What are your thoughts about this? Why is it that certain news outlets are reporting that the plane was shot down, while others are insisting that it wasn't? Most of the claims that it was shot down are coming from outside the US. I'm not one for conspiracy theory, but there were 2 very conflicting stories within minutes of each other. I need a better news source that isn't influenced in any way, thoughts?
Where is good ole Walter Cronkite when you need him!!!!!!! He always told us the true story...
Every time I hear his name I immediately think of Jim Carrey for some reason... odd haha
I generally go with the BBC or Reuters. Have little to no use for US cable news channels, and over half the crap on the internet is political propaganda dressed up as reporting.
I agree about Cronkite, and Huntley and Brinkley.
Oh yeah, forgot about reuters! Thank you!
I followed that today on Al Jazeera (it means the plateau) and also on RT which is Russia Today. Al Jazeera is the most accurate news reporting on the planet in my opinion. They analyze nothing, never push Islamist beliefs, and simply report the news.
Anyway, the plane is down and we need more information. Putin even said that the Ukriane should bear full responsibility. We all know that a backpack rocket launcher could not do this. If a missle brought that aircraft down at a height of 33,000 feet (6 miles up) it would have to be launched from a silo, most likely Ukraine military. If a misslie brought the plane down, that missile would have to be heat seeking and simply latch onto the planes jet contrail. If this occured then one missile from a silo could have done it.
Everyone is involved and we need more information for sure. Since this was a Malaysian aircraft it brings to mind what might have happened to that earlier Malaysian flight that totally disappered without a trace.
I will keep following the news on this.
You forget that either Russia could have given the militants the rocket laucher or they could have seized it from the military when then kicked them out of certain areas.
A good friend of mine said she read that their were many top AIDS researchers heading to Australia on that plane. What a horrible loss.
Now they say that Russia gave the militants weapons and probably even the flat bed type rocket launcher that most likely did this job. Men that were quick trained in the use of something like this might not know the difference by the launchers radar from a fighter jet or any other kind of aircraft.
It now appears also that the US told our people not to fly over this war zone. Malaysian Airlines and others also chose to continue flying the route because of fuel costs and other factors, believing that any aircraft 6 miles high would be safe. I'm not sure if they found the black box yet, but supposedly there is some sort of mystery recording about the downed airliner.
A plane flying six miles high may be safe from a shoulder-launched Stinger or similar weapon system, but the BUK anti-aircraft system which is most likely responsible for the attack is capable up to 72,000 feet. That's U-2 territory ... and a couple hundred pounds of fuel is now looking like chickenfeed against 295 lives.
Yeah, my dad told me that as well.
I threw this out elsewhere, but I think it still holds:
Personally, I believe you got some rebels who got their hands on a weapon system without fully understanding either its capacity or its use in a dynamic environment. Someone saw a target on the scope, thought about the Su-25 of the day before, locked it up and fired ... and because of that, their credibility and any sympathy anyone might have had for their cause just evaporated.
Yes, and that sounds totally plausable.