Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Russian passenger plane crash


bmk1245
 Share

Recommended Posts

A Egyptian spokesmen said on the news , that some parts of the plane are still missing , perhaps in finding those pieces they may find bomb residue. It does seem if it was a bomb the first explosion in the air would have blown out those missing pieces.. They should comb the desert and hope no one picked them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad others have cleaned this thread in regards to the known rocket, and the fact that the first officer does a lot (because if anything, their next job might be captain).

The thing that astounds me: '1'000 ft' is way too close. So is it Egypt, or Thomson's fault for it getting that close?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither will playing Ostrich. And no, until now it has NOT been something people had to routinely worry over. Lockerbie is the last time it was done and that was more political than Islamic extremist. And *if* seems to be pretty much decided by the aviation officials who HEARD the freakin' explosion on the recording. But hey, have another drink and go back to sleep.

Looks like someone else is pondering some changes...http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/07/new-era-airport-security-sinai-terror?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like someone else is pondering some changes...http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/07/new-era-airport-security-sinai-terror?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

I think there should be a international effort to make airports more secure or passenger jets shouldn't land there. However in some countries there is so much corruption how would you know if proceedure was being followed. The person in charge might have sympathies towards terrorist groups and give some of them a pass.

I guess you have to start somewhere though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you need active protection such as scanners of some kind because screening isn't going to cut it when you are dealing with fanatics. If i invade your home and put knives to your children's throats and tell you to put this bomb in such and such a plane what are you going to do? They may even take a perverse pleasure in making sure it is a non-religious person they have taken control of.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A work colleague returned on Friday on the first of the Easyjet flights to Gatwick. The scanner went off as she had left a metal hair clip in her hair. She was waived through with no further investigation or screening.

The security sounds like a complete joke.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The security sounds like a complete joke.

Alas a joke that does not have a funny punchline.

Kind of reminds me of my dad. Every time he went through a scanner, it'd go off. Have a memory of us leaving from Gatwick (around mid 70s) , and him near stripping to prove he'd nothing overtly metal on him. We never did find out why he always had that effect. :no:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Egyptian spokesmen said on the news , that some parts of the plane are still missing , perhaps in finding those pieces they may find bomb residue. It does seem if it was a bomb the first explosion in the air would have blown out those missing pieces.. They should comb the desert and hope no one picked them up.

to add its the only way they are going to prove it,to find one piece with bomb residue on it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

to add its the only way they are going to prove it,to find one piece with bomb residue on it.

Yes - as to why the authorities and leaders of countries are saying - it's 'possible' it was a bomb - rather than commit to early by saying it 'was' a bomb - at least until further tests are carried out to confirm this.

It's just a reminder - of the world we live in today - that we can't afford to be casual as far as security in airports go and other places where hordes of people gather and / or travel.

Edited by Astra-
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A work colleague returned on Friday on the first of the Easyjet flights to Gatwick. The scanner went off as she had left a metal hair clip in her hair. She was waived through with no further investigation or screening.

The security sounds like a complete joke.

This was a flight from Sharm el Sheik ? If so, it is Intriguing, but possibly not as dangerous as it sounds. The people on that plane would presumably already have been screened - perhaps even searched - by British security specialists at Sharm el Sheik before being allowed on the flight home.

Edited by RoofGardener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that is missing in this discussion is the differentiation between possibility and proven fact. Since no bomb residue or other evidence have been found to prove that the plane crash was due to explosives, security procedure negligence..etc, terrorism should be considered as a possibility, not a fact.

Another possibility is the rupture of the tail section as consequence of the 2001 accident, and I think it too should be considered. This article in my opinion is worth reading as it attempts to analyse the tragic accident, and compare it to other previous ones.

" Notice here the very clean break, along the bulkhead joint at the top, with no sign whatsoever of any jagged tear, heat stress or fire. The fin and aft fuselage were about 5 km south of the wing and rest of the fuselage and also about 2.5 Km south of the last radar position. Given that the aircraft was travelling on a generally Northerly track, this indicates that the tail came off first. The photo above shows a clean lateral break at a frame at the top indicating that is where the fracture started and the complicated rupture at the bottom being the final departure from rest of the aircraft as the back end bent off downwards. That would indicate the failure was due to an excessive download force on the horizontal stabilizer or a fatigue failure at the fuselage top adjacent the frame. Following this, pressurization would blow the back end off. Either way, rest of the aircraft would have been pushed forward with an impulsive thrust of a few thousand pounds as the pressurized air released out the back like a rocket exhaust. This would also account for the aircraft skin peeling off outwards seen in some pictures in the press.

