Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/26/2004 7:05:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 7:06:33 AM EST by StariVojnik]
Spoke to some relatives and friends today from Russia. The word is the planes were hi-jacked by Chechen terrorists and the Russians responded with force because they were afraid they were going to crash the planes into one of the nuclear facilities which has 4 reactors. The debris field is scattered over 50 miles from one of the planes. They are down playing this in the news because it was one of those dammed if you do and dammed if you dont situations for Putin. Currently, Putin has a high rating among Russian voters and as said by Russian news sources the "investigation" continues and after everyone has had a few bottles of Vodka over the next couple of weeks, we should all by then forget about it and go on with our lives......



and now back to "Kerry's purple hearts and all the attrocities in Vietnam."




Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:07:20 AM EST
Sad, but I hope it's true. Word gets out that we just take out any hi-jacked airline, then the hijackers will stop doing it. There is no value to them anymore.

TXL
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:10:29 AM EST
I wouldn't dought it at all, in Russia, "PC" means Pound & Crush.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:16:09 AM EST
damn, hard way to go.
moral. don't let them take the plane!
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:16:22 AM EST
Sounds about right on par for the Russians/Soviets. Listening to the news last night, and even though
the crash-site for the second plane had only been found abt 3 hours previousl, the mouthpiece for
the Russians was saying, "Investigation of the crash site wreckage shows no evidence of any
terrorism related damage...."

Uh-huh... and it takes TSA here how long to make their best guesses sometimes?
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:20:02 AM EST
extra layers of tinfoil added to head.

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:22:34 AM EST
It wouldn't deter terrorists.
In fact, it might be more helpful to their cause.
Nothing like the negative side effects (terror) of a government shooting down its own airliners.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:31:44 AM EST
If so, my hats off to the Russians for making the hard call.

These are the times that try mens souls.

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:40:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By hk940:
damn, hard way to go.
moral. don't let them take the plane!





Unfortunately in Russia, all you need is MONEY and you can go practically anywhere if the price is right.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:45:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By Leisure_Shoot:
Nothing like the negative side effects (terror) of a government shooting down its own airliners.



I don't think so. It shows the government will do what it has to to defend critical targets.

If this DID happen, GOOD FOR THE GOV.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:48:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 7:54:15 AM EST by StariVojnik]

Originally Posted By Leisure_Shoot:
It wouldn't deter terrorists.
In fact, it might be more helpful to their cause.
Nothing like the negative side effects (terror) of a government shooting down its own airliners.





I disagree. Its better than doing nothing at all.

Russian politics being the way it is, controls and influences the presentation of events thats paletteable[sp] to their public and the world.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:52:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By Leisure_Shoot:
Nothing like the negative side effects (terror) of a government shooting down its own airliners.



I don't think so. It shows the government will do what it has to to defend critical targets.

If this DID happen, GOOD FOR THE GOV.



+1
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:59:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:
If so, my hats off to the Russians for making the hard call.

These are the times that try mens souls.




Oh, like it cost the Russian government anything to do that and then lie about it. Just like Flight 93 here. All governments are the same.

Times that try mens' souls? Please, I don't want to insult you, but that is a ludicrous statement. These are easy times compared to, oh, I don't know, World War Two? The Civil War? All this terrorism was induced by various government policies around the globe--it's what happens when large groups of people get completely cut out of the political process. It is all a calculated power grab. Neither the Russians or our bureaucrats care whether you or I get killed. It's sickening.

If they had to shoot the jets down to stop a Russian 9/11, the decent thing to do would be to explain it and own up to it. Any government failing to do that has no credibility whatsoever. And Russia is the epitome of rule by mobsters, with Putin (who is very friendly with GWB, btw) as the head mafioso.

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:00:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By thelibertarian:

Originally Posted By garandman:
If so, my hats off to the Russians for making the hard call.

These are the times that try mens souls.




Oh, like it cost the Russian government anything to do that and then lie about it. Just like Flight 93 here. All governments are the same.



And apparently all idiots are the same as well.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:02:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 8:02:34 AM EST by Leisure_Shoot]
I don't think the gov't should hold back and let them do whatever with a hijacked plane.
I agree. They did the right thing.
I just believe the terrorists still get what they wanted in the first place.
People living in fear.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:07:35 AM EST
This could scenario could happen here in the USA, if hijackers gained control of an aircraft, and all the crew had to fight them off is the stewardesses. During the days following 9/11/01 WTC/Pentagon attack, there were warplanes patroling the skies of NYC with real bullets(this is for the sheeples, actually what I meant to say, armed with live missles and warheads).
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:11:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By hk940:
damn, hard way to go.
moral. don't let them take the plane!



