Utopia Talk / Politics / Jergul is wrong (Iran Plane Drama) 2

The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 05:14:07 Start
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 05:19:37 "Patriot Feel free to attribute the quote to the exact person who said it. So we can all mock him for being wrong. Hint: It was the Chief of Civil Aviation. He was wrong. It took 56 hours for Iran to publically take full responsibility. That is amazingly fast." Did you just not a few posts ago claim that I was wrong and misread of what the Aviation chief said? He claimed it is "scientifically impossible." So you are now admitting I am right? "It took 56 hours for Iran to publically take full responsibility. That is amazingly fast" As they began acting completely irrational. Remember it was you that brought the subject up regarding rationality. That is the basis of your argument. What is amazing fast is their irrational denials that they were responsible that it was everything else but them without even beginning the investigation. But hey, I get it, you want to claim Iran has been very adult about the whole thing...
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 05:38:10 Nice thread title. Note how you slipped elegantly from the named individual Abedzadeh to "they". I have absolutely no problems about Abedzadeh being wrong. He should also not have been so catagorical about dismissing missiles. Boeing has gotten an invitation to be part of the investigation. Do you have any issues with the press releases from the military and president? Or with the adroit decision-making process on the matter in general?
Paramount Member	Sat Jan 11 05:38:49 patom Member Sat Jan 11 05:07:34 So wouldn't the rational thing be to ban all flights from or to Iran. -- Sweden has already grounded/banned all flights from and to Iran. In Sweden in it affects only one air company, Iran Air. One can argue that this should have been done already hours after the US attacked and killed the Iranian commander. Flying civilian airliners in a conflict zone is something that should be avoided.
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 05:43:36 Adroit: "Both Iran’s Supreme Leader and President were informed on Friday about the cause of the downing of a Ukrainian airliner, after top military commanders concluded human error was the cause, according to semi-official state outlet Fars News Agency. Fars reported that after being informed of the error in the country’s air defense system, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued an urgent order to convene a National Security Council meeting to investigate the matter. Soon after the meeting concluded, he stressed the results of the investigation become public as soon as possible, Fars reported. It was then decided that Iran’s Armed Forces and President Hassan Rouhani draft statements to be released. Iran’s Armed Forces and the President released separate statements Saturday morning indicating that human error caused the crash of the Ukrainian airliner."
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 05:49:06 Para I still think it was correct not to close the airways. The US and Iran do not communicate well. Closing the airways could easily have been intepreted as a prelude to serious escalation, and not a precautionary measure. This is incidentally no longer true in light of the downed aircraft. A precautionary measure will now seem like a precautionary measure. Lets hope that future tensions never rise enough to justify it.
Paramount Member	Sat Jan 11 05:53:55 ” The US and Iran do not communicate well. Closing the airways could easily have been intepreted as a prelude to serious escalation, and not a precautionary measure.” True. You are a wise man.
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 06:08:21 "Note how you slipped elegantly from the named individual Abedzadeh to "they"." So you have an issue with pronouns as you attempt to distance yourself from your original basis for your argument that Iran was not acting irrational. Interesting. "I have absolutely no problems about Abedzadeh being wrong. He should also not have been so catagorical about dismissing missiles." So, your issue is the individual and they were not the representative of Iran?
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 06:15:25 I just want to make sure I get your line of reasoning. Iran didn't make an official response. It was an individual from an Iranian government agency, which could be argue they are representing the Iranian government, but jergul logic dictates that they (Iran) did not make an official response. Therefore they maintain being rational in their official response when the Iranian government finally acknowledges and takes responsibility for their mistakes. But the individual didn't have any part of their official response at the beginning. Just some clarity. I am finding it more difficult to shift their the jergul bullshit spin.
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 06:16:11 *to sift through the jergul bullshit spin.
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 06:29:55 Patriot I have issues with you attributing to the entire regime what the Chief of their equivalent of the FAA had said. The man is actually under a lot of pressure to set up an investigation properely. He was wrong, though was very clear that the investigation was just beginning. The Iran Government has made timely and official responses. I refer you to the press release from their presidential office and the press release from their Department of Defence.
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 06:39:47 So in the future; If an independent person from a government agency says anything about an issue at which the US is involved, as they are part of the US government, it cannot be allowed as an official US response. I just want to make sure that is the thing, because I hate for you to continue that same line of thought process as it has been something you've been doing for years on the forum. Just saying...