The question that begs an answer is, “Why there is such a clean break with no sign of heat stress or fire if this break-up was the result of a bomb?” As can be seen from various images published in the press, fire was localized to the main fuselage body, the section that houses the wings (where most of the fuel is stored) and the central fuel tanks."

http://theerringhuman.blogspot.be/2015/11/metrojet-9268-7k9268-kgl9268-why-this.html?spref=fbhttp://theerringhuman.blogspot.be/2015/11/metrojet-9268-7k9268-kgl9268-why-this.html?spref=fb

There is no doubt that security measures need to be revised, and I am sure that by now several heads are rolling in Sharm's airport, but until proven by irrefutable evidence, terrorism by ISIS (which a few weeks ago was launching helium filled condoms and balloons as air defence) remains only a possibility

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that is missing in this discussion is the differentiation between possibility and proven fact. Since no bomb residue or other evidence have been found to prove that the plane crash was due to explosives, security procedure negligence..etc, terrorism should be considered as a possibility, not a fact.

Another possibility is the rupture of the tail section as consequence of the 2001 accident, and I think it too should be considered. This article in my opinion is worth reading as it attempts to analyse the tragic accident, and compare it to other previous ones.

" Notice here the very clean break, along the bulkhead joint at the top, with no sign whatsoever of any jagged tear, heat stress or fire. The fin and aft fuselage were about 5 km south of the wing and rest of the fuselage and also about 2.5 Km south of the last radar position. Given that the aircraft was travelling on a generally Northerly track, this indicates that the tail came off first. The photo above shows a clean lateral break at a frame at the top indicating that is where the fracture started and the complicated rupture at the bottom being the final departure from rest of the aircraft as the back end bent off downwards. That would indicate the failure was due to an excessive download force on the horizontal stabilizer or a fatigue failure at the fuselage top adjacent the frame. Following this, pressurization would blow the back end off. Either way, rest of the aircraft would have been pushed forward with an impulsive thrust of a few thousand pounds as the pressurized air released out the back like a rocket exhaust. This would also account for the aircraft skin peeling off outwards seen in some pictures in the press.

The question that begs an answer is, “Why there is such a clean break with no sign of heat stress or fire if this break-up was the result of a bomb?” As can be seen from various images published in the press, fire was localized to the main fuselage body, the section that houses the wings (where most of the fuel is stored) and the central fuel tanks."

http://theerringhuma...s.html?spref=fbhttp://theerringhuma...s.html?spref=fb

There is no doubt that security measures need to be revised, and I am sure that by now several heads are rolling in Sharm's airport, but until proven by irrefutable evidence, terrorism by ISIS (which a few weeks ago was launching helium filled condoms and balloons as air defence) remains only a possibility

I can only warn to never draw conclusions from such a limited amount of evidence. The analysis you posted is severely flawed because the person making it has nothing to go on but a photo or two. Terrible mistake to make and proof he hasn't a clue what he is talking about as no professional would ever make the assumptions that ass has made with the limited knowledge of the mishap scene he has..

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was a flight from Sharm el Sheik ? If so, it is Intriguing, but possibly not as dangerous as it sounds. The people on that plane would presumably already have been screened - perhaps even searched - by British security specialists at Sharm el Sheik before being allowed on the flight home.

It is, in the local paper someone had the same experience. The airport has a history of poor searches

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that is missing in this discussion is the differentiation between possibility and proven fact.

No - nothing of the sort is missing in this discussion. When news first broke concerning this tragic plane crash - of course much of the world thought that an explosive devise may have been responsible. Afterall - considering the threat of terrorism that looms over the world today in regards to these extremest fanatics - it is quiet understandable.

However - until the results come back as 'fact' as to what caused the crash - then we have no choice but to wait - as into what evidence they eventually find.

Since no bomb residue or other evidence have been found to prove that the plane crash was due to explosives, security procedure negligence..etc, terrorism should be considered as a possibility, not a fact.

That is correct - and most are aware of this now. Even so... every airport around the world - should always keep their highest security measures in place - there is no room for apathy anymore.

Another possibility is the rupture of the tail section as consequence of the 2001 accident, and I think it too should be considered.
Either way - the results will eventually surface of what brought this aircraft down. Until then - we can only speculate.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was a flight from Sharm el Sheik ? If so, it is Intriguing, but possibly not as dangerous as it sounds. The people on that plane would presumably already have been screened - perhaps even searched - by British security specialists at Sharm el Sheik before being allowed on the flight home.

