these aircraft do not have overnight stops - they fly somewhere, turnaround their passengers, and fly back, over and over.

The 800 version is a little bit longer than previous versions, and can seat 40 more passengers than the 700 before it. Other than that, and continuous quality of life and economy tweaks over the years, the 800 is functionally identical to the 600 which has been in operation since 1997, and the 737 as a design has been in operation and constant development since the late sixties.

Most airlines use them, and for most commercial pilots it's the first plane they are rated to fly. They do not have a reputation for being unsafe - one of the many reasons the MAX disasters have been so damaging to the company.
>> No. 433522 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 5:16 pm
433522 spacer
>>433517

My educated guess is either a direct missile or shell strike (I'm not a military bloke so could be getting the words for the weapons wrong) to the front third of the fuselage, level with or below the wing, or a large amount of flak ingested into both engines and the resulting debris puncturing the underside of the wings. Though the latter still wouldn't necessarily explain the sudden lack of transponder and comms.

Whatever happened, something would have had to sever or puncture a fuel line or tank, and something would have already have had to be on fire at that point. Lots of things can go wrong in the air but this just seems like an occam's razor situation to me.

I am basing this on the footage going around of a plane entirely engulfed in flames, mind - if that footage wasn't real or of the 73 then I wouldn't perhaps be so sure.
>> No. 433523 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 5:17 pm
433523 spacer
>>433521

http://airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

Meant to link that. It's a very interesting site.
>> No. 433524 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 5:17 pm
433524 spacer
>>433521

A Graun article implied that the 737-800 had a poor safety record, citing 2 crashes, 2016 and 2010 as "several" crashes. From your post I gather the 737-800 is actually one of the least crash prone aircraft of its type in the world.

Interestingly the Guardian article also noted both of the several crashes happened while the plane was coming in to land, not taking off. Do you know of any industry-feared failing of the 737-800 that might cause failure on launch? The pilots were apparently conscious and aware throughout the crash with onlookers reporting the plane was steered away from a residential area and in to a football field.
>> No. 433526 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 5:30 pm
433526 spacer

Concorde_Air_France_Flight_4590_fire_on_runway.jpg
433526433526433526
>>433522

>Whatever happened, something would have had to sever or puncture a fuel line or tank, and something would have already have had to be on fire at that point.

You kind of think back to the 2000 Concorde disaster then. The Concorde basically kicked up a piece of metal from another airplane's engine housing on the runway, and that piece of metal then tore through the tyres, and flying bits of tyre then punctured the underside of one of the wings like shrapnel, causing a fuel tank to rupture, and the fuel to ignite on takeoff and engulf the whole tail of the plane in flames.

If I remember correctly, after that crash, it became part of international airport safety procedure to check runways several times a day for fallen-off bits of airplanes, but maybe in a country like Iran that's slightly more on the third-world shithole side of things, the lad who was in charge didn't come back in time from his fag break that day. Or something.
>> No. 433528 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 5:44 pm
433528 spacer
>>433524

I looked up those two crashes, and both ended up being blamed on pilot error, so I can't really say much else there. Even if they were technical errors, two flights out of a few million is not particularly telling. These are the most popular planes in the air, it's akin to saying Ford Fiestas are dangerous because more of them are involved in accidents than Lamborghinis on any given day.

Accidents on landing are usually down to poor flying, either miscommunication between tower and pilots, miscommunication between pilots, poor or unexpected weather, something like that. It's very rarely a technical error that kills you when you're already set up for a landing, save for landing gear issues, but even then you'd not expect deaths, really.

Similarly failure on takeoff is more likely going to be to do with loading errors, pilot errors, or bird/debris strike. It would be very unlucky to encounter something on takeoff you couldn't then stay in the air and loop back around for an emergency landing for, ever since the Concorde crash these things have been planned for and designed against.

If any model of plane was 'prone' to any specific sort of failure, they wouldn't be flown, it's as simple as that. No pilot would get on a plane that had a 'reputation' for failure on takeoff. The watchword of the industry is 'safety first' and that is taken seriously. I have refused to let a plane fly with a single cargo net latch missing, you don't chance anything.

That being said, mechanical failures happen, and always will happen, but for anyone to suggest the 737 in any form (apart from the MAX) has a poor record of safety is simply incorrect.
>> No. 433532 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 5:53 pm
433532 spacer
>>433526

I did think that too, but the plane made it to 8000 feet without noticing a FOD (foreign object debris) strike on takeoff? If that's the case the pilots were thick as two short planks. They might not have caught on fire immediately, but thats about 8 or 9 minutes of flight time to notice damage reading on your gauges and declare an emergency, which they didn't.

You're right about concorde changing things, in this country rangers sweep the runway constantly - before every single takeoff and landing at my airport. I also don't know how they do things over there, but I don't think my reaction as a pilot to being hit by debris on takeoff would be to continue to climb without telling anyone of the hit.

I'm definitely veering into full speculation now, so I'll stop. Back to the war, lads.
>> No. 433539 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 7:15 pm
433539 spacer

enu98kpu8amdzka_4cee5d74f48dc8f8292257cc991d85566e.jpg
433539433539433539
>>433538
An uncontained engine failure? Or a SAM?

It seems an unhappy coincidence that this happens at a particular time when the Iranians are expecting an air attack of some kind. Is there really such a thing as a coincidence?

My first thought when I heard the news this morning as GPS jamming - do you think the US has let GPS have full accuracy over Iran the past couple of days? I can't see how that could cause any kind of catastrophic mechanical failure, though it could easily cause a crash.
>> No. 433541 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 7:25 pm
433541 spacer
>>433539
If smart watches support GLONASS shouldn't planes? Though I can imagine having two sources of truth creates more problems than having one.
>> No. 433542 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 7:32 pm
433542 spacer
>>433539

>do you think the US has let GPS have full accuracy over Iran

> I can't see how that could cause any kind of catastrophic mechanical failure, though it could easily cause a crash


I don't think a jammed GPS could realistically cause a plane to spontaneously catch fire.