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 06:43:50 I can't imagine that a statutory corporation such as the CAOIRI could be construed as an government official response. No way could that be interpreted as being representatives of the Iranian government in their denials of their responsibility for the airliner. Inconceivable.
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 06:50:46 Patriot No, its more that if the head of the FAA says something, then we say the head of the FAA said something. We do not create a gradoise conspiracy theory about how the entire US government has aligned behind a certain statement. The FAA Head claims Boeing Max is perfectly safe The US claims Boeing Max is perfectly safe Do you see the distinction between those two statements?
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 06:55:38 I recently went to great lengths in describing how I thought a USMC commander was trying to wag the dog by sending a withdrawal letter to the Iraqi PM. I am in other words generally very good at distinguishing who says what and with what authority. I did not for a second suggest that the US wanted to withdraw, then changed its mind. I saw it as a Byzintine power player within the US power structure.
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 07:03:17 What I see is that you are incapable of acknowledging that a response from a government official cannot be construed as an official stance. Especially as it in relation to a matter that involve the country. As the CAOIRI is stated created, therefore by extension when the head official speaks they are representing IRAN. Let me put it in simpler terms for you to understand. Even though they are not government employees, they are adjunct government representatives of their country as they represent them in the Olympic games. Or would you suggest of stop equating individual athletes as whole countries in whichever games they participate. i.e. USA WINS GOLD IN GYMNASTICS. The difference is this was a government agency that does represent Iran, therefore it would be perfectly reasonable for news agencies and people to report or state: "Iran claims no responsibility." Not "Lone wolf individual or bystander on the street claims Iran didn't have any involvement." It appears you are trying *real* hard to distance Iran of any culpability.
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 07:06:19 "I recently went to great lengths in describing how I thought a USMC commander was trying to wag the dog by sending a withdrawal letter to the Iraqi PM. I am in other words generally very good at distinguishing who says what and with what authority. I did not for a second suggest that the US wanted to withdraw, then changed its mind. I saw it as a Byzintine power player within the US power structure." Good for you. By extension in reality, it would still be "US withdrawing" as they are by extension a representative of the US government. I get it, you want semantics in every argument.
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 07:08:25 And just to throw this out there, because it seems you don't believe things like this occur. It would be possible that the Iranian government gave authorization for the this individual to give an official response....but hey that couldn't happen right. Impossible.
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 07:10:06 OR OR OR Just hear me out on this--because you brought up the subject. That a RATIONAL GOVERNMENT would immediately step in and state that things are unclear at the moment and it needs to be investigated and not wait till days later to give a response. "Oh, yeah, we fucked up."
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 07:14:25 Patriot I think you are failing to appreciate that Iran has an official stance now. It is a completely different stance than the opinion the Chief of Civil Aviation shared earlier. I would again have to ask if you have any issues with the timely statments released by their DoD and their President? Do you feel they are not taking responsibility somehow, or that the promise of restitution to the victims is somehow lacking? The clock ticks. Soon it will be 72 hours since the plane was shot down.
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 07:16:21 Iran may have been too busy inviting investigators from involved parties abroad to state the need for an investigation in the repetative clarity you seem to need.
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 07:20:08 "I think you are failing to appreciate that Iran has an official stance now. " As they were in the beginning acting irrationally. Using the jergul-litmus atm. "I would again have to ask if you have any issues with the timely statments released by their DoD and their President? Do you feel they are not taking responsibility somehow, or that the promise of restitution to the victims is somehow lacking? The clock ticks. Soon it will be 72 hours since the plane was shot down." Them acknowledging is fine. Defenders making the claim they have been acting 'rationally' from the beginning is another matter.
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 07:22:05 "Iran may have been too busy inviting investigators from involved parties abroad to state the need for an investigation in the repetative clarity you seem to need." I see, so taking the time to formulate a 15-30 second statement in response to such a pressing matter is requires too much involvement. As the process of sending out invitations may prevent to multitask. Profound argument jergul. Will have to use that more.
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 07:27:06 Patriot Iran had made statements about having an investigation. It had moved on to actually getting foreign investigators involved. Which was the point I was making. So you think Iran was irresponsibly not making enough statements about having an investigation, is that your new beef?
