posted
I not saying it can't be technical error or pilot error. Just that the odds are astronomical that both planes would have errors at the same time.
quote:"This is supported not only by the circumstances of the two air disasters taking place at the same time, but also by the telegram received by the Siberia Airlines Flight Control Center from the watch commander of the military sector of the main center of the Russian Unified System of Air Traffic Control just after the planes disappeared from radar screens."
The telegram, the airline said, noted that the two airplanes "simultaneously disappeared in Moscow and Rostov zonal centers. A hijacking warning alarm went off on one of the planes. I request the airport personnel to be more vigilant during passenger screening and boarding the plane."
Do you think they will tell us what they find from the black boxes?
posted
While the odds may be astronomical for it to happen to two at once, I'm certain that the odds of it happening, say, in a given year to two planes at once are much more reasonable (think of all the planes in flight at a given time, and the relatively small chance of it happening to one combined with the sheer number of opportunities for simultaneous (say, within five minutes) crashing).
Of course, the hijack alert going off suggests some foul play.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do I expect full and complete disclosure? Not likely.
I'd even suspect the government might even use terrorists as handy scapegoats for the added benefit of covering up a failing in the system and adding another nail in the coffin of public opinion.
That being said, I can hardly discount the notion that rebels/terrorists/etc are indeed responsible - it may be the planes had intended purposes and went down in order to prevent those purposes.
The telegram from watch commander lends credence to the notion it was an attempted hijacking - to what end, we have yet to learn.
posted
Yeah, the odds of two planes crashing at the same time is...we'll go with astronomical. That's sounds right. I can't add to that.
Although, it doesn't tell anough about their departure, really. Sometimes taking off too soon after another plane could cause the second to crash, but that doesn't explain the first one.
posted
There's no way this is incidental. Plane crashes are so few and far between, that there is something up. The big question is whodunit? This is Russia tho. An' Mother Russia hasn't always been all that forthcoming. Of course niether has the US. Who knows, maybe it was, I'm betting not.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tons of things happen which are even less probable every single day -- that is, even less probable for a single moment/occurence. The thing is, so many moments/opportunities for an occurence are in a given day, tons of incredibly improbable things end up happening.
posted
All too often, Dags, similarly to prosecutors who don't understand that probability one won't match a criminal's DNA is not the same as probability someone who matches criminal's DNA isn't the killer.
posted
not sure what the exact odd are, but the news commentators said that there is no known case where two planes have taken off from the same airport and simultaniously crashed on accident. Putin said that their intelligence service is investigating.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that if it is an accident the airport of departure is a perpendicular consideration (pretty much), I'd be more interested in hearing if two airplanes had ever crashed simultaneously.
posted
That's a good point, fugu. It shouldn't matter where they took off from unless the cause was environmental.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, they said one of the many things they are looking at is the fuel -- in case it had water in it/contaminates. If it is something like that -- then that would be because they both fueled up at the same airport.....
quote: Officials said one of the jets had sent a hijack distress signal after taking off
I don't get it, doesn't this pretty much settle that it was a terrorist act? I mean, why else would the pilot send a hijack distress signal if they weren't being hijacked?
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, from what I'm reading so far, the AIRLINE said he sent a distress signal, but the intelligence agency said that hasn't been "confirmed" by them yet.... or some such....
quote:The incidents also took place just days before a regional election in the rebellious southern territory of Chechnya,
I also wonder how much they are going to downplay any possible terrorist evidence then find, and leave it all "under investigation" until after the election in Russia.....
posted
The Russian elections are already over for this year. And there is no chance whatsoever that any real investigation could reach a truthful conclusion in the few days left before the Chechen elections.
posted
Well it's fairly officially not an accident. They found traces of explosives in one of the towo jets. Right now it sounds like one of their suspects is a Chechen woman who was on the first flight and then switched to the second or something.
Since Russia is now saying the planes went down because of explosives, and that they have traced this "explosive" back to being the same type used by Chechens in the past....
...isn't Russia already at conflict with the Chechens? Since Russia is calling this a "Russian 9/11" , in comparison to ours, are they setting up the stage then to justify an invasion of Chechnya? Like we did with Afghanistan and Iraq?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
