B737-800 crash in Iran

BruceK said:

Difference is, America has them, Iran does not. So far. Do you want Iran to have them?

Click to expand...

I dont want anyone to have them.

The big powers are not without responsibility. Russia provided the missile and launching system to Ukraine rebels used shoot down MH17, and I read provided the armaments to Iran. Providing armaments to unstable fighting forces is risky, maybe even a deliberate proxy ploy.

Click to expand...

Ill just leave this here

https://www.google.com/search?newwi.........0....1..gws-wiz.......35i39.JIbxyiEb3_E

RT Firefly said:

Greetings,
Mr. m. Why is this not a surprise? Al Queda was born of the mujaheddin a "rebel group" (read freedom fighters) which was fully funded by the US from the early 80's onward in order to fight the Soviets. So, in essence, the US basically created Al Qaeda.



What a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive...The mind boggles.

Click to expand...

Yep

But America has a history of creating enemies, always another war needed to boost profits of corporate America.
I am surprised the uniforms don't have patches with their "sponsors" logos on, Halliburton, Lockheed and the like.
Maybe next year.

Simi 60 said:

Yep

But America has a history of creating enemies, always another war needed to boost profits of corporate America.
I am surprised the uniforms don't have patches with their "sponsors" logos on, Halliburton, Lockheed and the like.
Maybe next year.

Click to expand...

Wifey B: NBA has copied FIFA so why not. Wonder what they'll pay to be the sponsors. Then we could get a Sponsor for the Pentagon building. Why not the other buildings? I hear it now. "Coming to you directly from the AT&T White House we have the President". "Here is our colleague Jane Doe interviewing the Speaker as the Bank of America Congress Building." "Here is Sheriff Jones speaking at the Remington Dallas Police Station."

Unfortunately, none of this is humorous and we have to laugh to keep from crying. It's sad when we've reached a time that we're in general agreement everyone is bad or wrong, all of the leaders are mad, and we debate only which countries are worse than the others. It's like a group of kids fighting and then they want to argue over who started it. As a teacher, I faced that, and they were so shocked I didn't just punish the one who started it, I didn't just punish the worst one. Sadly I even recall one case of a parent trying to justify his son's actions by pointing out that another boy called him names and he was just taking up for himself by picking up a book and hitting him over the head.

The world is f^%#'ed up. They're f@$%'ed up. We're f#&&*^'ed up. And I'm f#^%&'ing angry over it all.

Hmm, I think the thread may be skating on thin ice, and the weather is getting warmer! (well, if you believe in global warming).

psneeld said:

Or who could get their hands on one through them who are even more crazy and irresponsible.

Click to expand...

And who have no sovereign country nor any standing army to destroy.

As an Aussie perhaps you should concentrate on Australia...

Andy G said:

Hmm, I think the thread may be skating on thin ice, and the weather is getting warmer! (well, if you believe in global warming).

Click to expand...

Wifey B: And the water is rising. Venice today, can we be far behind in the Venice of America?

We would happily take some of your water at the moment, not too saline though (as the thread sails happily off topic, thus saving it from the admonishments of Janet)

Andy G said:

Oh Oh, I hear Janet coming down the corridor.

Heads down boys or someone's going to cop it.Probably one of you pesky Aussies.

Click to expand...

I started the thread, looking for a cause. Iran said missile causation was "scientifically impossible" so it had to be something else. Unsurprisingly, the surprising Iranian admission led in other directions but it has taken an odd turn.

Greetings,
Mr. BK. I stole this from another site but it seems plausible and accounts for the initial denial of guilt. One branch of government not talking to another. Not uncommon. Very slight editing on my part to make it easier to read...



"Suppose the Iranian authorities who spoke publicly both told the truth.



Day 1. The head of Iran Civil Aviation (Abedzadeh) said the plane had reached a post take off height, had received permission to climb, then experienced a mechanical problem and was returning to the airport. Then radio contact ended and the plane crashed.



Day 2. American 'sources' said the plane was shot down. Iran head of civil aviation denied this, saying the plane was returning and was in safe air space. He said there were 9 other planes in the air in the safe air space.



Day 3, Iran military, head of ground air defense (Salami) said one of his units had fired on the plane. He described how that happened. The anti aircraft operator thought he had a missile or hostile plane headed to the airport or the city. Looks like Iran has safe air space for civilian craft, and restricted air space because of imminent threats. (They had received threats of missile)
Our plane takes off, gets permission to climb, on climbing has an engine glitch, turns to go back to the airport, inadvertently enters restricted air space, spotted and identified as possible threat, fired on. Civil aviation knows only that the aircraft has reported a mechanical problem and is returning, so they don't know about the missile. So when Abedzadeh goes public, he says what he knows, and in reply to American allegation he denies because he figures mechanical problem. It's only the next day he hears military role in firing on the plane."