+1.

[posturing]Try that shit in Texas, terrorist fuckers.[/posturing]
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:16:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By Tanker06:
Sounds about right on par for the Russians/Soviets. Listening to the news last night, and even though
the crash-site for the second plane had only been found abt 3 hours previousl, the mouthpiece for
the Russians was saying, "Investigation of the crash site wreckage shows no evidence of any
terrorism related damage...."


Uh-huh... and it takes TSA here how long to make their best guesses sometimes?



Tanker,

if the title of this thread turns out to be true, there is nothing incorrect about that statement. If you know the plane was shot down before terrorists had a chance to detonate anything or crash it into targets of value, then none of the damage would be terrorist-related.

Actually, thinking about it more, it would be "terrorist-related," because it never would have been shot down had it not been hijacked. What this mouthpiece should have said was: "Investigation of the crash site wreckage shows no evidence of any damage caused by terrorists...."

There, got that one figured out. Now back to the $100,000 question: trying to find out what the definition of "is" is.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:17:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Leisure_Shoot:
It wouldn't deter terrorists.
In fact, it might be more helpful to their cause.
Nothing like the negative side effects (terror) of a government shooting down its own airliners.



Not only that, but you could argue that it makes the terrorists' job easier – No longer any need to smuggle explosives aboard.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:21:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:
If so, my hats off to the Russians for making the hard call.

These are the times that try mens souls.




Can you imagine (s)Kerry making this kind of call?
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:22:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By Skibane:

Originally Posted By Leisure_Shoot:
It wouldn't deter terrorists.
In fact, it might be more helpful to their cause.
Nothing like the negative side effects (terror) of a government shooting down its own airliners.



Not only that, but you could argue that it makes the terrorists' job easier – No longer any need to smuggle explosives aboard.




Interesting point, but to play devil's advocate, the whole purpose of a guided bomb becomes moot.

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:35:12 AM EST
Would the Russians have shot them down?

Sound very likely if the Russians suspected a hijack, it's their policy, no negotiation, no compromise…period!

Andy
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:42:40 AM EST
It would figure...the russians never were masters of public relations. Their antiquated philosophy is that "what the people don't know, can't hurt em."
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:55:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By Tanker06:
Sounds about right on par for the Russians/Soviets. Listening to the news last night, and even though
the crash-site for the second plane had only been found abt 3 hours previousl, the mouthpiece for
the Russians was saying, "Investigation of the crash site wreckage shows no evidence of any
terrorism related damage...."

Uh-huh... and it takes TSA here how long to make their best guesses sometimes?



The Assoisiated Press is reporting that Russia has placed terrorism as the most likely cause of the crashes.

From FoxNews
Russian Official: Terror Suspected in Crashes
Thursday, August 26, 2004

Fast Facts: Chechnya Conflict
MOSCOW — A top Russian official said Thursday that flight recorders (search) failed to provide reliable information about what brought down two jetliners just minutes apart, but for the first time a government leader conceded that terrorism was considered the leading possibility.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:00:34 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 9:14:55 AM EST by u-baddog]
What do you think the pilots that fly the russky skys feel about this policy ?

Pilot : If I push the "I am highjacked" button I will die by a missle or is the button just attached to a self destuct device.
Maybe I could see if I can play my way out of this if I dont let anyone know I am highjacked ?

What is he going to do ?


Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:19:14 AM EST
Just think! Both airplanes did not have a lot of people on them, just like on Sept. 11. Its easier to take over a plane with less people to confront. Seems to fall into place with how 9/11 was pulled off. Hmmmmm.


Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:29:01 AM EST

Hrmm. One plane was 500 miles further away when
it was lost from radar four minutes after the first. How
long does it take for a Flanker to fly 500 miles (or
fly to within the envelope of an AA11)?

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:10:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
Hrmm. One plane was 500 miles further away when
it was lost from radar four minutes after the first. How
long does it take for a Flanker to fly 500 miles (or
fly to within the envelope of an AA11)?