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 07:30:36 I posted the decision-making process above. Feel free to elaborate on it rationality if you like. Iran is owning the downing of the aircraft and is doing so at a very early point in time. Nice to see adults in the room.
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 07:32:38 The beef is that Iran's official response from the beginning was actually they weren't involved via extension of the head of CAOIRI. Then a certain defender arguing that "no official response" being made at the beginning is rational.
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 07:37:26 "I posted the decision-making process above. Feel free to elaborate on it rationality if you like." Your belief -ignoring the initial iranian official's response because jergul logic does not acknowledge it- it is rational to not give an official response to maintain decorum and express there isn't enough information to make that determination (since there was a response already) since there needs to be an investigation to ascertain more information before giving an "official" response. While any statement given was used as their official response, but now everything is okay because Iran /finally/ believes and acknowledges that they screwed up. So all is well. They are 'adulting' now.
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 07:39:46 That is not what I said. The Civil Aviation Authority initially dismissed claims that Iran had shot down the aircraft. The military conducted a preliminary investigation, concluded quickly that it had shot down the aircraft. An immediate session at the highest level of government was held and press-releases were sent out. That is how it went down. I have no idea why you have issues with it beyond otherwise having to accept that Iran is perfectly able to act rationally and reasonably.
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 07:40:22 How many times did we hear from Iran and it allies that the west was already jumping to conclusions too soon? (whilst maintaining they had nothing to do with it, nor have the capabilities of missiles to reach such altitudes.) /shrugs
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 07:45:27 "/finally/". Its not been 72 hours. The US grugingly settled the Viceness affair after how many years? You should actually worry more about why Iran has been so suave about this. It is above all testament to how little political capital the air defence branch has. I suspect an internal power play that will eventually see the Iranian Revolutionary Guard control Iran's air defence assets. Its good timing. Ironically, Iran's air defences have become sophisticated enough to be more than target practice for US aircraft. So it has become a vastly more interesting branch of defence to gain control over.
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 07:45:53 "The Civil Aviation Authority initially dismissed claims that Iran had shot down the aircraft. The military conducted a preliminary investigation, concluded quickly that it had shot down the aircraft. An immediate session at the highest level of government was held and press-releases were sent out. That is how it went down. I have no idea why you have issues with it beyond otherwise having to accept that Iran is perfectly able to act rationally and reasonably." A rational Iranian government, would probably tell their other Iranian official to shut the fuck up before making any bold claims. Knowingly how it would construed as Iran's stance on the matter. Jergul-litmus apparently equates that as rational. A rational Iranian official would possibly not make such bold claims to begin with. And since that did occur. I would think a rational Iranian government would immediately make an official response stating that the initial response by this individual is not the Iran official stance. But that would be irrational.
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 07:46:21 lol@lacking capability. What a silly thing to say.
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 07:47:41 Your beef is now that the regime did not exert enough control over the Civil Aviation Authority and is therefore irrational? Wow.
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 07:51:28 Or you believe that everything Iran has done was rational and they are not culpable.
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 07:52:09 "lol@lacking capability. What a silly thing to say." Yes, it was silly for Iran to make that claim.
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 10:28:32 Is it fair to say that you feel Iran is irresponsible because it does not use twitter enough? A few more tweets to alay your fears? Because that is the hallmark of responsible regimes. Lots and lots and lots of tweets. Iran has been fully rational and reasonable in its response to it shooting down a civilian aircraft. This also included the chief of civil aviation. Despite initially dismissing claims that Iranian air defences shot down the planes, he has been actively reaching out to investigation experts in Ukraine, France, Canada, and the United States. I wonder if the US administration will let Boeing join the investigation. Its scary that we have to wonder about such things. What is your bet Patriot? Will Boeing be allowed to participate?