Also, I'm sure there are backup systems for when GPS service is limited while the Americans are bombing a third-world country when it is of strategic importance.
>> No. 433547 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 8:22 pm
433547 spacer
Ukraine have retracted their statement attributing the crash to an engine failure and Iran have refused to hand over the black box.
>> No. 433550 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 8:33 pm
433550 spacer
>>433539

Planes don't solely rely on GPS, there are radio nav beacons and the planes own internal positioning system (IRS) to fall back on, and a printed copy of the flight plan and enough charts to at least keep you from crashing into a mountain etc. There's also short form radio systems to keep planes from crashing into each other in the air in the absence of ATC, but that's not standard equipment on every plane right now.

A commercial plane experiencing GPS jamming would likely just try to fly away from the area, if their radio was being jammed they'd do the same, and of course every other plane in the sky nearby and the ATC tower would notice this too.
>> No. 433552 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 8:34 pm
433552 spacer

qy52ee506a.jpg
433552433552433552
>>433547

That will have conspiracy nuts spontaneously ejaculating.

If it's true. Where did you see that information? The Beeb don't seem to have it on their web site, I just checked.
>> No. 433554 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 8:35 pm
433554 spacer
>>433547
It's getting more and more clear there's one or two lads on here who browse BBC News and repost stuff here.
>> No. 433557 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 8:44 pm
433557 spacer

tenor.gif
433557433557433557
>>433554

Sorry I don't get my news off the Daily Mail or reddit, like every good image board poster. Apologies.


I guess this is more to your liking then:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7865559/Iran-DELIBERATELY-failed-hit-military-targets-fear-escalating-conflict.html

>Iran DELIBERATELY failed to hit US bases in Iraq with most of its missiles for fear of escalating conflict, intelligence sources reveal, as satellite images show minor damage


Anybody else think that that's mildly Monty Python-esque, if it's even remotely true?
>> No. 433559 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 9:15 pm
433559 spacer

ENxkCymUUAAPtXB.jpg
433559433559433559
This could get interesting. Found near the crash site.
>> No. 433560 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 9:16 pm
433560 spacer

ENxtgWmVAAY1e8v.jpg
433560433560433560
>>433559
>> No. 433561 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 9:17 pm
433561 spacer
>>433559

If we do kick off WWIII over this our first priority should be finding the bastard that dumped the takeaway container on the street in that picture.

Alternatively if that's actually an in flight meal container we should rebuild all of our residential skyscrapers out of that material.
>> No. 433565 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 9:23 pm
433565 spacer
>>433559

It still doesn't answer why somebody wanted a civilian Iranian airliner to crash and kill everyone on board. Who would benefit from it?

Or was there really somebody on that plane who had to be killed no matter how many innocent civilians would also perish?
>> No. 433566 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 9:31 pm
433566 spacer

ENxuzjjX0AA3bah.jpg
433566433566433566
>>433565
I always favour the cock-up over the conspiracy - this is a complete accident. My hypothesis is that in the excitement of having just launched a bunch of missiles at US airbases, and expecting imminent retaliation (this was 4 hours-is afterwards) someone on the Iranian side did it by accident.
>> No. 433569 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 10:16 pm
433569 spacer
>>433565

I don't think anyone is really suggesting it was deliberate. This was a Ukranian aircraft, too, I doubt it was targeted, either hit by accidental flak or mistaken for a military plane.
>> No. 433572 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 10:39 pm
433572 spacer
>>433552
https://www.ft.com/content/67414762-31d6-11ea-9703-eea0cae3f0de

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iran-plane-crash-missile-strike-ukraine-engine-cause-boeing-a9274721.html
>> No. 433573 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 10:56 pm
433573 spacer
>>433565

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but both Iran and Ukraine seem very eager to hush things up. If the Ukrainians had any reason to believe that Iran had shot down one of their aircraft, I'd expect them to be kicking up an almighty stink rather than announcing that it was just engine failure while the wreckage was still warm and agreeing that Iran should keep the black boxes.

I think the most plausible explanation at this stage is that there was someone (or something) on that plane that both sides needed to disappear in a real hurry. The obvious candidate would be a transfer of military technology (either in the cargo hold or a passenger's head), but there are also questions to be asked about the foreigners on board - the kind of person who takes a flight from Iran to Ukraine despite being a citizen of neither country is disproportionately likely to be involved in something properly dodgy.
>> No. 433576 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 11:18 pm
433576 spacer
>>433557

>Anybody else think that that's mildly Monty Python-esque, if it's even remotely true?

Iran are really very good at using military force effectively to achieve strategic aims. Their artillery is more than capable of totally obliterating the American bases, so I read this as a very noisy warning shot. It sends the clear public message that Iran are not to be messed with, while also sending a message to the military and intelligence community that they are showing extreme restraint. They don't want to provoke the US into a war, but they aren't going to roll over either. A major fatal strike would have almost certainly forced the US into at least one retaliation, but this allows them to back down without losing face.
>> No. 433578 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 11:20 pm
433578 spacer
>>433573

One news article I read made a big thing about the route being a cheap alternative for Canadians travelling between Iran and Canada with special reference to one girl who had her student visa delayed so she missed an earlier flight and rebooked on the doomed one. I don't know why Ukraine would be a bigger flight hub than Iran since they're both danger zones but nobody has called them on their shit as far as I'm aware. I haven't seen a single non-muzzie name on the lists of passenger names released so the argument that they were all students visiting home is feasible. There were no overtly "James Bond" or Secret Agent Pamberton Smythe" names there. Of course any defector or embedded agent would have a muzzie name too so my point is rather moot.