Easy... There were two fighters, and the 'shoot' order was given at the same time.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:34:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
Hrmm. One plane was 500 miles further away when
it was lost from radar four minutes after the first. How
long does it take for a Flanker to fly 500 miles (or
fly to within the envelope of an AA11)?




There are still idiots who believe that Flight 93 was shot down, you won't be able to disway them using facts on this case either.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:44:10 AM EST
I still vote to give EVERY passenger a Taser Gun.

As long as the passengers have the terrorists outnumbered they are mathematically guaranteed to be subdued.

IMHO

Da' Lab
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:54:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By StariVojnik:
...The debris field is scattered over 50 miles from one of the planes....

Who's got the Heavy Duty Bullshit Detector? Mine's been pegged and wrapped around the pin by this piece of nonsense.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:07:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By LABLOVER:
I still vote to give EVERY passenger a Taser Gun.

As long as the passengers have the terrorists outnumbered they are mathematically guaranteed to be subdued.

IMHO

Da' Lab



"I said more peanuts, bitch!" ZZZZap.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:07:58 AM EST
Mmmm...approximately an hour from take off to crash? That is the time frame that The Neutral Observer was given.

That's not much time for some terrorists to pull off a hijacking, word to get out to the ground controllers, then to filter through the command structure to someone who can make a decision like that, then for the order to filter back down and the aircraft to be scrambled, intercept the aircraft, and shoot them both down.

It's a stretch.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:14:30 AM EST
IF IT'S TRUE. It makes sense to say it was an accident not terrorism. That way you deny the terrorists the victory of public knowledge of forcing a shootdown... unless Putin wants to use this to bomb the rubble piles in Chechnya again.


Originally Posted By rayra:

Originally Posted By StariVojnik:
...The debris field is scattered over 50 miles from one of the planes....

Who's got the Heavy Duty Bullshit Detector? Mine's been pegged and wrapped around the pin by this piece of nonsense.



Explode the plane at high altitude and you could get this I'm sure.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:14:34 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 11:19:46 AM EST by StariVojnik]

Originally Posted By rayra:

Originally Posted By StariVojnik:
...The debris field is scattered over 50 miles from one of the planes....

Who's got the Heavy Duty Bullshit Detector? Mine's been pegged and wrapped around the pin by this piece of nonsense.




Math wasn't my strong point in school. Its more like 15 miles. Sorry.

PS: You don't have to get that ugly with a mistake, it wasn't like I intentionally want to mislead readers.

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:16:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By The_Neutral_Observer:
Mmmm...approximately an hour from take off to crash? That is the time frame that The Neutral Observer was given.

That's not much time for some terrorists to pull off a hijacking, word to get out to the ground controllers, then to filter through the command structure to someone who can make a decision like that, then for the order to filter back down and the aircraft to be scrambled, intercept the aircraft, and shoot them both down.

It's a stretch.




How about a SAM?

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:20:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
Hrmm. One plane was 500 miles further away when
it was lost from radar four minutes after the first. How
long does it take for a Flanker to fly 500 miles (or
fly to within the envelope of an AA11)?




What's getting me thus far is how they could take of "minutes apart" (how many, exactly) and end up 500 miles apart. One was found 100mi "south" of Moscow and the other 600mi "south" of Moscow. I'd first of all like to know exactly how "south" they were (i.e. ESE, WSW, etc). Then I'd like to see the flight plan(s). I'm giving Putin 15 minutes to accede to my demands! Then he will know my wrath and ............<click here><boom! />

<silence...................>
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:21:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By StariVojnik:

Originally Posted By The_Neutral_Observer:
Mmmm...approximately an hour from take off to crash? That is the time frame that The Neutral Observer was given.

That's not much time for some terrorists to pull off a hijacking, word to get out to the ground controllers, then to filter through the command structure to someone who can make a decision like that, then for the order to filter back down and the aircraft to be scrambled, intercept the aircraft, and shoot them both down.

It's a stretch.




How about a SAM?




Possible, but only if both aircraft strayed in range of alerted, fixed-position SAM sites. Not enough time to get a mobile unit out there, especially since they couldn't assume the airplane would stay on it's original flight plan. Then you still have the problem of command-control. Waking up/alerting the crews, getting the systems online, giving them authority for the shoot down, etc.