Sam Adams Member	Sat Jan 11 10:40:49 Lol jergul is in full meltdown mode defending his people that shot down an airliner and then lied about it. Sort of like this gem: "Seb Member Wed Jan 08 17:59:24 Uncontained engine failure could do it. Broken bit of turbine fan (particularly if poorly maintained) can rupture the fuel tank. Engines are designed to try and contain them but it's not always successful. It'd look a lot like this." "Seb Member Fri Jan 10 09:05:08 Like I said, small missile" Lol oops
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 10:50:45 Sammy What? Iran very rationally took responsibility for shooting down the aircraft and has promised to pay the victims' families. Abedzadeh did not lie. He gave his opinion. Lying suggests he had proof the plane was shot down. Instead we got his opinion on why it could not have been air defences (he gave the reasons). He was wrong. My position. Iran has dealt with the aftermath of shooting down the aircraft in a rational, responsible, and reasonable way. It is easy enough for it to do. The responsible branch of the military has very little political capital, so can expect very little in the way of political protection. To the point of my suspecting the shooting will be used in a Revolutionary Guard power play. The end result may very well be independent Qud forces air defence battalions romping about in Syria and Iraq.
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 10:56:30 And its still not 72 hours. Do you know how long it takes the US to admit to responsibility when it does something bad? Not hours, days or weeks. It takes months or years.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Jan 11 10:56:51 "Iran very rationally took responsibility for shooting down the aircraft and has promised to pay the victims' families. " They do get a minor amount of credit for only lieing for 3 days. Iran is more honorable than russia that continues to lie about their recent shootdown. Still the 3 days of lies is pretty bad, as is of course the incompetent shootdown in the first place.
Paramount Member	Sat Jan 11 10:59:54 Iranian protesters demand Khamenei quits over plane downing - video on Twitter DUBAI, Jan 11 (Reuters) - A group of Iranian protesters demanded Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei step down on Saturday after Tehran said that its military had mistakenly shot down a Ukrainian plane, killing all 176 people on board. “Commander-in-chief (Khamenei) resign, resign,” videos posted on Twitter showed hundreds of people chanting, in front of Tehran’s Amir Kabir university. Reuters could not verify the authenticity of the video footage. http://www...video-on-twitter-idUSN9N26H036 ” Reuters could not verify the authenticity of the video footage.” Probably a fake video. The CIA and Mossad can create these kind of videos with ease. Regardless. This year didn’t start well for the Ayatollahs. The only Ayatollah who is somewhat happy today is Ayatollah Trump. I predict he will continue to reign 4-5 years and issue many more fatwas.
Paramount Member	Sat Jan 11 11:03:26 ” Still the 3 days of lies is pretty bad” I don’t think they lied. I think they wanted to have facts on the table first before admitting any guilt. They wanted to find out what happened, why, and who, etc. Until they had this info they were going to deny any involvement/responsibility.
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 11:03:31 Sammy I suppose that is about as close to the reality that you are going to get. It took 48 hours for the military to conclude its preliminary investigation, to have a meeting at the highest level of government, and to write and publish press releases taking responsibility for shooting down the plane. That is fast by any measure.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Jan 11 11:11:29 I(and every other educated person) looked at the available evidence and concluded that the plane was highly likely shotdown in about 5 minutes. But i suppose three days isnt that bad for incompetent bureaucrats. But they still strongly denied shooting it down for 3 days, which is an obvious lie.
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 11:14:58 2 days, 1 guy dismissed claims that it was shot down. "2 days, 1 guy" should be easy to remember. It sounds like the title of a porn movie. Repeat after me: "2 days, 1 guy", "2 days, 1 guy", "2 days, 1 guy" Got it now?
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 11:24:13 "The commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force said he had requested all commercial flights in Iran be grounded until tensions with the US cooled off. But those within the Armed Forces authorized to make such a request from the government and aviation authority chose not to do so, Brigadier-General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh said at a press conference on Saturday. Iranian commander "wished he was dead" after missile downed Ukrainian jet The commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force said Saturday he informed authorities on Wednesday that a missile had downed the Ukrainian passenger plane. Brigadier-General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh said at a press conference in Tehran that after he told senior IRGC members about it, the general staff of the Armed Forces formed its own investigative team, from which he was excluded. Hajizadeh partially blamed the US for the downing of the plane, saying Iran was already on high alert following the US’s warning that it could target 52 sites in Iran, and amid rising tensions with the country. He said the plane was shot down by a short-range missile and was misidentified as a cruise missile by an air defense operator. The operator identified the plane as a cruise missile but was unable to contact the central air defense command to confirm it. So he had to choose between shooting it down or not, and he choose to do it, Hajizadeh said. The operator had 10 seconds to make a decision. Hajizadeh accepted full responsibility for the incident and said once it became clear what had happened, he thought: “I wish I was dead.”" CNN Definitely a power play. The Revolutionary Guard wants to take over the air defence branch. The details on the shooting sound legit. The Tor system is almost physically old enough to be an actual soviet blok sam.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Jan 11 11:31:40 "The operator identified the plane as a cruise missile" Lol. Thats cuckhat level retardation.