I don't think it was accidentally shot down if it was shot down, I'm not against the idea of incompetence but the proximity to a local civilian airport would surely make any military sorts in the area double check before they fired. One interesting thing to think about would be radar altitudes and stealth technology. I think the plane was shot down at 8,000 ft which is rather low, if this is right at the threshold for whatever the phrase "flying under the radar" means in real military terms then it's possible some Iranian commander got a blip on his radar which he thought was a low altitude American stealth bomber fucking up which made him a bit over-excited. I think this is unlikely but definitely worth having a chat about radar altitudes and such if anyone is knowledgeable about such things.

Ukraine probably isn't making a big fuss because it's getting ready to accept new-vassalage under the USSR given that the EU sold them down the river over the Crimean region. We didn't exactly fight off the invading bear back in 2014 so Ukraine is likely playing nice with Russia under the (likely correct) assumption that the EU/USA will do precisely fuck all if Russia invades again and annexes even more of their territory.
>> No. 433583 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 11:49 pm
433583 spacer
>>433578

>I haven't seen a single non-muzzie name on the lists of passenger names released so the argument that they were all students visiting home is feasible.

International students are a crucial intelligence resource. Countries like Iran get access to visas and technology that would otherwise be inaccessible to them, while countries like the US get access to people who will go back to countries like Iran and become important political figures.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/10/25/spy-vs-spy-how-u-s-universities-have-become-a-major-arena-for-international-and-domestic-espionage/
>> No. 433584 Anonymous
8th January 2020
Wednesday 11:55 pm
433584 spacer
>>433583

Even international espionage is fucking boring these days.
>> No. 433610 Anonymous
9th January 2020
Thursday 9:28 pm
433610 spacer
Video of a SAMe hitting the plane is doing the rounds now. "Engine failure"
>> No. 433611 Anonymous
9th January 2020
Thursday 9:34 pm
433611 spacer
>>433610

SEE? I FUCKING TOLD YOU BUT NEITHER OF YOU FUCKERS WOULD LISTEN, WOULD YOU?
>> No. 433612 Anonymous
9th January 2020
Thursday 10:02 pm
433612 spacer
>>433611

Imagine if we had followed the sage old advice of don't think about things, don't talk about things, the government will tell you the truth when they decide what it is. Nobody would have had the satisfaction of posting this message.
>> No. 433613 Anonymous
9th January 2020
Thursday 11:20 pm
433613 spacer
>>433610

Why shoot down a passenger airplane right after takeoff though, with ground to air missiles, when the target of the Iranian retaliatory strike that night was military bases in Iraq.

Also, talk about slanted reporting. CNN is running with the headline right now that the plane was downed by a Russian-made missile. That may well be, but if we're blaming the country of origin of a weapons system, then theoretically that would mean that everytime some towelhead wields a Kalashnikov/AK-47, the Russians are to blame.

Both the Soviet Union and later Russia supplied many a country's armed forces in that region with plane loads of Russian-made firearms. As did the Americans.
>> No. 433616 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 12:10 am
433616 spacer
>>433613

I think we've said this already but it probably wasn't deliberate.
>> No. 433619 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 1:02 am
433619 spacer
>>433616

I'm a bit taken aback though at the complete absence of outrage about the fact that somebody actually flipping shot down a civilian airplane that had nothing to do with the animosities between Iran and the U.S..

Even Trump's statement was more along the lines of "no problem, mistakes happen" tonight. Then again, he has the reasonable consideration hanging over his head now that none of this would have happened if the Americans hadn't put a hit on that Iranian general.

And if you say it was a mistake, it still doesn't answer how somebody was actually able to mistake a civilian airliner for a military target. Even in the pitch dark night sky, nothing warrants the erroneous assumption that a passenger plane taking off from a civilian airport would be a military target. And you don't just misfire a ground to air missile. You have to lock on to your target in the scope/viewfinder first and then deliberately confirm by pulling the trigger.
>> No. 433621 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 1:24 am
433621 spacer
>>433559
>>433610
To echo the no-speculation thing from before, it would be useful to provide sources for this stuff. People have already been posting "clips of the assassination" taken from a fucking video game.
>> No. 433623 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 1:41 am
433623 spacer
Let's be honest, anyone with a shred of intelligence will have thought "Huh. Plane crash? Right after missile strikes between the US and Iran? That's a bloody big coincidence." We still don't have all the facts but my money's on there needing to be a distraction element at play so both sides can more easily de-escalate.

This is the beauty of the post truth reality- Iran tells its people they killed a load of Murricans in their base, America tells its people they killed polar Hitler (again), and both sides can say "Let's make sure there are no more tragic civilian deaths like that air plane crash we definitely had nothing to do with", without appearing to be losing face.
>> No. 433625 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 1:49 am
433625 spacer
So apparently this aired a couple of days ago. Much of the information revealed about deployed forces was false.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDhMuP9dGBY
>> No. 433630 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 12:36 pm
433630 spacer
>>433623

I still vagely and entirely without proof suspect that it had something to do with the fact that that plane was headed for Ukraine. Maybe something, or someone, was on that plane that somebody else didn't want to get to Ukraine.
>> No. 433631 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 1:10 pm
433631 spacer
>>433630

Early reports indicated 3 British nationals died on the plane, now I'm hearing 4. We've always had balls of Steele where intelligence is concerned so it wouldn't surprise me if the Iranians shot it down because one of our brave lads aboard was rushing to the nearest group of armed British soldiers with sensitive information, which I believe happens to be in Ukraine or thereabouts. We definitely have a battalion hanging around in Eastern Europe at the moment.

Our bloke knew something and the Americans don't give a toss. The special relationship is dead and come WWIII we should nuke anyone who looks at us funny.