RTF: Sounds plausible on the surface, but one problem: On day 1 the military knew they launched a SAM that hit something. They even had a video of the launch and the strike. So they knew this on day 1, not day 3.

Also, if the aircraft had an engine glitch and wanted to return, they would have communicated with the airport and civil authorities would be aware of this.

So, I guess the next question is whether or not the Iranian government will pay compensation through the international court to the relatives and the airline.

Ted

Greetings,
Mr. Ski. I agree but there is still so much unknown and given the "sources" of the information, probably some things well never be known to the outside world. I'm simply trying to make some sense of this senseless tragedy. I'm not pointing fingers at or ascribing blame to anyone. THAT can be argued ad nauseum.



On thing I read is the Arab world is taking note and may be attempting to settle some differences among themselves. Who knows? I'm not holding my breath that any peace will come in the ME during my lifetime...The stupidity continues.


Mr. OC. Time will tell.

To airline pilots....would it be standard procedure for a foreign airliner to contact their own operations almost immediately for a turnbzck for a mechanical problem?

Not in a Mayday situation.... but there wasn't a Mayday was there?

Iran denied any involvement in the tanker attacks and fires near its territory. Odd then they got upset when western countries began Navy protection patrols.Iran has ships using the area, you`d think they`d be glad of the protection. But only if they were not the cause.
I put the denials and claims a missile attack was "scientifically impossible" on par with the ship attack denials.

Greetings,
Mr. BK. It's been my observation that EVERYONE involved in the ME has been loose with the truth.

psneeld said:

To airline pilots....would it be standard procedure for a foreign airliner to contact their own operations almost immediately for a turnbzck for a mechanical problem?

Not in a Mayday situation.... but there wasn't a Mayday was there?

Click to expand...

Either there wasn't time, the crew was too busy, or there was a communications failure. Apparently, the transponder quit at the first hit, so I'm guessing comm or electrical failure.

"Then we could get a Sponsor for the Pentagon building."


Sorta like the British looking to raise $850,000 in donations to ring Big Ben when they finally escape the EU?

ssobol said:

Either there wasn't time, the crew was too busy, or there was a communications failure. Apparently, the transponder quit at the first hit, so I'm guessing comm or electrical failure.

Click to expand...

What I am getting at is....

If a routine mechanical failure requiring return to origin or press on, would an airliner make a call to someone other than air traffic control?

Obviously they would be/ should be too busy if a mayday situation.

If hit by a missile, little or no comms would be initiated to anyone.

Not proof positive of anything but damning evidence if internal company comms in routine situations are common.

Greetings,
Mr. ps. Can't comment on protocol BUT you might get an answer when the "black box" is analyzed IF any attempt at communication was made and was recorded. An analysis may also give some insight into what potential engine problems might have occurred to cause the flight to return to the airport.

I have a little nugget of insight into the Iranians. My Dad's college room mate was one of the embassy hostages in 1979. After his release, he was a guest at our house a few times. I was a kid of about 16 and would hang out with him, my folks and some others.

One thing he said, and it stuck with me, was that Iranians involved in the hostage taking lied A LOT. Lied to the hostages, lied to each other, lied about little things, lied about big things. It seemed to be a sport. And all parties knew it and behaved accordingly. His take away was that their society would never amount to much because no body could trust any one else and what they said.

I took it with a grain of salt considering what this guy went through. But in the decades past, it seems his claim fits more often than not.

Their denial of shooting this down sure fits. It actually surprised me when they came clean a few days later. Must have realized there was overwhelming evidence somewhere.

Also plays into the nuclear deal. They are going to do what they want and hide it as necessary. A piece of paper saying they are not going to enrich means nothing to them.

Greetings,
Mr. Ski. Hmmm...Sounds like you're describing politicians...

psneeld said:

What I am getting at is....

If a routine mechanical failure requiring return to origin or press on, would an airliner make a call to someone other than air traffic control?

.

Click to expand...

No. Their first communication would invariably be something like: "We're returning to the airport [insert variables here]..."


Possible variables:
1. ...system failed, we'd like to loiter at 8,000 and talk to the company.


2. ...system failed, efforts to reset not working; we'd like to loiter at this altitude and burn-down {or dump } fuel to landing weight.

3....system failed, company advises immediate overweight landing.

4....FIRE, require immediate approach and landing.


Bill, (40 years in air traffic control)

RT Firefly said:

Greetings,
Mr. 9. "What sane person wants it?" In the words of the late DD Eisenhower: "...we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex.

As per usual, follow the $$...sigh.

Click to expand...

Just because you want to make money off of a war, doesn't make you sane. Just the opposite, I would say. A sociopath, at the very least.

Greetings,
Mr. 9. You may have misinterpreted or I didn't state my comment properly. In essence, the lunatics are running the asylum and for profit to boot. The CEO's are happy. The shareholders are happy. The government is happy and John Q Public is laboring under the "mushroom syndrome". It's win, win, win...lose.