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 11:40:24 Careful. Civilian airliners have been identified as things like f-5s on much more advanced missile defence systems.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Jan 11 11:49:56 A much less retarded misidentification. An enemy military airfield vs your own civil airfield. Not to mention flightradar24.com and flightaware.com both exist now, and clearly showed that poor Ukrainian, clear as day, broadcasting ads-b telemetry to the world.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Jan 11 12:05:57 If that aa gunner had pulled out his smartphone and checked fr24 176 lives might have been saved. Also remembering he is under a standard departure path for his countries big civil airport would probably help. Lol what a retard. They should shoot that retard on general fucking principle.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jan 11 13:49:38 Jergul "I suspect an internal power play that will eventually see the Iranian Revolutionary Guard control Iran's air defence assets." It was revolutionary guard air defence that shot the plane down.
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 15:15:26 "Abedzadeh did not lie. He gave his opinion. Lying suggests he had proof the plane was shot down. Instead we got his opinion on why it could not have been air defences (he gave the reasons). He was wrong." Using affirmative/definitive/declarative statements are not the same as stating "opinions." God damn what a stretch you are making... "Iran has dealt with the aftermath of shooting down the aircraft in a rational, responsible, and reasonable way." LOL.
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 15:18:19 "Ali Abedzadeh, the head of Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization, said at a televised news conference Friday he was “certain that no missiles hit the aircraft.”" Jergul-logic "that was his opinion." LOL
The Patriot Member	Sat Jan 11 15:20:20 I mean - "certain that no missiles hit the aircraft." seems pretty conclusive and not so much expressing an opinion. But hey, stretch it however you need to stretch it to make yourself feel better.
Seb Member	Sat Jan 11 17:51:50 Sam: In 2003 the a US Patriot battery defending Ali al-Salim shot down a British Tornado jet returning from a bombing run to land at King Khalid airport having identified that it was an anti radiation missile. The US subsequently cleared the battery crew.
Seb Member	Sat Jan 11 17:55:44 Bottom line, it's really simple. TORs are road mobile systems for protecting mobile forces or tactical point defense. They are almost certainly not integrated into the broader air defense network and so may not have all the information available. The US was threatening harsh responses, uses stealth aircraft, and shadowing civilian flights has been a standard tactic - the UK Vulcans were doing it on red flag exercises in the 70's to test NORAD. We don't know precisely what made the battery commanders determine to fire, but it can be anything from a IT glitch misrepresenting the 737 as something else - as for example the case in the example I just pointed out to Sam - or a glitch in the return that made them think there was something close to or close by the 737. This is what happens when you start a shooting war.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Jan 11 18:08:41 "Seb Member Wed Jan 08 17:59:24 Uncontained engine failure could do it. Broken bit of turbine fan (particularly if poorly maintained) can rupture the fuel tank. Engines are designed to try and contain them but it's not always successful. It'd look a lot like this." "Seb Member Fri Jan 10 09:05:08 Like I said, small missile" Lol oops
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 18:59:08 Patriot Yah, I get it. The Iranians are irresponsible because they did not meet your gold standard of sending out lots and lots of tweets. Seb In theory, the tor batteries should be integrated by way of their command element and a dedicated unit that integrates the tor battalions with higher echelon air defence elements. This clearly did not happen. Ali and Mohammed could not even reach their battery command, so made a call in a very short window. Their targetting computer is still analogue and their screen a green tinged monstrosity. The tors they have used to be state of the art. They are now amongst the worst (Iran has not to my knowledge developed a domestic upgrade scheme for the 20 odd batteries they have).