Pure speculation before TooMuchToThinklad jumps in and censures me.
>> No. 433638 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 2:55 pm
433638 spacer
>>433631

You keep reading on news sites today that the plane was mistaken for a military aircraft attacking Iran, possibly as part of an air-based attack by the Americans. I really don't see how that is remotely possible. Whoever pulled the trigger must have realised that this was a) not a fighter jet, and b) that it was still in its takeoff phase from a civilian airport just minutes earlier.

This has dodgy written all over it.
>> No. 433639 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 3:01 pm
433639 spacer
>>433631>>433630

There are far easier and less drastic ways for Iranians to stop people at Iranian airports, and there's no way you could transport anything even vaguely military on a commercial flight without anyone noticing.

Just don't really get why you wouldn't just quietly walk up to the target with a sniffer dog and drag him away if that was the plan. Or am I misunderstanding the conspiracy?
>> No. 433642 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 3:12 pm
433642 spacer
>>433639 

>Just don't really get why you wouldn't just quietly walk up to the target with a sniffer dog and drag him away if that was the plan. Or am I misunderstanding the conspiracy? 

Maybe the orders that somebody should be stopped from boarding the plane came too late. Then again, you'd only have had minutes to move on to plan B of getting a missile launcher ready nearby to blow the whole fucking plane out of the sky. Because pretty much as long as a plane hasn't reached takeoff speed on the runway, it is possible to order it to return to the terminal.

So if somebody did want to stop someone from arriving in Ukraine, they will not have had the proper ties to the Iranian police and government to just issue a no-fly order. Which brings us back to some sort of secret service angle, but still without an answer to the question which secret service of which country would have commissioned the attack.
>> No. 433643 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 3:17 pm
433643 spacer
>>433639

Real life isn't a James Bond film, if a British spy existed and was on that flight he didn't quick walk behind the back of Iranian Security Forces when they turned to survey a different direction at the airport before sneaking on the plane, he simply got on the plane while Iranian Security Forces searched for him elsewhere like his last known address or a known safehouse or something. By the time his name flagged up on the system and the information was relayed to Iranian Security Forces the plane was in the air. Some bright spark had the idea that shooting down a fully loaded civilian passenger plane was better than letting the spy escape.

The question is (if the spy existed, because this could all be bollocks) did they shoot it down because the spy knew something they didn't want getting out, because he had something they didn't want getting out or because he was instrumental in luring Soleimani in to a known location for the Americans to bomb? If it was something he knew he could have easily sent a text to MI6 HQ so there was no point shooting it down. If it was nuclear abort codes or the like then of course Iran was going to shoot down that plane. If it was revenge for Soleimani then it's a cultural thing I'm unwilling to comment on.

I think the important thing for you to take away is that "why didn't they just stop him at the airport" is an invalid question, maybe they tried to and failed, maybe they thought they had him cornered in another part of the city and he gave them the slip so they weren't watching the airport, maybe they weren't even looking for him until his name popped up on the system as being a spy wasn't a problem but being a fleeing spy raises suspicions. It's the Watergate equivalent of saying "there are far easier ways of bugging the DNC headquarters, why didn't Nixon's henchmen just pay a staffer to bug the place" We live in an imperfect world and people make mistakes.

You also have to remember USB drives can be more military than M16s these days.
>> No. 433644 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 3:19 pm
433644 spacer
>>433642

I think it's likely that SAMs were on general issue at the time due to the heightened threat from America. Having one to hand wouldn't be hard, though I'm not opposed to the idea that another nation's intelligence service shot down the plane.
>> No. 433648 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 3:26 pm
433648 spacer
>>433642

As you suggest for any Iranian outfit, It would only take a phone call to ground a plane, as unlikely as it would be for you to only just figure out there's a spy on a plane half an hour before takeoff. You could make up any old bollocks reason to stop flights out of the airport entirely for an hour or two, particularly in the middle of escalating conflict, secret service or not, a phone call to the tower would be enough.

As you say, if someone shot the plane down deliberately, it would almost certainly not be someone working with or for Iran. But if that was the case, Iran would not have been so quick to characterise this as an engine failure. And also a foreign spy would have a much, much harder time accessing passenger manifests, and if they did, they'd almost certainly be inside the airport, so again not much reason to launch the fucker out of the sky.
>> No. 433649 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 3:26 pm
433649 spacer
>>433643

>maybe they thought they had him cornered in another part of the city and he gave them the slip so they weren't watching the airport, 

Right, so it was all a bit like a round of that board game Scotland Yard?
>> No. 433650 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 3:30 pm
433650 spacer
>>433643

I'm no spymaster but if I was looking for someone who was probably trying to leave the country and was able to identify them by name, I'd stick a lad in the airport for sure. I can't imagine it would be too difficult for the secret service to put a flag on a passengers name to ping them when he checked in, either.

I'm not adverse to the idea of a conspiracy, but this idea seems even dafter than some grunt mistaking a 737 for an A-10 or whatever.
>> No. 433655 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 4:07 pm
433655 spacer
>>433650

>I'm no spymaster
No, but you'd be a good fit as Captain Hindsight.
>> No. 433659 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 5:23 pm
433659 spacer
>>433658

I'm more than convinced there's something dodgy about it, but I just can't square any of it as having solid enough motivations for any side. It isn't really a good look for anyone, it doesn't serve much purpose for anyone that's not a convoluted 4D chess Joker plot.

Can't suss it out honestly.
>> No. 433660 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 5:24 pm
433660 spacer

157867649069.gif
433660433660433660
Some sources online are now attempting to draw parallels to the downed Malaysian Airlines plane over Ukraine a few years ago. The idea slightly obviously being to try to blame the plane crash on the Russians.

