A Stinger is designed to take out low altitude targets such as attack helicopter and ground attack aircraft operating at 1000 feet and below.

It's effective on helicopters. It would be effective on civilian airlines at low speed and altitude.

This may come as a surprise to some of you uneducated in how our government functions... The US government covers **** up all the ****ing time...

(06-19-2013 05:55 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  This may come as a surprise to some of you uneducated in how our government functions... The US government covers **** up all the ****ing time...

That's not really the question, the government most certainly covers things up. The comment posed by the original poster is that this is an act of terrorism though.

What terrorist doesn't claim their successful takedown of a plane? Completely defeats the purpose, it just doesn't make any sense.

(06-19-2013 06:52 PM)Huskies2006 Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 05:55 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  This may come as a surprise to some of you uneducated in how our government functions... The US government covers **** up all the ****ing time...

That's not really the question, the government most certainly covers things up. The comment posed by the original poster is that this is an act of terrorism though.

What terrorist doesn't claim their successful takedown of a plane? Completely defeats the purpose, it just doesn't make any sense.

Unless there was a prior statement of what they were going to do.

But none of the evidence supports a missile. Engines show no evidence of a missile strike. Back Box data doesn't support a missile hit.

If you want to go to conspiracy land, forget a missile.

(06-19-2013 07:12 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 06:52 PM)Huskies2006 Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 05:55 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  This may come as a surprise to some of you uneducated in how our government functions... The US government covers **** up all the ****ing time...

That's not really the question, the government most certainly covers things up. The comment posed by the original poster is that this is an act of terrorism though.

What terrorist doesn't claim their successful takedown of a plane? Completely defeats the purpose, it just doesn't make any sense.

Unless there was a prior statement of what they were going to do.

But none of the evidence supports a missile. Engines show no evidence of a missile strike. Back Box data doesn't support a missile hit.

If you want to go to conspiracy land, forget a missile.

A prior statement they were going to do it would be the equivalent of claiming responsibility afterward. I would think that goes without saying.

(06-19-2013 07:12 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 06:52 PM)Huskies2006 Wrote:  That's not really the question, the government most certainly covers things up. The comment posed by the original poster is that this is an act of terrorism though.

What terrorist doesn't claim their successful takedown of a plane? Completely defeats the purpose, it just doesn't make any sense.

Unless there was a prior statement of what they were going to do.

But none of the evidence supports a missile. Engines show no evidence of a missile strike. Back Box data doesn't support a missile hit.

If you want to go to conspiracy land, forget a missile.

The OP simply said that explosives were detected, and that evidence was dismissed. I DID NOT say whether I thought a terrorist, foreign government, or our government did it... I simply provided facts.

The evidence provided so far seems to indicate someone with more than a single stinger did this. If I had to guess, I would say a foreign gov't is to blame.

Just saw an interview with one of the investigators. Doesn't believe it was a missile. He claims when attempting to photograph one of the "entry" holes from a portion of the fuselage, an FBI agent quickly reminded him no photos were allowed. Based on his description, I also believe a missile is out of the question. However, the way he described it, I do believe the damage originated externally.

(06-20-2013 08:17 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  The OP simply said that explosives were detected, and that evidence was dismissed. I DID NOT say whether I thought a terrorist, foreign government, or our government did it... I simply provided facts.

The evidence provided so far seems to indicate someone with more than a single stinger did this. If I had to guess, I would say a foreign gov't is to blame.

Then what in the world were you implying with your sentence about Democrats covering up terrorism?

If you don't think this is a terrorist act, why would you put that in there? How is it at all relevant, unless you do think it's a terrorist act?

Don't backtrack now.. it's quite obvious what you were saying.

(06-20-2013 10:45 AM)Huskies2006 Wrote:  Don't backtrack now.. it's quite obvious what you were saying.

FIFY.

I was referring to the quote, but since you mentioned my intro I changed "terrorism" to "work place violence"... and we all know Billy Boy did it (passed up opportunities to get Bin Laden, likely causing 9/11), so get you panties out of a wad.

I'm open minded. Talked to one of my friends @ Boeing and he said 747s just don't fall out of the sky. That the 800 incident was the most exhaustive investigation they ever did. Personally, I'm skeptical of the wire chaffing explanation. Who puts unprotected wiring inside a fuel tank?

