BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alternate places
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite. In terms of physical evidence we don't have the right HS & box + motor/screwjack; we only have the left HS. I'm not sure we can account (photographically), for all the fuselage between the main wing box and the VS wreckage.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: XFW, Germany
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TASS: Russian Politics & Diplomacy - Experts search for explosive traces on A321 plane fragments ? anti-terrorist committee do some real search for evidence beyond "intelligence"
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the authenticity of the supposed video - here's a link to a photo sequence of the 1960's mid-air collision of an XB70 Valkyrie and an F104 Starfighter. Please note that as the Starfighter breaks up, spills its fuel and burns at altitude, there is a significant LACK of dark black smoke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEP7niGqiNg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEP7niGqiNg
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Orestes, what you have there is a clean fuel fire. What the infamous video shows is black combustion product rather than a fuel fire. Clearly there is a difference in flammable potential between the two types.
I've read here several video professionals/analysts discarding the video as a fake, unfortunately without sharing any analytical material/proof.
With absolutely no knowledge on the subject and very basic tools, I made this crude composition image after a frame-by-frame analysis. These are the first 6 second of the 'event'. What strikes me, if it is supposed to be a fake:
- it's a twin-underwing engined ac (so no old DC9 footage, nor a four engined plane as was stated by some)
- why went they through so much trouble creating shockwave effects, prior to the fireball, that nobody notices anyway. Difficult to see on these stills, but the first downward and directly following upper left/right 'shockwaves' resemble a fighter approaching/going supersonic
- if it's a fake why went they through the sudden colour change from blue-ish to purple-ish (which has no added value while creating the fake)
- the fireball is build up very progressively but consistent and separates in the smoke trail in a very believable fashion.
- if this was created in some game/simulation software, this must have been a pretty realistic simulation tool (shockwave/fireball wise), on which they went through a lot of trouble adding 'poor-quality' effects, heavy shaking, etc.
- and they did it twice, the first part of the video is rather close in-line with the flightpath, the second part (not included here) is more offset to the left (by 20-ish degrees) and at a flatter angle (farther away).
- if it's a fake, I rather would expect it to come from well equipped youngster with a lot time to waste on it, rather than the 'real' bas...ds which are actually in a conflict/war zone.
As a totally unqualified person, I have a rather bad (= 'real') feeling with this footage being made using consumer/smartphone quality devices, maybe 'upgraded' by some pop-on optical zoom-lens for smartphones. And without much video/special effects editing, only too much digital zoom. But I hope I'm wrong and that it's just some despicable video(game) crafting.
With absolutely no knowledge on the subject and very basic tools, I made this crude composition image after a frame-by-frame analysis. These are the first 6 second of the 'event'. What strikes me, if it is supposed to be a fake:
- it's a twin-underwing engined ac (so no old DC9 footage, nor a four engined plane as was stated by some)
- why went they through so much trouble creating shockwave effects, prior to the fireball, that nobody notices anyway. Difficult to see on these stills, but the first downward and directly following upper left/right 'shockwaves' resemble a fighter approaching/going supersonic
- if it's a fake why went they through the sudden colour change from blue-ish to purple-ish (which has no added value while creating the fake)
- the fireball is build up very progressively but consistent and separates in the smoke trail in a very believable fashion.
- if this was created in some game/simulation software, this must have been a pretty realistic simulation tool (shockwave/fireball wise), on which they went through a lot of trouble adding 'poor-quality' effects, heavy shaking, etc.
- and they did it twice, the first part of the video is rather close in-line with the flightpath, the second part (not included here) is more offset to the left (by 20-ish degrees) and at a flatter angle (farther away).
- if it's a fake, I rather would expect it to come from well equipped youngster with a lot time to waste on it, rather than the 'real' bas...ds which are actually in a conflict/war zone.
As a totally unqualified person, I have a rather bad (= 'real') feeling with this footage being made using consumer/smartphone quality devices, maybe 'upgraded' by some pop-on optical zoom-lens for smartphones. And without much video/special effects editing, only too much digital zoom. But I hope I'm wrong and that it's just some despicable video(game) crafting.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Maine USA
Age: 82
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thick black smoke which p!umes and billows? Looks like the smoke rising vertically from a oil fuelled fire in still air turned through 90 degrees and overlaid. Just sayin'.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear video enthusiasts:
Given the beautiful plume of black smoke for so many seconds, please explain the pristine, soot-free nature of the tail empennage.