So how would Putin then profit from a shot-down civilian aircraft in Iran, if we follow that idea for a moment. It is certainly a spanner in the works of any moral superiority that the Americans might want to self tout after killing that Iranian general. Trump said that having him offed potentially saved the lives of many Americans. Against that, you now have to weigh the deaths of 176 entirely random, innocent civilians, which more than neutralises that argument, and instead, the Americans are now seen as having blood on their hands because without their attack on Soleymani, this tragedy may never have happened. It weakens America's moral standing in the region, and also means they will lay off their expansionism a bit for the time being. Which could play in the hands of the Russians in expanding their influence in turn.

I was going to say it's interesting that no American citizens were on board that plane, but then again, American civilians are generally forbidden from travelling to Iran in the first place.

The Iranians themselves may have been so quick to call it engine failure to cover up the embarrassment that a foreign power was able to do this kind of thing on their territory and just shoot down a civilian aircraft and make it look like the Iranian military can't tell a 737 passenger plane from enemy military aircraft.

Loads of tinfoilhattery involved here though obviously.
>> No. 433662 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 5:28 pm
433662 spacer
>>433658

When we're discussing assassinations of foreign Generals and a fully loaded civilian passenger plane being shot down we're well beyond the realms of normal and accusations or feelings of tinfoil hattery should be dismissed. Something is going on. That much is not up for debate. Someone killed 176 people. At this point there is no such thing as tinfoil hattery because no government of any country charged with caring about this sort of thing seems to actually care.

176 dead civilians. Nobody is being held accountable. What the fuck?

If a new drug killed 176 people the executives of the company who owned it would be in jail. If a warlord in Africa massacred 176 people we would be talking about military involvement. If poor building design killed 176 people there would be criminal prosecutions. Governments around the world have washed their hands of this mess and nobody is being held to account. Bloody Canadians.

And before anyone starts I'm aware that more than 176 people would die in the ensuing war. The difference is once a war is on the circumstances are different, the deaths are permissible, more easily understood, expected. The point of the war is to send the message that shooting down a defenceless passenger plane, not a 2 seater Cessna, almost 200 people, is not acceptable and will result in the end of your reign. Nobody seems to care about these people. Somebody has gotten away with killing 176 unarmed, unaware and unable to resist civilians. It's repulsive.
>> No. 433664 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 5:47 pm
433664 spacer
>>433662
It was Boeing wot dun it.



Again.
>> No. 433665 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 5:48 pm
433665 spacer
>>433662

Maybe it was a failed false-flag attempt by the CIA to destabilise the Iranian leadership, by making them look like they'll just shoot down a civilian aircraft carrying 176 people willy-nilly. The hope probably being that the ensuing outrage was going to offset the sense of unity that Iranians were feeling after Soleymani got droned.

It would not have been the first time that the Americans miscalculated the ramifications of such covert operations.

But I agree with you in principle, that something massively dodgy is going on here. I can't remember a single plane crash, both from technical failure or as the result of a deliberate armed attack, where there was this little public outrage. I think the real danger here is that we've already slipped into an "all is fair in war" mindset, where we're just apathetically counting up the numbers of casualties.
>> No. 433666 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 5:55 pm
433666 spacer
>>433665

The bloody Americans hesitated to shoot down civilian passenger planes on 9/11. If the sanctity of innocents on planes is such that even the fucking Americans were (once*) afraid to violate it I question how we've slipped so far in less than a generation.

*Yeah it was probably the CIA come to think about it.
>> No. 433667 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 6:07 pm
433667 spacer
>>433666

>The bloody Americans hesitated to shoot down civilian passenger planes on 9/11

Yes, but they were carrying almost exclusively American citizens, you see. People whose loved ones probably would have thrown a right old shit fit. Somebody, including the U.S. military and the U.S. President, would have had to answer to them. And their lawyers. It's probably not that it wouldn't have been a viable option to shoot down passenger planes over America that day. It's just that everyone was aware of the very likely disastrous political consequences.

The main payload of the plane that was now shot down, by contrast, was Iranians and Ukrainians. In other words, as far as the CIA is concerned, and probably many among the U.S. military and American politicians, they were just a bunch of towelheads and watered-down Russkies.
>> No. 433668 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 6:10 pm
433668 spacer
>>433666

>The bloody Americans hesitated to shoot down civilian passenger planes on 9/11

That's because they already had plans for flying them into the World Trade Center.
>> No. 433669 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 6:14 pm
433669 spacer
>>433667

I find myself at a bit of a loss here, I'm as racist as the next bloke but even I'm fuming that somebody shot down four passport holding British people regardless of how brown they were and they're currently in the process of getting away with it. Why don't the Canadians give a fuck? They're all culturally integrated and whatnot so the towel-headedness of their nationals on the plane should be irrelevant. The world's gone bloody mad.

Sage because I know this post is going to generate a cunt off.
>> No. 433670 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 7:04 pm
433670 spacer
>>433669

>I'm as racist as the next bloke but even I'm fuming that somebody shot down four passport holding British people regardless of how brown they were


Within all that bizarre logic, they were probably simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Like pedestrians getting hit by a veering bus in the street. Or a person who catches a bullet through the head from a shooter who goes around randomly killing people in a shopping centre on a Wednesday morning. Just as the 9/11 daft militant wogs probably had nothing personally against the staff at the Windows of the World restaurant (although they did serve shit overpriced coffee when I was there once), and they went down with the World Trade Center just like everybody else, simply because they chose to show up for work that day.

It's all bonkers, any way you look at it. Just saying, we might be dealing with forces here that didn't give more of a shit about four British citizens than they did about all the towelheads and watered-down Russians on that plane.
>> No. 433671 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 7:06 pm
433671 spacer
>>433670

Oh the British ones were towel-heads as well. The point is you need to make other countries think twice before interfering with British citizens of all colours and towel-headedness or you're not really an intimidating world power.
>> No. 433672 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 7:07 pm
433672 spacer
>>433655

You're not seriously suggesting that it's outlandish to suggest I might have had the idea to monitor the airports if I was actively looking for a foreign fugitive? Come on now.
>> No. 433673 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 7:09 pm
433673 spacer
>>433672

No, I'm suggesting it's outlandish to say that no cock ups happened and that the airport was definitely monitored and if it was monitored they would have definitely found the hypothetical person they were looking for.