(06-19-2013 12:23 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Yeah and the Republicon government blew up the WTC and the Pentagon.

There was a documentary on that too.

Damn you Robert! I actually like your post.

(06-19-2013 03:35 PM)mlb Wrote:  Did any terrorist groups claim responsibility of the crash?

friendly fire...

(06-19-2013 03:03 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Setting aside the unreliability of people claiming that they saw a missile, this is missing some critical elements of a terrorist attack - motive or a claim of responsibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990

U.S. wargames gone wrong. Friendly fire. Egypt Air 990 was suicide. Pilot about to be fired for harrassing staff at hotels... he was a muslim...and he did pray as he flew the plane into the ground...but thats about it.

(06-20-2013 12:18 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 03:35 PM)mlb Wrote:  Did any terrorist groups claim responsibility of the crash?

friendly fire...

From where and using what?

bill clinton was entirely too busy having non-sex with pudgy jewish princesses (who were barely older than 18, but that's a different felony) to be able to cover anything up, much less something as complex as a blown up airliner.

in other words, the only blown thing he was worried about covering up was the never-fully-serviced-clenis.

(06-20-2013 12:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-20-2013 12:18 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 03:35 PM)mlb Wrote:  Did any terrorist groups claim responsibility of the crash?

friendly fire...

From where and using what?

tons of websites out there radar snapshots... Navy ships were in the area (maybe/maybe not). My point is most people who don't buy the center fuel tank theory think that it was a U.S. military accident that brought the plane down...not a terrorist. I am not sure what happened but then again neither is the NTSB or FBI...they never really conclusively solved this case. But if you read hundreds of eye witness accounts you will find yourself wondering what the hell really happened.

If it were an "external.explosion" but it wasn't a missile, what was it? A bomb strapped to the wing? Either something outside blew inwards or something inside blew out wards.

As for full size Surface to Air Missile such as a Patriot or the Standard, those things are radar directed, weigh several thousand pounds, and need a large radar to direct it. They stick out like a sore thumb.

(06-20-2013 12:25 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(06-20-2013 12:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-20-2013 12:18 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 03:35 PM)mlb Wrote:  Did any terrorist groups claim responsibility of the crash?

friendly fire...

From where and using what?

tons of websites out there radar snapshots... Navy ships were in the area (maybe/maybe not). My point is most people who don't buy the center fuel tank theory think that it was a U.S. military accident that brought the plane down...not a terrorist. I am not sure what happened but then again neither is the NTSB or FBI...they never really conclusively solved this case. But if you read hundreds of eye witness accounts you will find yourself wondering what the hell really happened.

All the Navy ships fire radar guided missiles. They follow a reflected radar beam to the target, You break lock,the missile goes dumb. There aren't any missile test ranges off the coast of Long Island anyway.

One could take down a jet in mid air with a gel capsule pill, a bb, magnesium and other chemicals if you could get it in the fuel tank right before take off; however, this doesn't explain the witnesses and the streak of light. I'll be interested in seeing the documentary and what they think happened.

(06-20-2013 12:20 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 03:03 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Setting aside the unreliability of people claiming that they saw a missile, this is missing some critical elements of a terrorist attack - motive or a claim of responsibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990

U.S. wargames gone wrong. Friendly fire. Egypt Air 990 was suicide. Pilot about to be fired for harrassing staff at hotels... he was a muslim...and he did pray as he flew the plane into the ground...but thats about it.

I'm aware of the circumstances there and the extensive conspiracy theories from within Egypt about why it was Mossad really behind it all (they go into cognitive dissonance overdrive when faced with the possibility of a Muslim committing suicide). The pilot had some history of depression. The thing that doesn't pass the smell test is the coincidence of this guy killing a large number of people in a suicidal act and the fact that there were high level military personnel from Egypt and (and some from Israel) on the flight. It seems plausible that the Muslim Brotherhood saw all of that as an opportunity to get solve this guy's problem along with their own (noting that under Mubarak, I believe the rank and file of the Egyptian military was full of Muslim Brotherhood members, but not the leadership). I'll note also that his actions have the appearances of being pre-planned, but nothing tangible to suggest he didn't or couldn't do that on his own. Scant (well, admittedly, no) evidence, but I still have lingering doubts...