I think the U.S. wants to put it into peoples’ minds to suspect terrorism rather than an avoidable accident.
This Russian airliner disaster is highly suspicious. They’re now saying an external impact brought this plane down. See the article here.
There’s no way that ISIS had the type of surface-to-air missile that could bring down this bird unless the United States or Saudi Arabia gave it to them. I wouldn’t rule it out, but I doubt it at this point. Some geniuses are saying it was a bomb placed on board. Hey guys, that’s not an “external impact”, that’s called an internal explosion. We know what that does because we’ve seen that before when a 747 was brought down over Scotland with one back in the day.
There hasn’t been found any wreckage that says it collided with another plane. Having lived in the Los Angeles area during two famous mid-air collisions between airliners and small private planes, I know that had this airliner struck a smaller plane, they would have discovered it. No, I think the U.S. accidently told us what hit this plane, or rather prophesied it, so to speak, a few weeks ago.
Remember when the U.S. was whining that Russian cruise missiles fired into Syria were in danger of hitting our drones? Good ol’ SecDef Ash Carter laid that one on us. I think a U.S. drone either hit this Russian airliner by accident, or it ran into a drone. This would appear to be far more likely than any other scenario I’ve heard.
Look, the U.S. has been saying for years now that drones are presenting a threat to air traffic. And that’s the smaller ones, the size of pigeons and hawks that they’re talking about. In fact, at a recent Southern California wildfire, firefighters couldn’t bring in air tankers due to private drone traffic around the scene. The drones that the U.S. military uses are substantially larger. Therefore, if an airliner struck a drone the size of the ones the U.S. military uses, it would certainly be capable of fatally disabling the aircraft.
They say this plane broke up in mid-air. Aviation experts say that planes could break up in midair usually because of one of three reasons: a catastrophic weather event, a midair collision, or an external threat, such as a bomb or a missile. But if it hit a drone, wouldn’t we find wreckage of the drone? Not necessarily, at least not immediately. It’ll be mingled with the wreckage of the aircraft. It probably would have gone INTO the aircraft, rather like a bullet into a window. If it ran into the cockpit as its point-of-entry, there would’ve been no radio distress calls or even any register of anything that may point to the crew having seen the drone.
But wouldn’t the drone have been picked up on radar? Not necessarily. The U.S. RQ-170 Sentinel drone is a stealth drone capable of evading radar. Therefore, it would also be manufactured from mostly composites, thus the wreckage of one will take a lot of time to discover if it collided with this airliner. We know these drones are in the Middle East because Iran captured one back in 2011. It has an operational ceiling of up to 50,000 feet. The plane impacted something at around 31,000 feet, well within the altitude range of a Sentinel drone. The latest is that the crew was incapacitated. Yes, and that’s why I think the airliner ran into the drone head-on. They also say the plane lost speed rapidly, again pointing to a head-on midair collision.
We may never know what happened. But if it did hit a Sentinel or other U.S. drone, this won’t be the first time the U.S. has caused a civilian airliner disaster in the region. Back in 1988, the U.S. Navy “accidently” shot down an Iranian civilian airliner it says it “thought” was an Iranian Air Force F-14 Tomcat. In that little “oopsie”, 290 people died as a result. However, I think an investigation is going to turn up some suspicious wreckage they can’t identify. It’ll be mingled with the plane’s wreckage because the plane flew into it and it basically acted as a missile that entered the airliner. That would explain the incapacitated crew, the rapid loss of speed and altitude, and the break-up of the aircraft as it fell.
I think the U.S. is sweating bullets (or sweating Sentinel drones) as it realizes one of its drones didn’t show up for supper. Notice that James Clapper, the U.S. director of national intelligence, has thrown in his two cents here, saying he wouldn’t rule out ISIS having downed the airliner. Excuse me, but why would The Clapper (Clap On! Clap Off! Clap on, clap off, intelligence blackouts!) need to get involved here? I think the U.S. wants to put it into peoples’ minds to suspect terrorism rather than an avoidable accident. You know, the people that fly these drones are not necessarily pilots. A lot can happen because this whole drone shtick is basically in its pre-teen years as far as its experience. But wouldn’t that create a huge backlash if it turned out it was a U.S. drone?
There would be calls to file flight plans for all government drones. Think what that would do to the U.S. “intelligence” agencies if they had to TELL Iran and Russia when drones would be flying over their areas? That would also effectively pull the plug on using drones for assassinations since they’d have to broadcast where these drones were. Because if it was a Sentinel that this Russian airliner ran into, it will prove beyond a doubt that American drones present a clear and present danger to civilian life. Well, beyond the people they’ve run around and killed with them on purpose anyway.
Yes, I think the U.S. just got caught with its drones down around its ankles here.
Jack Perry [send him mail] is an arrowmaker and writer who lives in the Four Corners area of the Southwestern United States. He has been a truck driver, a purchasing agent at a now-defunct renewable energy company (don’t even ask him about the “Green energy” scam), and served in the 101st Airborne Division. He spends his time practicing traditional archery, making arrows in the wilds of the Arizona high desert, and finding himself only mildly amused by the antics of the Great Father in Washington.
Previous article by Jack Perry: Trick or Treat!
All unclassified Army and Marine Cops manuals and correspondence courses are products of the US Federal Government. They are NOT subject to copyright and can be freely copied and redistributed.
The Marine Corps Institute (MCI) develops correspondence courses for Marines with all kinds of Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) on all manner of subjects. This is one of those courses.
The print is relatively small because that is the way it was in the original and this is an exact reproduction. Also, as a tribute to the individual (and a touch of reality), you will notice that the editorial pencil marks and underlined passages that were put there by the Marine that took this course. They were intentionally left in the reproduction.
This version of the course was authorized in September of 1984. With the exception the development of Infrared technology, it contains information and techniques that have changed very little since the Vietnam war. These battle proven tactics are as valid today as they were in Quang Nam province in 1968.
They will maintain their validity during the upcoming inevitable event of total economic, political and social collapse. Yours for freedom in our lifetimes. jtl, 419