You're not saying "to be an effective spy agency the Iranians should have done this" you're saying "the Iranians definitely did this if this situation was real so your situation cannot be real."
>> No. 433674 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 7:14 pm
433674 spacer
>>433673

I'm actually saying it probably wasn't the Iranians, since it would have been so easy to take an alternative route if it was.

And it still doesn't make sense to allow for the possibility that the airport wasn't monitored, that they would have definitely not found the person they were monitoring for, but then to suggest they still somehow figured out that the person was on board a plane as it was boarding or rolling up to the runway etc.

If we're allowing for cock ups, why not just assume there's a really fucking thick soldier with an itchy missile finger?
>> No. 433676 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 7:17 pm
433676 spacer
>>433674

Because we're all smart enough to have assessed that idea and come to the conclusion that yes, it's a possibility but there's no point proffering it as an idea because there isn't much to discuss beyond that. If it was a single soldier (which yes has been mentioned) then great, now what? If it was a spy on the plane it could be a spy from about 150 nations, there could be a dozen reasons his death was important enough to merit the collateral damage, the timing of his departure could be significant and so on.
>> No. 433677 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 7:20 pm
433677 spacer
>>433676

So it's just conspiracy for the sake of conspiracy?

Fucks sake, I was a speculative knob a day ago for suggesting it was a missile at all.
>> No. 433678 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 7:24 pm
433678 spacer
>>433677

At that point the governments of the world hadn't said "yes it was a missle, no we're not going to do anything about it."

I was the one telling that TooMuchToThinklad to fuck off if that makes it any better.
>> No. 433679 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 7:33 pm
433679 spacer
So was this a trigger happy Timothy with a MANPAD or something? If it weren't so appallingly tragic I'd laugh.
>> No. 433680 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 7:35 pm
433680 spacer
>>433679

I don't believe the discussion so far would lead any reasonable person to make such an assertive conclusion.
>> No. 433681 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 8:22 pm
433681 spacer
>>433680

Yes, but anti aircraft missiles don't just magically point themselves at passenger planes and fire. Somebody had to pull the trigger, and either it was a covert secret service operation, by whatever country's secret service, or it was really a massive cock up of an Iranian soldier. Maybe he was just joking around with his mates and randomly pointing his missile launcher at things, and then his fingers hit the wrong button. And anything in between.
>> No. 433685 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 8:33 pm
433685 spacer
>>433681
>a massive cock up of an Iranian soldier

Simple as. An actual accident.
>> No. 433686 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 8:40 pm
433686 spacer
>>433681
>>433685

GCHQ is out in force tonight. I hope you're getting overtime.
>> No. 433687 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 8:46 pm
433687 spacer
There could be a bigger picture emerging now that the West is trying to blame the plane crash on Iran itself, and to use it as part of an effort to ramp up pressure against the Iranian regime.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/10/iran-plane-crash-western-powers-suggest-tehran-downed-ukraine-plane.html

Tactical beginner's mistake by Iran then, to immediately declare it an engine failure, only to be proven wrong by something as basic as eyewitness video off a smartphone.

It still doesn't fit that Iranian soldiers actually would have mistaken a civilian 737 for an enemy military aircraft. Especially since the plane itself was only at 8,000 ft at the time of the likely missile impact. Even against a night sky, you will be able to make out that that's not an enemy aircraft you're shooting at if it's at that altitude. Especially since you will likely have had your sights on it for a few minutes prior, during which time the plane would have been even lower above ground. Doesn't sound like something that would happen to a soldier who's at least trained enough to be trusted with handling a missile launcher.

My best guess is the CIA or some other foreign secret service with ties to the CIA did it. To destabilise the Iranian government, and to distract from the fact that this bizarre standoff between the U.S. and Iran was really set off by the fact that POTUS isn't big on the basic concept of cause and effect.
>> No. 433688 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 10:15 pm
433688 spacer
>Iran Air Flight 655 was a scheduled passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai via Bandar Abbas that was shot down on 3 July 1988 by an SM-2MR surface-to-air missile fired from USS Vincennes, a guided-missile cruiser of the United States Navy. The aircraft, an Airbus A300, was destroyed and all 290 people on board were killed. The jet was hit while flying over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, along the flight's usual route, shortly after departing Bandar Abbas International Airport, the flight's stopover location.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
>> No. 433689 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 10:22 pm
433689 spacer
>>433687

It's a theory, and could be possible, but I'm not sure how likely it is that they'd take that action. It seems much more likely it's a cock up from the Iranians, hence the quick response and statement. People on edge, someone made a mistake at some point.
>> No. 433690 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 10:55 pm
433690 spacer
>>433688

There's unfortunately a bit of a history of passenger planes being shot down by mistake. Just take the missile attack on the Korean 747 by the Soviet Union in 1983. Except in that case, the aircraft was actually in and out of Soviet airspace without properly identifying itself, which led the Russians to assume that it was an enemy aircraft. It's not unreasonable to say that the plane's flight behaviour created a false positive in the eyes of Soviet air defence personnel who were trying to judge if it posed a military threat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007

The question why Soviet jet fighters approaching the 747 carried out the air-to-air missile attack despite realising it was a Boeing 747, and quite likely a civilian one, was the subject of heated debate even after the end of the Soviet Union. The biggest factor was probably a poorly structured chain of command, and the people in it not second guessing their actions before carrying them out.
>> No. 433691 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 11:38 pm
433691 spacer
>>433687

This has Vladislav Surkov's fingerprints all over it.
>> No. 433693 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 11:22 am
433693 spacer
Well, now we know.
>> No. 433694 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 11:28 am
433694 spacer
>>433693
The Iranians deserve respect for this. Not just because I didn't have to read this thread nor follow the news to gain more certainty about an occurrence in world affairs than is normally possible, but for the deescalatory nature of the admission.
>> No. 433695 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 11:34 am
433695 spacer
>>433694

It's still bewildering that they thought they would get away with the engine failure excuse.