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 19:31:14 A slight update. The Tor launcher was almost certainly under IRG control and almost certainly poorly integrated with upper echelon defences (I am thinking cellphone levels of sophistication). I strongly suspect the launchers have been deployed piecemeal and serve only as point defences to knock down incoming cruise missiles. It does not need integration to do that. The demise of the air defence branch now seems a lot less likely. If anything, the IRG is fighting a rearguard action to keep from being stripped of what air defence batteries it does control. My mistake earlier. The analysis was based on thinking the launcher was part of the air defence branch. Iran may have to come to terms with marginal utility legacy weapons are far less than useless. They are dangerous. It might do well to simply retire systems it does not have enough of to bother upgrading. IRG whining is quite revealing. It is burning political capital for some reason. I suspect to avoid armament priorties shifting to the regular defensive forces. There may be quite a bit of domestic and institutional resistance to the form of adventurism that Soleimani clearly represented. He is still a national hero, and the attack on Iranian dignity a huge mistake, but the total picture is more nuanced. But it may not be a good thing. Iran will still make sure shias are protected by their local militias. But the well-regulated part of the equation might be lost if Iran de-emphasises influencing the groups through close liason. They will do far more crazy stuff without Iranian personal contact points than with it.
Seb Member	Sun Jan 12 08:06:05 Sam: Tor is a small missile. It's point defence/ fleeting, sort range, 15kg warhead compared to the 133kg an S300 carries. This is why the plane didn't disintegrate and tumble from the sky as you repeatedly and erroneously claimed. As we've discussed engine failure can penetrate fuel tanks and cause a fire. So the patterns are pretty clear. It took longer than I'd have thought for footage to appear, my main reason for doubting a shoot down, but the footage has indeed appeared. Basically, your reasons for thinking shoot down were entirely wrong. You interpreted the footage of the crash wrong, you assumed a much bigger missile, you thought engine failure couldn't do this because of your failure to interpret the video footage. Basically, you are like the child that simplifies 163/326 to get 1/2, but does so by cancelling the 6 and the 3 from the top and bottom and then days he's teacher is wrong to mark him down because he got the correct answer.
Seb Member	Sun Jan 12 08:11:44 Oh and the BUK launched warhead that took down the mh17 weighs in at around 80kg. So yes, small missile.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 12 08:23:14 Seb is correct for now. The cost/benefit of using those types of missiles to shoot down off the shelf drones is pretty high. New generation short range SAMs use 5-7 kg explosives. They are being rolled out now and are far more cost efficient. 15 kg is small today and will be big tomorrow :).
Sam Adams Member	Sun Jan 12 11:05:08 Lol sebs honesty on full display "Seb Member Thu Jan 09 11:29:29 So potential causes: 1. Collision 2. Manpad 3. bomb 4. Engine failure 5. Air defence battery Evidence so far not really certain enough to rule anything out. I don't know if the Iranians have any smaller htk type air defence missiles that might be a better fit. " "Seb Member Fri Jan 10 09:05:08 Like I said, small missile" Lol oops
Seb Member	Sun Jan 12 13:58:59 Sam, you might want to read the last sentence you just quoted that explicitly states a smaller missile. Off your ritalin again?
Seb Member	Sun Jan 12 13:59:16 Lol oops indeed.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 12 14:01:17 I was actually close to vexed enough to revisit that old nugget earlier today. The angels of my better nature won out.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 12 14:01:51 prevailed* Thats it. I'm getting a beer!
Sam Adams Member	Sun Jan 12 22:54:50 "Sam, you might want to read the last sentence you just quoted that explicitly states a smaller missile. " Ahh yes, too bad for you, you added it as an afterthought, it wasnt even in your already shitty top 5, and you claimed you didnt even know if it existed in the first place. Seriously, failure to admit when you are wrong means you will never learn, and people that dont learn are worth nothing.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 13 02:17:00 ”2. Manpad” ^Small missile
Seb Member	Mon Jan 13 04:04:18 How does knowing whether Iran possess a small missile system in operational use alter an assessment of the evidence? The whole point is to try and infer from the evidence available (which you got hopelessly wrong: the plane was not tumbling, was not disintegrating, and hit the ground substantially in one piece) what likely causes were. Not knowing whether Iran uses a particular type of missile system doesn't mean you can't say evidence is consistent with it.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jan 13 13:11:37 The plane was tumbling and broken dumbass. This is indisputable. No intact plane burns like that. Lol how are you this dumb?
