Posts
METROJET
AIRBUS 321 CRASH: ISIS BOMB OR MISSILE?
Petri
Krohn (Helsinki, Finland)
Via
Facebook
MetroJet
Flight 9268 crashed in Sinai because of some "external
influence", i.e. missile, bomb, or collision with a fighter
jet. Nothing in the forensic evidence presented so far says bomb,
not missile. The argument against a missile is based on the false
premise that ISIS could not possess long-range surface-to-air
missiles.
Here
is my rebuttal of arguments against ISIS using a missile as
presented by Charles Heyman, (editor of annual publication Armed
Forces of the United Kingdom) in this article by ABC News Australia.
1)
"If they're going to hit an aircraft at 30,000 feet, they would
need a BUK or a SAM 6," he said.
Or
a S-200 (SA-5) or S-125 (SA-3) or S-75 (SA-2). ISIS and its
predecessor organisations had access to all of them in
Libya.
2)
"Something that is on tracks, and a very large missile...
Most
older Soviet missiles are immobile, they do not have tracks or even
wheels! Some can be launched from trailers. But mobility is not
important for terrorist who want to destroy a passenger plane. You
just place the missile on the flight path and wait for the right
moment.
The
BUK is tracked because it is heavy. It is heavy because it is
armored. Terrorist do not need armor for protection. This photo
shows three SA-6 missiles mounted on a 6-wheel APC. I single SA-6
missile could most likely be launched from a
Toyota.
3)
...with a sophisticated guidance system.
Simple
terminal guidance is needed, but complicated radar systems are not.
All that is needed for targeting is a $50 smartphone and
FlightRadar24 application. (Unless, all commercial flights started
flying with their transponders turned off.)
4)
"It's a large piece of equipment that you wouldn't be able to
hide very easily."
A
BUK TELAR is large, a single missile is not. Older Soviet SA
missiles are two stages. The stages could be transported and hidden
separately.
5)
Mr Heyman said any such missile in the Sinai could only
realistically be sourced from the Egyptian army, which he said was
highly unlikely.
Why
not the ex-Libyan ex-army?
ISIS
could have smuggled it through the desert from Libya directly. Or it
could have first been taken to Turkey and then transferred to Sinai.
US Ambassador was in Benghazi precisely to organize this weapons
transfer. Did the Congressional Benghazi hearings conclude that SA
missiles were excluded from the shipments?
Egypt
accuses Turkey of supporting ISIS in Sinai. A Turkish colonel was
arrested while working with ISIS in
Sinai.
6)
"ISIS would have to drive it around, and it would have a
signature that you could pick up quite easily.
Why
drive it around. Why not just place it somewhere where the passenger
planes fly over ISIS controlled territory. Eastern Sinai is
controlled by ISIS. The resques workers and investigators only
entered the crash site accompanied by the Egyptian Army with Apache
attack helicopter flying in circles above.
7)
"And you would have to have people who are trained to use it."
What
ever happened to Saddam's Iraqi Army? The one the US occupation
authority abolished? Rumor has it, that they are the ones now
commanding ISIS.
Besides,
if ISIS was not an extremely capable military force, it would have
been blown off the map long ago.
And see this, from yesterday
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.