Saturn V said
<<unctuous, a more careful reading of the radar trace and ATC communications (links provided some posts back by peanut butter) would have discounted several of your scenario hypotheses.>>
Don’t yourself misinterpret the radar plot..see Belgique comments at this link. Re the ATC comms and the timing/development of any failure to pressurize, suggest you rethink – some hints below.
<<on your first scenario (b) depressurization at FL 150 incapacitating the crew. The crew at 15.16:18 reported at FL 187 and climbing. The last communication from the crew was at 15.16:30.>>
If the cabin was climbing at too high a rate (due perhaps to a hull integrity problem) it is quite conceivable that the first signs of hypoxia will not become apparent until some height in excess of 20K. Hypoxia onset is a function of both time and oxy partial pressures
<<on your scenario (c) a mach overspeed, the max airspeed on the radar trace was 453 knots, at FL 343, which was reached just before a slight drop in airspeed, which may have been coincident with the beginning of the catastrophic event. >>
Speed drop may also have been indicative of the commencement of a turn (into the nose-drop spiral) due to the non-asymmetry of lift/drag upon encountering mach buffet – the depressn theory
<<on a center fuel tank explosion, it is my understanding that the ambient air temperature and oxygen levels at FL 340 are not conducive to a vapor explosion of the center fuel tank.>>
talk to Dr. Joe Shepherd at CalTech about the possibility of another fuel tank explosion. His govt-funded research shows it can happen up to 40,000 feet. The higher one goes, the greater the necessary ignition energy, but experiments show it can happen. It is in part tied in to the readiness with which silver sulfide deposits within a fuel-tank can provide the conductive path between fuel-probe terminal block terminal posts - for an arcing event. <<further, unlike TW 800, there was no fire in the impact area, no reported sign of fire or smoke in the sky, and there have been no reports that I have seen of recovered bodies being burnt or parts of the plane showing fire damage.>>
Day event for CI-611 versus a night-time event for TWA-800. I think that makes a significant difference to the observability. One of the ongoing conundrums with TWA800 has always been that passengers sitting right above the CWT weren’t burnt at all. See this link
<<on a bomb planted by al-Qaida, I am quite certain that US carriers do not carry 50 percent of the traffic between Taipei and HongKong as you assert.>>
May have been unclear here, I meant a 50:50 Boeing/Airbus possibility. <<remotely fusing a bomb to explode at a certain time or altitude, particularly if it is sequenced to explode after several flight segments, simply lessens the chance that a terrorist will succeed with respect to target and result.>>
Decades have passed since AI182 and IED’s have become much more sophisticated. I assure you that you can now timelock-out the baro part for a specified time so that the incident will occur on a second or third leg of its delivery transit. I believe that you can also step-time such that the baro-trigger doesn’t initiate the fusing until the second or third etc climb cycle. We should try not to live in the past, when the technology does exist. <<Sikh bombers who brought down Air India with a bomb off Ireland had another bomb explode on an airport luggage carousel, which led to their being found out. Pan Am 103 had a delayed departure, and crashed on land and not in the middle of the North Atlantic, thus revealing the clues about the bomb and how it got there.>>
ipso facto it was a timed device and quite unsophisticated compared to what is now available. <<An Islamic terrorist placed a small bomb in a seat of a Pan Am 747 out of Manila, timed to go off during the next segment. The terrorist disembarked the plane as ticketed. On the next segment, the bomb exploded, killing one passenger, but the plane survived, and the terrorist was caught.
this is not saying that a bomb did not bring down dynasty 611. but rather than jumping to al-Qaida being the culprits (if indeed it was a bomb) one should probably first look at the on-board passenger list. The long history of aircraft bombings would reveal that a substantial percentage of them were planted by individuals seeking insurance monies.>>
….together with a long associated history of them not getting those payouts. Given the present high state of terrorist alert, it would be idiotic to play that game nowadays….not that there aren’t idiots out there – or disgruntled ex-employees.