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jan 13 13:13:06 Lol seb the aviation expert strikes again
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jan 13 13:31:20 Seb the aviation expert looks at a plane engulfed in fire plunging to the ground with pieces coming off: "Looks pretty intact to me, might have been engine problems" Lol.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 13 14:39:02 "The plane is travelling in a smooth straight line because it is too far away to see it tumbling" A 15kg warhead isn't going to break a plane up that quickly. A 15kg bomb actually inside the plane wouldn't do that. What you are seeing is a wing on fire and some bits falling off the wing. Which is why the plane landed in one piece with one explosion. Not spread over a larger area.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 13 14:40:10 *would do that
Forwyn Member	Mon Jan 13 15:32:23 How feasible would it be to integrate a means to dump fuel in-flight if a crash is unavoidable? Seems it may have been survivable for some if it hadn't turned into a fireball upon impact.
Forwyn Member	Mon Jan 13 15:36:54 Guess it's common, but not in the 737.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 13 15:39:06 You need an O2 mix to ignite aviation fuel. Dumping under conditions with an ignition source would invite disaster. Dumping to lose weight is feasible. I thought most large aircraft had that capability.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jan 13 17:20:35 "A 15kg warhead isn't going to break a plane up that quickly. A 15kg bomb actually inside the plane wouldn't do that. What you are seeing is a wing on fire and some bits falling off the wing." Correct. Thats what i told you 4 days ago. As the damaged plane lost control and began tumbling... aero pulled pieces off and broke at least 1 fuel tank open. Glad you finally learned something seb. "I thought most large aircraft had that capability. " Correct. Heavy long range planes usually are equipped to dump fuel. Mediumweight planes like 737s and a320s generally cannot.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jan 13 17:24:18 And dumping is indeed to reduce weight on landing if an unplanned early landing is necessary. You see heavies doing it from time to time when they blow shit on takeoff fully fueled for a long range flight and want to come home fast.
Seb Member	Tue Jan 14 01:00:06
Seb Member	Tue Jan 14 01:03:03 Sam: Ah, so now it's not tumbling, it's just beginning to tumble. It's not disintegrating, it's just debris coming off the wing. And you told me this revelatory information that's entirely consistent with the assessment I made which you were clearly disputing days ago. I shall leave others to draw their own assesment.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Jan 14 11:37:39 Way to change your story after the fact. You are showing mental-illness level memory and honesty. "Seb Member Wed Jan 08 17:59:24 Uncontained engine failure could do it. Broken bit of turbine fan (particularly if poorly maintained) can rupture the fuel tank. Engines are designed to try and contain them but it's not always successful. It'd look a lot like this." "Seb Member Fri Jan 10 09:05:08 Like I said, small missile" Lol oops
Sam Adams Member	Tue Jan 14 11:40:07 More lol Seb Member Wed Jan 08 08:06:25 Just after takeoff from a city airport, over urban area at night. No video or reports of missile, video of plane seems to show it in steady flight while on fire, and an air defence SAM would normally cause complete breakup quite rapidly so far engine failure looks somewhat credible
Sam Adams Member	Tue Jan 14 11:41:44 Lol seb its too bad all your wrongness has been saved on this very forum. "Seb Member Thu Jan 09 11:29:29 So potential causes: 1. Collision 2. Manpad 3. bomb 4. Engine failure 5. Air defence battery Evidence so far not really certain enough to rule anything out. I don't know if the Iranians have any smaller htk type air defence missiles that might be a better fit. "
Seb Member	Tue Jan 14 12:40:13 Sam: I think you are confusing the conditional with the definitive Sam. And engine failure could do it, is not the same thing as saying an engine failure certainly did it. I was very clear there was a range of possibilities, but the evidence was not consistent with one of the main air defense network missiles. You on the other hand claimed it absolutely was, and could be nothing else, because the plane had was disintegrated and tumbling. The plane had not disintegrated. It was not tumbling.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Jan 14 14:10:59 "I was very clear there was a range of possibilities" Nah, you were mainly focussed on engine failure. Because you are stupid. "the evidence was not consistent with one of the main air defense network missiles." Actually thats what it was and thats what the evidence said. Lol wrong again. Also the plane was tumbling and i never said it disintegrated. You are wrong even in hindsight. It takes a special kind of retardation to be wrong even in hindsight.
