Only the last picture showing the fuselage is genuine, the others posted earlier in the thread are from Algeria 2014.
Correct, the first photo shows the tailplane of the 2014 August An-12 crash near Tamanrasset. However the inverted right wing is a genuine photo of this accident.
From photos published so far there appears to be at least two major areas of wreckage, matching initial reports of ground witnesses:
The nose section, with upper part of the fuselage crushed, implying ground impact inverted. The impact was not strong enough to disintegrate the entire section, which rolled semi-upright after impact. On the video released by RT it is possible to see on a few frames for a split-second that the severely burned center section and wings (also in an inverted position) are not far behind, suggesting that the wings with the center and front section came down in one piece. On some photos of the wing it is clear that slats, flaps and landing gear are fully retracted.
The tail section, which fell almost vertically and was crushed at the bottom, the impact also breaking the main spar of the VS. No trace of fire, and also no other wreckage is visible in the background on photos taken from different angles. The entire tail-cone section housing the APU and the entire HS structure is missing aft of the rear door and the pressure bulkhead.
All this, together with reports of a large debris field, seems to confirm an in-flight breakup around the time radar contact / FR24 data stream was lost. In the mean time, Egyptians have denied there was any communication between ATC and crew.
If this is correct, there are three possible causes:
A) Catastrophic failure of key flight control surfaces or loss of structural integrity, which rapidly place the aircraft into attitudes that cause structural breakup due to aerodynamic loads. This is also consistent with a rapid drop in airspeed quickly followed by a complete loss of transmitted data.
B) Inappropriate crew action which results in same scenario as above. Given the various envelope protections on AB this can only be achieved intentionally by degrading to direct law. A stall and subsequent blundered recovery would not cause this. All recent LOC accidents had an out of control but structurally intact aircraft hit the ground. Intentional crew action, while also having some high profile precedents, is highly unlikely at this stage.
C) Onboard explosion (bomb) which achieves the same as a structural failure. This would be the likeliest under given circumstances, however knowing the likely motives success would immediately be claimed and advertised. The fabricated IS video appearing 8 hours after the event lacks any credibility, and there were no other claims of responsibility, so again unlikely at present.
Given all above, scenario A) as implied by the Egyptian authorities (who are the only ones having access to detailed information at present) is a plausible one. It is thought provoking that the rear tip of the fuselage with the horizontal stabilizer appears to have separated from the rest of the tail section while in flight, while in many accidents we have seen the tail section retain most of its structural integrity even after a severe ground impact. Whether this was cause or effect remains to be seen, however in this context the 2001 tail-strike may be more significant than expected.