But Steve Chadwick OBE, a former RAF commander with 26 years experience, has said the video not only shows the wrong type of plane, but also the wrong kind of fire.
He told Mirror Online: "It’s laughable that they might claim that is an Airbus 321. That is not an Airbus.
"Even though the footage is very grainy that is an aircraft with the engines under the tail.
"If the engine was on fire it would be coming from under the wing."
He said: "If that was hit with a surface-to-air missile it would obliterate it. It would disintegrate it and you would be looking at confetti. It’s just smoking.Chadwick thinks that the footage shows an Ilyushin-62, a very different aircraft.
"What they’ve done is they’ve found [footage of] a plane with an engine fire.
"That’s air-to-air footage, it’s an aircraft following at a similar speed."
In fact, there really is no evidence that ISIS had anything to do with the production of this video. But if they didn't make it, who did? Why would someone try to frame ISIS? It's hard to believe that a state actor would do an amateurish job.
9 comments:
It's just chaff.
SITE Intelligence Group and Rita Katz essentially act as the propaganda arm for ISIS. They "find" all of the media content assigning blame for the various terrorist acts around the globe and deliver them to their mainstream media partners who in turn use them to terrorize the masses.
Surprised you didn't already suspect this.
"Did ISIS shoot down that Russian Airbus?"
No.
i think 'ISIS media' is some branch of operation whose intent is making muslims out to appear complete nutcases.. now, who would want to do that i wonder?
Normally, I would suspect disinformation from NSA, but clearly, the US National Security State wants us to think it's a bomb. If that's the case, this may be a clarification of a message that may have gotten lost otherwise. After all, a US senator recently said he intended to put US SAMs in the hands of terrorists to shoot down Russian aircraft...so clearly, DC is publicly stating terrorism is a legitimate form of military engagement...
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/russian-plane-crashes-in-the-sinai/satellite-shows-heat-flash-when-russian-metrojet-plane-crashed-no-n456161
(Part 1/2)
An early propaganda strand told us that the plane wasn't brought down by ISIS (Daesh) because only states can shoot down planes from that altitude.
D'you see what they did there? They changed the verb.
It was obvious that the line was going to change. Of course this was a terrorist attack. Let's be serious! The question is who by.
The plane may have been brought down by a bomb put on the aircraft by Daesh. They didn't say they shot it down; they just said they brought it down. They may have been telling the truth. Why was there a need for the Egyptian and Russian governments, and to a lesser extent the British and US governments, indicating that the most likely cause of the crash was technical error?
It sounds to me that more is going on here than simply a move by Boeing - and the US government that hosts it - to take the opportunity to do a bit of negative advertising against Airbus.
Look carefully at the British government's propaganda after the crash. They didn't build the plane. Or own it. Or operate it. Or register it. Or have any citizens on it. What's the British angle?
True, there are said to be 20000 British people on holiday in Sharm el-Sheikh. That's going to be one hell of an evacuation job - one hell of a projection by the British armed forces. And the British naval base in Bahrain (a return to "East of Suez") isn't even built yet.
But there's a bigger British angle.
Remember that psychological warfare between Britain and Russia has already begun. Remember that one of the considerations when appointing the British shadow defence secretary was the contingency of a British invasion of Russia. There have been several other indications of a war between NATO - or at least Britain, Germany, Turkey and the US, plus non-NATO Sweden - against Russia...in the near future. And you'd have to be very inattentive not to realise that the Putin mystique is itself an important military asset for Russia, suggesting that from the point of view of the Russian top brass, sooner would be a better time for the big war than later. As Napoleon said, morale in war is of much greater weight than purely physical considerations. Russia's got high morale. The west's is pathetic.
That's just the background, scary as it is.
(End of Part 1)
(Part 2/2)
For specifics, consider the following.
1) The security at Sharm el-Sheikh is absolute shit. Early British or British-cited propaganda stated that it's so hard to put a bomb on a plane there, and it's so hard for someone who checks in as a passenger to put a bomb on a plane there . Those are two very different predicates.
Zack Gold, source for the second version, goes on to say "[If there was a bomb] I really think the only way it could have been on the plane is if an employee or [member of] airport staff put it on board, or someone who managed to sneak into the airport.” That rather goes against the article's strapline, which states that "Getting an explosive device on to a plane is very difficult".
As I said, security at Sharm el-Sheikh is crap. Look at what people say about corruption at the airport, for example here and here. Don't tell me all that is made up. The guards often steal people's money and other stuff from them at the metal detectors. It doesn't sound difficult at all to pay them to look the other way.
No flights from Israel go to Sharm el-Sheikh, by the way. Until a few years ago many Israelis went there, but they don't go there now. (Although the Israeli armed forces did assist Egypt and Russia in locating the crash site. I'm not sure whether there are any non-Israeli sources for that, but since it would be such appallingly bad PR for the Egyptian government, you can appreciate why they might keep quiet about it.)
2) Britain plays a special security role at the airport
a) There are three or four security checks for all passengers, and there's a special fifth one for British flights only.
b) The British government (agency unspecified) carried out an extra security check at the airport earlier this year.
From the Guardian:
"Security at the airport was examined by European governments after a 2014 bomb attack on a bus of Korean tourists in Sinai. The authorities subsequently decided it was well protected. The Guardian understands the British government carried out an extra check earlier this year."
Riiiiight!
c) Yesterday, the Brits sent a team of "aviation experts" to "examine security" at the airport (widely reported, for example here.
What's the problem? Not satisfied with their own special security checks at the airport, the one that only passengers boarding British flights go through, and that passengers boarding this Russian flight didn't?
Could the Brits have brought down the plane, or assisted with bringing it down, or looked the other way?
The Russian response to the British propaganda is going to be interesting. There may already have been one, while I've been typing this.
I'll leave you with the question: what were those British "security experts" doing at the airport earlier this year?
@S Brennan - What's your definition of terrorism? Mine is military-style murderous surprise action against civilians.
I'm coming back to this because it's so important. Just what is the British angle here?
If they have better intelligence than the Russian government about a terrorist attack on Russian citizens in a third country, how come?
When did they get it?
Why didn't they share it with Russia?
Why don't they share it with Russia now, and not just the conclusion?
Why don't they say "We stand with Russia in this time of its tragic loss"?
Are they trying to queer the pitch so that when the Russian government suggests there may have been British involvement, or a British applying of the Nelson touch, possibly towards the actions of British citizens, the British government can say "well we told you it was a terrorist attack before you even realised, you damned two-faced Russkies!"
Egyptian President Abdul Sisi has said that security at the airport was tightened 10 months ago at the British government's request. British "experts" "assessed security" at Egyptian airports and found the measures were "good enough", he said.
What about the special security checks at Sharm el-Sheikh that have only applied to British flights?
Sounds like there are two standards of "good enough" - one for British flights, and one for other flights. Such as, for example, Russian flights.
Thoughts...
* how likely is it that one or more "British holidaymakers" were in fact involved in this terrorist act?
* is there an MI6 station at Sharm el-Sheikh airport?
Post a Comment