Still a stretch.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:22:14 AM EST
Did you guys see the report that there were six passengers who checked luggage but didn't make the flight?
Seems a bomb could have very easily made it on board.
The fact that both planes went down at almost the same time, I think this is very likely. A bomb put on both planes, set on timers.
The Russians say that the data recorders stopped recording instantly, they just are flying along and then both of them stop recording. I think that also fits the bomb theory.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:22:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft:
IF IT'S TRUE. It makes sense to say it was an accident not terrorism. That way you deny the terrorists the victory of public knowledge of forcing a shootdown... unless Putin wants to use this to bomb the rubble piles in Chechnya again.


Originally Posted By rayra:

Originally Posted By StariVojnik:
...The debris field is scattered over 50 miles from one of the planes....

Who's got the Heavy Duty Bullshit Detector? Mine's been pegged and wrapped around the pin by this piece of nonsense.



Explode the plane at high altitude and you could get this I'm sure.



Av,

it's not the space shuttle. Still, use that as a guide. Anyone remember how far that debris field stretched (honestly, i don't)? Scale it down/back/slower and go from there. Just for rough comparison.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:27:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 11:35:42 AM EST by guardian855]

Originally Posted By wise_jake:

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
Hrmm. One plane was 500 miles further away when
it was lost from radar four minutes after the first. How
long does it take for a Flanker to fly 500 miles (or
fly to within the envelope of an AA11)?




What's getting me thus far is how they could take of "minutes apart" (how many, exactly) and end up 500 miles apart. One was found 100mi "south" of Moscow and the other 600mi "south" of Moscow. I'd first of all like to know exactly how "south" they were (i.e. ESE, WSW, etc). Then I'd like to see the flight plan(s). I'm giving Putin 15 minutes to accede to my demands! Then he will know my wrath and ............<click here><boom! />

<silence...................>



9:35 p.m. — Tu-154 jet, carrying 46 passengers, takes off from Moscow's Domodedovo airport (search) for the Black Sea resort of Sochi (search).

10:15 p.m. — Tu-134 jet, carrying 43 passengers, takes off from Moscow's Domodedovo airport for the southern Russian city of Volgograd (search).

10:55 p.m. — Tu-154 jet activates a distress signal indicating that the plane might have been hijacked.

10:56 p.m. — Tu-134 jet disappears from radar screens and crashes.

10:59 p.m. — Tu-154 crashes in Rostov region.

Wednesday, Aug. 25

3:00 a.m. — Rescuers find the wreckage of Tu-134 jet in the Tula region, about 125 miles south of Moscow.

8:41 a.m. — Rescuers discover wreckage of Tu-154 jet some 600 miles south of Moscow.


They took off 40 minutes apart, and the crashes were less than 500 miles apart. That's what to be expected.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:28:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By wise_jake:

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
Hrmm. One plane was 500 miles further away when
it was lost from radar four minutes after the first. How
long does it take for a Flanker to fly 500 miles (or
fly to within the envelope of an AA11)?




What's getting me thus far is how they could take of "minutes apart" (how many, exactly) and end up 500 miles apart. One was found 100mi "south" of Moscow and the other 600mi "south" of Moscow. I'd first of all like to know exactly how "south" they were (i.e. ESE, WSW, etc). Then I'd like to see the flight plan(s). I'm giving Putin 15 minutes to accede to my demands! Then he will know my wrath and ............<click here><boom! />

<silence...................>



All of the reports I've seen said they took off up to 30 minutes apart.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:31:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 11:34:04 AM EST by fadedsun]
Wonder if this'll make it to CBS/ABC/CNN tonight for the evening news.

Ben
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:34:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 11:36:42 AM EST by wise_jake]

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By wise_jake:

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
Hrmm. One plane was 500 miles further away when
it was lost from radar four minutes after the first. How
long does it take for a Flanker to fly 500 miles (or
fly to within the envelope of an AA11)?




What's getting me thus far is how they could take of "minutes apart" (how many, exactly) and end up 500 miles apart. One was found 100mi "south" of Moscow and the other 600mi "south" of Moscow. I'd first of all like to know exactly how "south" they were (i.e. ESE, WSW, etc). Then I'd like to see the flight plan(s). I'm giving Putin 15 minutes to accede to my demands! Then he will know my wrath and ............<click here><boom! />

<silence...................>



9:35 p.m. — Tu-154 jet, carrying 46 passengers, takes off from Moscow's Domodedovo airport (search) for the Black Sea resort of Sochi (search).