Somebody had a meeting where they said "Right, we accidentally blew up a passenger airplane. Let's call it engine failure and hope nobody finds out. Let's also not hand over flight recorders to air disaster investigation institutions."

Fucking amateurs.
>> No. 433697 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 11:58 am
433697 spacer
>>433695
"What about the crash site? There might be evid-"
"Clear it before anyone gets here."
>> No. 433698 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 11:58 am
433698 spacer
>>433695
Eh I dunno. Russia didn't "get away" with Little Green Men but I wouldn't call the communication strategy a failure in any regard. It bought a couple of days where some people had to secure certainty about what was happening rather than focusing on how to react.
>> No. 433701 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 12:35 pm
433701 spacer
>>433698
They could have gone 'our investigation is continuing to ascertain the cause of the crash and we are not ruling anything out at this point in time'. Instead the first thing they did was deny it.
>> No. 433702 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 12:39 pm
433702 spacer
>>433680
I await my apology, cockylad.
>> No. 433703 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 12:41 pm
433703 spacer
>>433701
I can imagine a scenario where the top brass didn't know they'd done it and were reluctant to entertain the possibility. That might be arrogant but I don't know it's necessarily amateur. Then again I'm not sure what the Iranian radar etc. capabilities are. Obviously the parties responsible for firing the missile would have been self-interested in covering it up and now their heads might be for the chop. *shrug*
>> No. 433704 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 12:43 pm
433704 spacer
>>433695
I am willing to bet they had some telemetry already from the plane saying that the engine had failed first before it all crashed - that is technically possible and available to the operator and civilian regulators. But what likely happened was the SAM (which exploded next to the plane) took out that engine and half the controls, but it then carried on flying (uncontrolled) for a while. The SAMs are programmed to detonate near the plane, not ballistically target the plane itself.
>> No. 433705 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 1:35 pm
433705 spacer
>>433704

I believe they announced it as an engine failure before the flight recorders were even found in the wreckage.
>> No. 433706 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 1:56 pm
433706 spacer
>>433705
I could look it up but surely someone will know: can any state actor readily decipher a black box or are they encrypted/encoded in some way that only the privileged states can easily read?
>> No. 433707 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 2:24 pm
433707 spacer
>>433706

I think much of the flight recorder consists of raw data from the aircraft's many sensors and control units. It's probably not encrypted, but you will have to have an idea what that data means when you retrieve it from the recorders and want to analyse it.

The cockpit voice recorders for a long time consisted of an endless magnetic tape loop. I think in the really old days it was actually a loop of magnetised iron wire, then it was audio tape, but the most modern voice recorders now of course store the audio digitally.
>> No. 433708 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 2:29 pm
433708 spacer
>>433707
I'd guess there's every chance a country like Iran has taken the time to study the data structures, because they'll naturally posses a bucketload of the things.
>> No. 433709 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 2:32 pm
433709 spacer
>>433706

The applicable standards (ED-112) require the use of plain text. IIRC the regulations do not require any sort of tamper protection for the stored data.
>> No. 433711 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 2:48 pm
433711 spacer
>>433709

>The applicable standards (ED-112) require the use of plain text

So then you pretty much just get an ASCII data dump that you can download or otherwise extract from the recorder?
>> No. 433713 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 4:09 pm
433713 spacer

Annotation 2020-01-11 160603.png
433713433713433713
>>433711

Not him and I've never seen raw flight recorder data but I'm almost positive it'll simply be a string of letters and numbers separated by slashes as that's how quite a lot of information is stored and sent in aviation, from load messages to departure TELEXes to METAR weather reports, they all sort of look like this. I can't imagine them using a significantly more complicated system, when all you really want is data you can plot to graphs.


Would be surprised if it was anymore complicated than a block like /FLAPS 0.93/ALTITUDE 8000/SPD 250/ and so on and so forth, just printed line per line every few seconds.

Hopefully someone else here actually knows/can find the information. It's not an easy thing to google and I'm definitely on a list now.
>> No. 433714 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 4:36 pm
433714 spacer
>>433713

https://www.flightdatacommunity.com/understanding-flight-data/

There's a little bit on it here, and the full standards overview here:

https://www.bea.aero/uploads/tx_scalaetudessecurite/use.of.fdr_01.pdf

Seems like it's not immediately human readable like I thought, but is otherwise pretty straightforward.
>> No. 433723 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 8:22 pm
433723 spacer
>>433714
> Seems like it's not immediately human readable like I thought, but is otherwise pretty straightforward.

Alas, a text based format doesn't always mean human readable, it just means that it's probably all going to be printable ASCII chars. Even protocols that are purely "human readable" and text-based such as HTTP 1.1 can (and do) wrap all kinds of binary insanity up in things like ASN.1/BER/DER encoded as base64 or uuencoded etc.
>> No. 433726 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 10:57 pm
433726 spacer
>>433723

I did wonder if I just misunderstood the meaning of 'plain text' but I get in computer world that must include ones and zeros.

I do wonder if the average passenger would still fly if they knew how old some of the systems keeping them alive up there are. Come to think of it, do normals even know they're probably taking a 25 year old plane off to spain every year?
>> No. 433731 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 12:28 pm
433731 spacer
>>433726

>the meaning of 'plain text'

Plain text by a loose definition means anything that isn't in binary format.

For example, when you open a jpeg file in a text editor, it will look like a bunch of random strange characters that don't make sense. That's binary format. Whereas a printer driver file will usually have its instructions spelled out in plain text that is readable and understandable to you. But even a concatenation of just numbers, as long as they are readable that way, counts as plain text.