Yes it was, she also had a bottle of water in her hand (supposedly not meant to have liquids) and a glass bottle of Vodka in her hand luggage.

Talking to her yesterday she witnessed people asking for £20 saying they could get a family of up to four past without security checks to the front of the queue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am certainly no expert never having got on a plane, but if there was a small bomb that exploded, in the air ,would`nt it blow a small a hole in the plane ( the missing pieces ) causing the rest of the plane to crack? In this case in the tail of the plane.

Edited by docyabut2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only warn to never draw conclusions from such a limited amount of evidence. The analysis you posted is severely flawed because the person making it has nothing to go on but a photo or two. Terrible mistake to make and proof he hasn't a clue what he is talking about as no professional would ever make the assumptions that ass has made with the limited knowledge of the mishap scene he has..

I prefer not to call the writer of the article an 'ass', other than not liking the term, frankly I am not an aviation expert and therefore cannot evaluate his competence. However, a point in his favor and that of the possibility of structural damage of the plan, is the statement made by the former inspector general for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Mary Schiavo who, commenting on finding the tail section miles away from the other parts said:" "To me, it says (the tail) exited the plane before the explosive event and before the fire engulfed the plane. ... A bad repair is like a ticking time bomb, because once it's on the plane, it stays with the plane forever,"

Also, investigators have found no signs of explosive impact or blast-related trauma on the bodies of the victims.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/03/africa/russian-plane-crash-egypt-sinai/index.html?eref=edition

Passengers' luggage seems to be intact, does not bear signs of charring or singeing.

image.adapt.960.high.russia_metrojet_crash_26a.jpg

I reiterate that a bomb 'possibility' has yet to be proven, and appears to be just as valid as that of structural damage to the plane. The bomb hypothesis mainly rests so far on 'chatter' followed by U.K. and U.S. intelligence services, NOT physical evidence. I tend to suspect the motive behind the drastic reaction of both countries when US intelligence officials view such a tragedy as an opportunity to clip the wings of Putin; "fun to watch" as one official characterized it!

"Some in the U.S. government are also wondering, in undeniably hopeful tones, if a terrorist attack will compel Putin to commit more military forces to Syria and thus draw him deeper into what the Obama administration calls a “quagmire.” Indeed, some privately delighted in the news that Russia was made to pay for its intervention in Syria. (ISIS had vowed to attack Russia after it began its airstrike campaign on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/09/u-s-spies-root-for-an-isis-russia-war.html

In this case, it would seem to be that it is more about the 'Big Guys' playing geopolitics than genuine concern about safety, making the people who died, and the economic loss of Egypt, collateral damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think the intelligence came from America itself, the French and the Russians have contacted the fbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think the intelligence came from America itself, the French and the Russians have contacted the fbi

No, the 'chatter' suggesting a bomb was used, was supposedly intercepted by British and US intelligence, at least according to Reuters. The bomb was allegedly hidden in the luggage hold (same luggage that is shown in the picture intact, un-singed, and unaffected by any explosion).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/06/us-egypt-crash-intelligence-idUSKCN0SV26T20151106#eBROXojiRTdkrPDU.97

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Passengers' luggage seems to be intact, does not bear signs of charring or singeing.

image.adapt.960.high.russia_metrojet_crash_26a.jpg

I reiterate that a bomb 'possibility' has yet to be proven, and appears to be just as valid as that of structural damage to the plane.

you right luggage seems to be intact, no signs of fire, nor there should be.

a bomb does not have to blow a plane to pieces, or burn it inside, all it needs to do is compromise structure, the rest will be done by natural forces.

American satellite saw ir flash midair, that is clear sign of explosion, thus they said possibly a bomb.

btw I like how the luggage is separated and guarded, unlike Malaysian plane that was shot down in Ukraine, their luggage was looted, and dnr rebels showed pics on their social media pages, being dressed in things they "recovered" from crash

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer not to call the writer of the article an 'ass', other than not liking the term, frankly I am not an aviation expert and therefore cannot evaluate his competence. However, a point in his favor and that of the possibility of structural damage of the plan, is the statement made by the former inspector general for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Mary Schiavo who, commenting on finding the tail section miles away from the other parts said:" "To me, it says (the tail) exited the plane before the explosive event and before the fire engulfed the plane. ... A bad repair is like a ticking time bomb, because once it's on the plane, it stays with the plane forever,"

Ass is the correct word to use for that author and Mary Schiavo should know better but then she is a lawyer, not a professional crash scene investigator and therefore knows as much as you do about investigating aviation mishaps. BTW, the NTSB investigates aviation mishaps, not the FAA, at least in a leadership role, so your name dropping fails on two points.

