A ukrainian plane gets shot down by a russian missile is automatically assumed to be an accident. Of all the conspiracy theories people don’t immediately jump on.
I don’t see any motivation of benefit of shooting the plan down; accidentally shooting down the plane seems the most logical scenario. Thanks Trump!
2 Likes
yeah there’s no upside for Iran to shoot this plane down. it’s either (99%) a huge mistake (thanks to Trump for ratcheting up the tension) or (0.001%) a qanon false flag operation.
1 Like
THEY KILLED 700 OF OUR SOLDIERS IN IRAQ. THAT’S TERRORISM.
I don’t give any weight to what our government claims here.
I’m pretty surprised it’s looking like the plane was shot down. Chris called it right away. I would have lost money on that bet for sure.
This will only be like the third passenger plane ever shot down I think.
Super ridiculous they didn’t lock down their air space after they launched their missiles. Can anyone think of a reason why? Only think I can think of is some hope that America would fuck up and take out a plane or some shit but that seems super, super unlikely.
damnit I was just about to post that Vic0ar is gonna hit you with " FaKe NeWs! "
Been giving off those vibes lately.
2 Likes
My prime minister and that of the UK both confirmed it. What are you going in about?
1 Like
I think most of us here share those sentiments with you to a degree. But in this specific case even ignoring the reporting and just going off of logic and analyzing the circumstances its still 90% likely that is what happened.
The plane that crashed has the safest flying record of any commercial jet. It crashed right after takeoff. It just so happened to happen the night Iran is super on edge worried about America sending in bombers.
Also I don’t think this is gonna play out with Iran being a huge bad guy over this. I don’t see any news sources pushing this as anything other than a possible accident.
6 Likes
Not sure if this is comprehensive, but Times has at least ten. Still pretty rare.
1 Like
It was first reported as “another mechanical failure” in my news feed implying that Boeing fucked up again, but those fuck ups didn’t result in planes on fire…
1 Like
It’s really a good small scale model of war.
I listened to a radio segment about The Afghanistan Papers today and that was a good description of war on a large scale.
There have been a bunch, there’s a Wiki list of them here.
Upgrade your Bayesian thinking imo. The question “what causes planes to go down” is a very different one to “what causes planes to go down over Tehran, on fire, at now of all times”. A low-probability theory which neatly explains the particulars can easily become more likely than a coincidence. This is also sort of what is going on in the Epstein thread. The question “what causes prisoners to die in jail” is a very different one to “what causes Jeffrey Epstein to die in jail”.
13 Likes
This is a really good post that plugs Clovis’s leak pretty tightly. Context really matters.
I disagree. I simply operate under the long proven postulate that conclusions require evidence. I’m not the least bit interested in supposition, bayesian or otherwise.
Sure I may be late to the party a few times but the vast majority of the time I’m going to avoid silly tinfoil hat speculation that is not only wrong, but actually poisonous.
But sometimes that leaves you drinking the Kool-Aid.
Wikipedia list 33 Iranian plane crashes with fatalities. Your assumption that Iranian accidents are more likely caused by shoot downs is just not true.
We’re not considering “Iranian accidents”, we’re considering cases where a plane went down on fire in a place where military activity is happening. It’s not being skeptical to refuse to consider the context, it’s just throwing data out for no reason.
Here is a list of crashes caused by in-flight fires. There are not many more or them than there are incidents of planes being shot down. These are two unlikely explanations, but in one of them, the location in Tehran and the day it took place are intrinsic in the explanation, while for the other, in addition to accepting an unlikely event, we also have to suppose that a gigantic coincidence took place. The explanation which does not require the coincidence is therefore much more likely. There’s nothing very controversial about any of this.
1 Like