Speculation about real stuff, please?
Hi, all. Frequent lurker here. There's always a lot of noise after an incident, most of which is unhelpful. Among the unhelpful: (a) news updates - that's what BBC is for; (b) wild-assed speculation - Islamist SAMs, really?; (c) outrageous but easily-disprovable statements - bodies in seats claimed but no site photos; and (d) complaints about speculative rumor mongering.
What I find to be helpful are FACTS/rumor-mongering that calls on the unique knowledge-base of the folks here. For example: (1) Any INSIDE info from the relevant ATC? (2) Rumors as to how long until the authorities release/leak the relevant data traces? (3) Friends w/knowledge in USN/IDF? (4) SPECIFIC engine & repair history to this SPECIFIC airplane (i.e., more than "significant tail strike"); (5) experiential info w/relevant investigational authorities (are they corruptible? competent?); (6) real-life data w/r/t speculation (i.e., if mucky fuel is suspected, experience w/relevant vendors & airports); (7) flaws of commonly-sourced data reports (i.e., Flight24's dependence on x, y, z sources; ACARS, etc.); and (8) rampant speculation based on FACTS.
I may have a different take, but I'd rather be accurate than first-to-post. Speculation that's based on second-hand reporting by non-industry journalists is not only totem-pole hearsay, but it's also almost invariably wrong.
Last edited by EnjoinThis; 31st Oct 2015 at 15:27.
Reason: Decided calling them "muzzie MANPADs" was uncouth