A small engine aircraft shouldn't have turned into a small burned spot with no wreckage. In my opinion that indicates a mid-air break up. What breaks up a plane in mid-air? A missile would.
That's what happens when a pilot suffers heart attack heading over water and the passenger female runs to the steering wheel and turns it back toward land. She didnt know how to use other instruments or talk to fighter pilots who saw her screaming to them from the window. They knew the plane was coming down. They decided best to blow it up to cause least death to people below. What a nightmare for the military pilot to have to keep this to himself
if it broke up in the air, there should be more than one impact site. missile attack does not seem like a logical explanation to me.
we know the deep state has much more subtle methods of downing planes. You could be right, but right now the official story sounds more plausible than a missile to me.
The flares are a bit of an odd detail though. If they had shot a missile or missiles and they wanted to hide it, a flares excuse could work to throw any eyewitness accounts into doubt.
i hate to say it, but the official explanation makes more sense than that. crash site is very small and contained, not consistent with debris from an air to air missile.
to me it looks more like a normal crash site that's been scoured and torched..
The photos are highly suspicious. Modern airframes are built to handle incredible levels of stress. The debris from the crash looks far more like a craft that was shot down with an air to air missile than one that crashed "normally". A normal crash would leave much larger pieces of wreckage based on my experience.
However, I would invite any planefags to correct me here.
EDIT: A fellow pede wisely pointed out that if the craft was shot down, we'd see a much wider, more scattered debris field. So either the plane somehow disintegrated on impact, or these photos are completely contrived. But again, I'll defer to any planefags on here that can correct me. Just odd to me to see a crash result in such tiny fragments given the engineering involved.
if an air to air missile vaporized the plane in the air, it would be spread out over a very large area. if the missile didn't vaporize it and only destroyed half, there would be an impact site with half a plane.
if i had to make a wild guess... it looks kindof like a normal crash site that has been combed for evidence and torched.
that seems a bit far fetched too, though. but possible if someone were determined enough
where's the evidence that it was shot down?
I'm waiting for the government to admit it.
why though? there's nothong to suggest it was shot down
A small engine aircraft shouldn't have turned into a small burned spot with no wreckage. In my opinion that indicates a mid-air break up. What breaks up a plane in mid-air? A missile would.
That's what happens when a pilot suffers heart attack heading over water and the passenger female runs to the steering wheel and turns it back toward land. She didnt know how to use other instruments or talk to fighter pilots who saw her screaming to them from the window. They knew the plane was coming down. They decided best to blow it up to cause least death to people below. What a nightmare for the military pilot to have to keep this to himself
if it broke up in the air, there should be more than one impact site. missile attack does not seem like a logical explanation to me.
we know the deep state has much more subtle methods of downing planes. You could be right, but right now the official story sounds more plausible than a missile to me.
The pictures in the op tweet seem to show metal and baggage wreckage.
The flares are a bit of an odd detail though. If they had shot a missile or missiles and they wanted to hide it, a flares excuse could work to throw any eyewitness accounts into doubt.
i hate to say it, but the official explanation makes more sense than that. crash site is very small and contained, not consistent with debris from an air to air missile.
to me it looks more like a normal crash site that's been scoured and torched..
The photos are highly suspicious. Modern airframes are built to handle incredible levels of stress. The debris from the crash looks far more like a craft that was shot down with an air to air missile than one that crashed "normally". A normal crash would leave much larger pieces of wreckage based on my experience.
However, I would invite any planefags to correct me here.
EDIT: A fellow pede wisely pointed out that if the craft was shot down, we'd see a much wider, more scattered debris field. So either the plane somehow disintegrated on impact, or these photos are completely contrived. But again, I'll defer to any planefags on here that can correct me. Just odd to me to see a crash result in such tiny fragments given the engineering involved.
if an air to air missile vaporized the plane in the air, it would be spread out over a very large area. if the missile didn't vaporize it and only destroyed half, there would be an impact site with half a plane.
if i had to make a wild guess... it looks kindof like a normal crash site that has been combed for evidence and torched.
that seems a bit far fetched too, though. but possible if someone were determined enough
That's a good point, 289. One would expect the debris field to be much wider than this if the craft was shot down.