Edited by Merc14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted the picture of the luggage because, as per the Reuters article, some are speculating that a bomb was placed in the luggage hold.

The heat signature could indicate a bomb, malfunctioning engine exploding, fuel tank explosion, or a structural problem causing a fire on the plane; all could lead to the its disintegration. By itself it does not confirm a bomb explosion. Wherever a bomb was placed, according to an Alford Technologies expert, "Surfaces in the vicinity of any explosion would be expected to be bent, perforated, petaled, spalled, sheared, frayed, charred (especially fibers), melded by impact, and otherwise characteristically damaged." These parts have not been found yet. Concrete tangible evidence of a bomb is still missing.

That the plane lurched before disintegrating, and the rudder broke off the tail, indicate for some a structural failure. In an interview with Russian NTV with Natalya Trukhacheva, widow of the co-pilot, said that her husband complained to her on the phone that the 'state of the aircraft left much to be desired'.

The point of my argument is that as long as there are no proofs, one way or the other, of any of the possible causes of the crash, people should not jump into conclusions. There is an international team of investigators working, including an American team of experts representing the manufacturers of the engines. Conclusions ought to be withheld until their report is out, and so should be the accusations, the blame and the 'whetted knives'. In the meanwhile, the human tragedy of loss of life of all these people and the children is becoming a game field for geopolitics and proxy wars angling to score points , which is contemptible.

PS. The DNR rebels robbing the dead and posing with the loot is worse than contemptible...small, mean people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ass is the correct word to use for that author and Mary Schiavo should know better but then she is a lawyer, not a professional crash scene investigator and therefore knows as much as you do about investigating aviation mishaps. BTW, the NTSB investigates aviation mishaps, not the FAA, at least in a leadership role, so your name dropping fails on two points.

You are free to choose whatever words you prefer, but this is not a word I use.

I said before that I am not an aviation expert.

I assume that CNN quoted Mary Schiavo as an expert because of the position she held. Her competence, or that she is lawyer, concerns both those who appointed her, and CNN which cited her. Your comments about name dropping and which department handles which investigation should be directed to whoever wrote the article, and CNN which published it, I only quoted it. If you had a look at the link I posted you would have noticed that before going on the 'war path'.

Edited, I saw on your profile that you worked in the field of aviation, yet you chose not to offer any information; counter-argument or discussion other than short tempered accusations and name calling. Bon, add to my failures a failure to carry on a discussion on these terms.

Edited by meryt-tetisheri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer not to call the writer of the article an 'ass', other than not liking the term, frankly I am not an aviation expert and therefore cannot evaluate his competence. However, a point in his favor and that of the possibility of structural damage of the plan, is the statement made by the former inspector general for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Mary Schiavo who, commenting on finding the tail section miles away from the other parts said:" "To me, it says (the tail) exited the plane before the explosive event and before the fire engulfed the plane. ... A bad repair is like a ticking time bomb, because once it's on the plane, it stays with the plane forever,"

Also, investigators have found no signs of explosive impact or blast-related trauma on the bodies of the victims.

http://edition.cnn.c...ml?eref=edition

Passengers' luggage seems to be intact, does not bear signs of charring or singeing.

image.adapt.960.high.russia_metrojet_crash_26a.jpg

I reiterate that a bomb 'possibility' has yet to be proven, and appears to be just as valid as that of structural damage to the plane. The bomb hypothesis mainly rests so far on 'chatter' followed by U.K. and U.S. intelligence services, NOT physical evidence. I tend to suspect the motive behind the drastic reaction of both countries when US intelligence officials view such a tragedy as an opportunity to clip the wings of Putin; "fun to watch" as one official characterized it!

"Some in the U.S. government are also wondering, in undeniably hopeful tones, if a terrorist attack will compel Putin to commit more military forces to Syria and thus draw him deeper into what the Obama administration calls a “quagmire.” Indeed, some privately delighted in the news that Russia was made to pay for its intervention in Syria. (ISIS had vowed to attack Russia after it began its airstrike campaign on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.)

http://www.thedailyb...russia-war.html

In this case, it would seem to be that it is more about the 'Big Guys' playing geopolitics than genuine concern about safety, making the people who died, and the economic loss of Egypt, collateral damage.

Hmmmm ... does the "God Rod" exist?

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.