And PLEASE take it to another thread.
Given the beautiful plume of black smoke for so many seconds, please explain the pristine, soot-free nature of the tail empennage.
And PLEASE take it to another thread.
Comcentrating on alleged video is only serving to enhance the credibility of those who allegedly made it. Even if it were a true representation of what happened ,(which I doubt) it still doesn't expliain where or how a device was planted or how the aircraft disintegrated.
Is there any point discussing the finer points of this video manipulation?
Is there any point discussing the finer points of this video manipulation?
A high velocity explosion inside the aircraft may produce smaller fragments that upper winds can carry for considerable distances. The pieces closest to an explosion will be the smallest and most scattered and be of most interest to forensic investigators.
It will take a lot of manpower to search the entire area where fragments may have landed.
Until more evidence is made public, I do not yet see enough facts to decide between a bomb or structural failure.
It will take a lot of manpower to search the entire area where fragments may have landed.
Until more evidence is made public, I do not yet see enough facts to decide between a bomb or structural failure.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Israel is absolutely silent on the whole matter. For those of us that have slightly deviated from military instructions (not Israeli, necessarily) when operating under their guidance, you know how accurate their equipment is. They saw and recorded the entire event.
With Israel's experience with the Sinai, they watch that airspace very closely.
Of course, the US knows as well from their various satellites monitoring in real time.
If it were a purely structural breakup, the major powers would have been clued in.
Judge the past by the actions in the present.
With Israel's experience with the Sinai, they watch that airspace very closely.
Of course, the US knows as well from their various satellites monitoring in real time.
If it were a purely structural breakup, the major powers would have been clued in.
Judge the past by the actions in the present.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We know there has been a fire, not only on the ground but also in the air. We can see smoke marking on fuselage sections where the ground has no evidence of fire so that indicates inflight fire at some point (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9167703). Sections of fuselage like the one discussed before on the port side, just behind the wing, that have been ripped of the trusses like the section with the wing light and the hole with “flap”, probably made on landing by a tube of the seating frame and a sharp edged holes in the sooted grey area (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9167734). That particular section shows that there seems to have been a force pushing the panelling out: a window that has been pushed outwards from the fuselage and also fire: soot markings from the emergency escape slide. Below that, in the area of the hold (painted grey) there is also evidence of fire seemingly inside the hold.
There is another section of ripped off fuselage (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9167649), I think from the opposite (starboard) side, showing the same kind of soot and burn markings. The Aluminium skin has been burned through in places but again not where the trusses and ribs etc. were fitted. I understand that this is roughly the area where the central fwd/aft fuel tanks are. See also (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9171924) All these sections, including the empennage, have been found in the same two debris areas. It would be interesting to know where the sections are that have fallen down earlier in the disaster process. (satellite image?)
I have been looking at this a number of times now and it puzzles me still. I personally am not buying the “outside force” scenario, that to me is just scaremongering/propaganda until they declare to have found evidence of it.
There is another section of ripped off fuselage (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9167649), I think from the opposite (starboard) side, showing the same kind of soot and burn markings. The Aluminium skin has been burned through in places but again not where the trusses and ribs etc. were fitted. I understand that this is roughly the area where the central fwd/aft fuel tanks are. See also (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9171924) All these sections, including the empennage, have been found in the same two debris areas. It would be interesting to know where the sections are that have fallen down earlier in the disaster process. (satellite image?)
I have been looking at this a number of times now and it puzzles me still. I personally am not buying the “outside force” scenario, that to me is just scaremongering/propaganda until they declare to have found evidence of it.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Estonia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fr24 fdr data
Wow, this press event was not worthless. Not every part of plane was found. FDR stops at 4:13:20.
How comes there is nothing on fdr? Someone is lieing?
How fdr time is synced?
flightradar time is added at the moment of receiving.