Egyptair plane with 66 passengers disappears from radar

Did I, or didn't I, just prove to you that ISIS haven't claimed responsibility?

Or are the BBC just badly informed and a poor news source?

I don't but its the safest way for a terror cell to place a bomb on a plane and to get away from the airport as fast as possible without leaving any trace.

You haven't proved anything. Neither has anyone else. You have provided reports that claim things that you agree with.

Sorry, but that's pure conjecture on your part.

Did I, or didn't I, just prove to you that ISIS haven't claimed responsibility?

Or are the BBC just badly informed and a poor news source?

You haven't proved anything and I've told you why I was mistaken (see we do admit mistakes when they are made)

Yes the BBC like all news sources are just news sources relying upon peoples opinions (like you)


You didn't answer my question again

But tell me why do you not want to wait for the facts before stating specifically it wasn't terrorism?

The BBC are not relying on an opinion on this matter.

It is a fact that ISIS, and no other terrorist groups have claimed responsibility.

That isn't an opinion buddy.

But trust me, if anyone claimed responsibility, we'd know about it. I've been following the story on Sky News and the BBC solidly for the last 26 hours and there was no mention of anyone claiming responsibility, not to mention also nowhere on the internet apart from stupid sources like the one you linked.

Of course they are just like the guardian

But as I have said I read it had been claimed and the story has since been pulled this is what happens in news circles as facts come to light stories are changed and updated which is why I am wary of basing my opinions on news stories.

You didn't answer my question again

But tell me why do you not want to wait for the facts before stating specifically it wasn't terrorism?

But tell me why do you not want to wait for the facts before stating specifically it wasn't terrorism?

I have studied all plane crashes in modern history and I am yet to be enlightened on a different manner in which a bomb is primed to detonate, apart from explosives where the passengers tried to set it alight.

But i'm not sure why we're discussing this, a bomb can almost be ruled out entirely, source, the Guardian:

Funnily enough, I tend to agree with him that it may not have been a bomb, and lean towards a failed hijacking attempt (based on the lack of a distress call, largely, and the odd manoeuvres). But to be so sure of the cause at this stage, as he is, is ridiculous.

Ok 1, all crashes in modern history? Unless you work for the AAIB, you need a life.
2, haven't you just spent several posts explaining why relying on things reported in the news isn't to be listened to? So why are you now stating that this one thing reported in the news must be 100% infallible?

I never said it wasn't terrorism, I am just disputing the media outburst to claim that it was "more likely to be terrorism than mechanical failure".

If that's all, I think we're done here.

So you are using the claim reported by the news that it might not be terrorism to counter the claim made by the news it was terrorism

But yes I think we are done here (until the facts come out that is)

Just because Terrorism may not be the cause of this, that doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility of this accident being deliberate. Pilot Suicide, perhaps?

I just read up on and study plane crashes in my spare time when I'm bored, sorry that how I spent my free time offends you

and this thing is more reliable because it was a statement re-posted, the actual statement originated from US officials, its not like the media just wrote that for the sake of it

I imagine the Black Boxes should be found soon.