> Come to think of it, do normals even know they're probably taking a 25 year old plane off to spain every year?

Not the first thing that's your mind while you're on a plane with the prospect of spending a week off your tits in Magaluf with your mates, that's true.

I try to catch what the plaque on the front door frame reads everytime I get on a plane. There's normally a small white plaque somewhere around that area that denotes the plane's model and the year it was built. I've found that most budget airlines have planes that are around 5 to 10 years old; it's rare to get a really old banger, in my experience. That said, I caught a super cheap flight to Rhodes once with Thomas Cook, and their plane just looked in a sorry state, its liveries had obviously been painted over a few times, and the plaque in the front said that it was a good 20 years old and it looked like a beaten up school bus. Then again, the flight was 80 quid one-way. You do get what you pay for in the end.
>> No. 433732 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 4:48 pm
433732 spacer
>>433731

>I try to catch what the plaque on the front door frame reads everytime I get on a plane. There's normally a small white plaque somewhere around that area that denotes the plane's model and the year it was built.

If you're interested, flight tracking apps (I reccomend flight radar) will give you this information if you know the flight number, and you can see where the plane has been, how often it is delayed, and so on.


It's not too uncommon to see older planes, most of the summer charter fleet planes are 20ish and have had more paintjobs than the Forth Bridge. TUI planes I've noticed in particular have fucking shocking paintwork, you can clearly see the "Thompson" logo they've covered over in on most of them.

A 20 or even 30 year old plane is going to be a Triggers Broom situation anyway, almost every engine and flight control part will have been replaced or serviced a thousand times over.

The yanks are only just retiring their MD80s from 40 years ago, and jet2 still have a couple of 737-200s in their fleet, thoguh you'll only see them on low value regional flights.

Planes on the whole are pretty solid, none of the popular jets strike me as particularly unreliable. The only plane that gives me the heebie jeebies is the BaE Jetstreams. Tiny little fucking prop planes that I can barely stand up in, and I'm short. And they break all the time, there's always something going wrong on them. It's highly amusing to me that the IATA delay code for aircraft technical failure is 41, and the most used BaE plane is the Jetstream 41. Its like they knew.
>> No. 433733 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 5:24 pm
433733 spacer
>>433732
>Triggers Broom situation
I think I've been keeping the wrong company because I've always heard it referred to as the ship of Theseus.
>> No. 433734 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 5:58 pm
433734 spacer
Well, this is the first time you've made me acknowledge that I may be flying in a twenty or thirty year old plane, and I don't really care, because I know flying is very safe and heavily regulated, and when a crash does occur it's rarely 'because the plane was old'.
>> No. 433736 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 6:57 pm
433736 spacer
>>433732

Charter operators don't mind running clapped-out old jets, because they aren't operating very tight schedules. The likes of Ryanair would rather lease a load of new aircraft than deal with delays, cancellations and knock-on disruption due to unscheduled maintenance.
>> No. 433741 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 8:23 pm
433741 spacer
>>433733

I usually use that one, but wasn't sure how to spell Theseus.
>> No. 433742 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 8:27 pm
433742 spacer
>>433732

>TUI planes I've noticed in particular have fucking shocking paintwork, you can clearly see the "Thompson" logo they've covered over in on most of them. 

I was able to make out at least three different paint jobs on that plane. The bottom one was undecipherable, but the one on top of that was clearly Condor, Thomas Cook's Dutch (?) subsidiary airline, and then the Thomas Cook logos slapped onto that. To their credit, the headrest covers looked neat, but the seats themselves were really in bad shape, with loose and wonky armrests and seatback trays with missing screws.

I got the flight for 80 quid via a price comparison site, but someone in a seat near me paid more than twice that from what they told me. £180 would have been quite bad value for money that day.
>> No. 433743 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 8:34 pm
433743 spacer
>>433732

>TUI planes I've noticed in particular have fucking shocking paintwork, you can clearly see the "Thompson" logo they've covered over in on most of them.

The weight of paint has a measurable impact on fuel consumption, so they put it on as thinly as possible. Stripping a plane back to bare metal costs a fortune, hence the shitty overpainted appearance.
>> No. 433748 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 9:32 pm
433748 spacer
>>433736

This is true as long as you can fix or replace your broken down plane with less than three hours delay. Once you start paying delay compo, things get painful. It costs about 300k to repair/replace an engine someone has driven into on the ground with a truck but it costs 750k to delay 189 passengers by more than three hours.
>> No. 433749 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 9:36 pm
433749 spacer
>>433743

I do wonder why they don't just use decals, considering how often planes and airlines change hands. Probably there's very good reasons they don't.

The most daft one to me is that the newish Flybe Dash-8's have registrations starting G-PRP_ in reference to their colour scheme, which they're going to lose very soon when they rebrand under Virgin.
>> No. 433750 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 10:13 pm
433750 spacer
>>433749
>G-PRP_
Is it not in reference to them being turboprops?
>> No. 433751 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 10:48 pm
433751 spacer
>>433750

It could be, that would be less annoying to me. But it's only the purphuel liveried ones that have PRP in the reg.

The most amusing one flybe have is G-ECOK. Because it sounds like cock
>> No. 433763 Anonymous
13th January 2020
Monday 1:35 pm
433763 spacer

Funny-registration-3.jpg
433763433763433763
>>433751

Not sure I would get on this plane...
>> No. 433764 Anonymous
13th January 2020
Monday 2:00 pm
433764 spacer
>>433751
Not just a cock, but an e-cock.
>> No. 433767 Anonymous
13th January 2020
Monday 3:25 pm
433767 spacer
>>433764

>e-cock

Is that like an e-cig, for when you're trying to wean yourself off real cock?

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password