10:15 p.m. — Tu-134 jet, carrying 43 passengers, takes off from Moscow's Domodedovo airport for the southern Russian city of Volgograd (search).

10:55 p.m. — Tu-154 jet activates a distress signal indicating that the plane might have been hijacked.

10:56 p.m. — Tu-134 jet disappears from radar screens and crashes.

10:59 p.m. — Tu-154 crashes in Rostov region.

Wednesday, Aug. 25

3:00 a.m. — Rescuers find the wreckage of Tu-134 jet in the Tula region, about 125 miles south of Moscow.

8:41 a.m. — Rescuers discover wreckage of Tu-154 jet some 600 miles south of Moscow.


They took off 40 minutes apart, and they crashes were less than 500 miles apart. That's what to be expected.



"Damn, baby, that's all you needed to say......!"

(can't remember what that's from)

That makes perfect sense now. A couple things I read last night said a few minutes. It made me think that maybe the closer one had circled back around and was maybe shot down on it's way back to strike a target. But nevermind, now. That closes that chapter/question for me. Thanks for the info.

ETA: The "u" that properly belongs in the word "minutes."
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:35:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By wise_jake:

Originally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft:
IF IT'S TRUE. It makes sense to say it was an accident not terrorism. That way you deny the terrorists the victory of public knowledge of forcing a shootdown... unless Putin wants to use this to bomb the rubble piles in Chechnya again.


Originally Posted By rayra:

Originally Posted By StariVojnik:
...The debris field is scattered over 50 miles from one of the planes....

Who's got the Heavy Duty Bullshit Detector? Mine's been pegged and wrapped around the pin by this piece of nonsense.



Explode the plane at high altitude and you could get this I'm sure.



Av,

it's not the space shuttle. Still, use that as a guide. Anyone remember how far that debris field stretched (honestly, i don't)? Scale it down/back/slower and go from there. Just for rough comparison.




A passanger plane flying at 35,000 feet travelling at a speed of 450 miles an hour is different than the space shuttle flying at 200,000 feet at an extremely high rate of speed.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:37:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 11:41:57 AM EST by TheAvatar9265ft]
The new Russian S400 and S500 SAMs have ranges in the 300-500mi range.

The Bear has always favored ground directed interceptors and SAMs.

Edit: The space shuttle was spread over two thousand miles.

Remember, an SR-71 going only ~1800mph broke up high over Montana and spread debris over a few hundred miles.

A 500mph airliner @ 40,000ft (terrorists will full throttle it) breaking up at altitude could spread over 15-50 miles I'd think (especially if it took it few minutes to break up.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:38:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By wise_jake:

Originally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft:
IF IT'S TRUE. It makes sense to say it was an accident not terrorism. That way you deny the terrorists the victory of public knowledge of forcing a shootdown... unless Putin wants to use this to bomb the rubble piles in Chechnya again.


Originally Posted By rayra:

Originally Posted By StariVojnik:
...The debris field is scattered over 50 miles from one of the planes....

Who's got the Heavy Duty Bullshit Detector? Mine's been pegged and wrapped around the pin by this piece of nonsense.



Explode the plane at high altitude and you could get this I'm sure.



Av,

it's not the space shuttle. Still, use that as a guide. Anyone remember how far that debris field stretched (honestly, i don't)? Scale it down/back/slower and go from there. Just for rough comparison.




A passanger plane flying at 35,000 feet travelling at a speed of 450 miles an hour is different than the space shuttle flying at 200,000 feet at an extremely high rate of speed.



That was what I was trying to say. That it wasn't the space shuttle and that we wouldn't be seeing 50mi debris fields w/ something so "slow and low" (relative to the shuttle).
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:41:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 11:43:44 AM EST by Mauser101]
Shit, edit. I'm all goofed up today.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:48:57 AM EST
Blah, Blah...

Flags at half mast in Moscow?

Hmmmm.


Semper Fi

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:51:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 11:52:50 AM EST by 199]
I guess there’s also the possibility that one or both of the planes crashed as a result of fighting between hijackers and the crew or passengers.

Still, if you’re willing to consider that the report of the hijack alert might be incorrect, the obvious explanation at this time would simply be bombs.

I’ve got to hope that NSA was monitoring all the radio traffic.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:51:42 AM EST
Remember that Volgagrad=Stalingrad.

GunLvr
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top