Seb Member	Tue Jan 14 14:59:15 Sam: Your failure to understand simple written English isn't my problem. No, A Tor is not the main air defense missile. It's a road mobile short range point defense system, mainly for protecting forces in the field, in this case operated by the IGRC outside of the main air defense network both in command structures and in terms of datalinks and likely moved into position to provide additional protection to a particular site run by the IGRC. The plane clearly isn't tumbling, and you did indeed say it was in pieces.
jergul large member	Tue Jan 14 16:08:06 The problem is likely that since the Tors were given to the IGRC, it is not really properely integrated. That to operator decided to launch independently after failing to get into contact with a command vehicle suggests to me that loss of contact is commonplace. Feel free to downgrade the value of Iran's Tors and the attendant Ranzhir-1s to shiite. Pun intended :D.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Jan 14 16:16:22 "No, A Tor is not the main air defense missile." Retarded semantics. And irrelevant to the fact you argued for days in favor of engine failure. Lolpwnt.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Jan 14 16:17:55 "Well this muslim isnt the right kind of muslim so im not a cuck" "Well this SAM isnt the right type of SAM so my point on engine failure might still be correct". Lol@seb
Wrath of Orion Member	Tue Jan 14 17:01:53 "And dumping is indeed to reduce weight on landing if an unplanned early landing is necessary. You see heavies doing it from time to time when they blow shit on takeoff fully fueled for a long range flight and want to come home fast." The timing if this discussion is funny since an airliner just dumped fuel over a school after declaring an emergency and returning to LAX for an emergency landing soon after takeoff.
Allahuakbar Member	Wed Jan 15 06:06:29 The story totally changes! It is IMPOSSIBLE that Iran made a double mistake. The only explanation is that the first missile came from an Isreali false flag team! http://www...aine-plane-crash-missile-video New video footage from a security camera surfaced on Tuesday that shows two Iranian missiles being fired at a Ukranian passenger plane, resulting in an explosion that killed all 176 passengers on board. The Times also discovered that the plane's transponder stopped working after the first missile hit before the second missile struck less than 30 seconds later.
The Patriot Member	Wed Jan 15 06:35:28 "Unintentionally": fires not one but two missiles.
jergul large member	Wed Jan 15 09:20:06 The Patriot That is standard procedure. One missile has x % chance of hitting. 2 missiles have 95% probability of at least 1 hitting. Find a different CT.
Seb Member	Wed Jan 15 09:55:45 Habebe: The US does regularly have blue on blue incidents. Has that ever protected them? And while it's easy to see how you can misidentify a radar track, you've yet to convincingly explain how this would lead to the irbm operators targeting their own territory. Feels like a bit of a reach doesn't it?
Seb Member	Wed Jan 15 09:56:34 Protected them - them being the enemies of the US.
jergul large member	Wed Jan 15 10:02:30 I am sure it will happen. If Iran fires 100 missile in an conflict situation, then several of them will fall on Iranian soil and amount to "targeting its own territory". Seb Assuming Iran can put objects into stable LEO, then how soon before it can use that capability to pluck off US assets in space? How could it demonstrate mission kill capability on say gps satelittes? It does have its own satelittes in space, so will probably need to establish a deterrent in that arena too.
Seb Member	Wed Jan 15 10:05:00 Sam: My claims around engine was that it was a possible contributor. Your claim was that it could not, because an engine failure couldn't cause the flight to catch fire, disintegrate and tumble; and that this is what we were seeing, which ipso facto meant it had been a missile. The plane clearly did not disintegrate or tumble. It suffered damage, caught fire, but landed in one piece and exploded. The fact there is only one visible explosion on impact indicates both wings were attached. I said this was consistent with a small missile (a near miss with a larger one being v. unlikely - a fact I didn't need to state) as well as other causes. We now have two pieces of video evidence showing the plane didn't disintegrate or tumble, licorice the debris pictures. And indeed it turns out that the missile was a small one.
Seb Member	Wed Jan 15 10:09:02 Jergul: Dunno, it is not quite as straightforward as accuracy in hitting a spot on the ground translating to an object in the sky. You need to hit a very small spot at exactly the right time, unless you throw in terminal guidance which is a different set of technology to what gives them accuracy in surface to surface weapons.
	show deleted posts