Metrojet crash Eygpt
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope
1) Any photo of debris
2) Any video from media agencies shot at the site.
3) Information from FR24, confirmed speed, alt and stage of flight at the moment of accident
4) Information about abrupt ending of FDR recording
5) Information about traces of explosives found at the debris
6) Pax list
7) Condition of airframe and engines from airline papers
2) Any video from media agencies shot at the site.
3) Information from FR24, confirmed speed, alt and stage of flight at the moment of accident
4) Information about abrupt ending of FDR recording
5) Information about traces of explosives found at the debris
6) Pax list
7) Condition of airframe and engines from airline papers
So I don't believe in the bomb hypothesis--not based on evidence so far.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only way to get an explosive to manage #4 is either (a) an explosive so large as to rip the plane in half or (b) an explosive that was targeted to do just that--stop the recorders.
PS: It was list of known facts, some of them direct, other (like FDR and explosive traces) from official sources, not any attempt "to connect dots".
Only half a speed-brake
Kulverstukas, an honest question, assuming you understand the fine differences in who-says-what in RF:
If one is to believe the official statement that explosives had been identified in the wreckage of the A321, why should we not trust the official statement that Malaysian was shot from mid-air? Or vice versa?
respectfully, FD.
If one is to believe the official statement that explosives had been identified in the wreckage of the A321, why should we not trust the official statement that Malaysian was shot from mid-air? Or vice versa?
respectfully, FD.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Arroyo
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could a bomb in a soda can really bring down a plane?
An interesting contribution by Al Jazeera
Could a bomb in a soda can really bring down a plane?
Could a bomb in a soda can really bring down a plane?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ettore: An interesting contribution by Al Jazeera
Could a bomb in a soda can really bring down a plane?
Could a bomb in a soda can really bring down a plane?
"Inside the can itself - if filled to full capacity - there are probably 200 to 300 grammes of high explosives. So certainly it’s a viable device," Chris Hunter, an explosives expert, said.
Assuming reports of placement correct, catering or cleaners have ample opportunity to tuck a device in that corner that heretofore will be carefully inspected.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MountainBear: So I don't believe in the bomb hypothesis--not based on evidence so far.
- Russian involvement in Syrian/ISIS conflict
- ISIS takes responsibility for plane
- UK and US suspect bomb based on intelligence
- Action taken to change aircraft travel through airport
- ISIS Paris attacks
- Reports that CVR sound signature = bomb
- Complete almost instantaneous in-flight failure of commercial aircraft is extremely rare
- Russian government states it was a bomb (I would not judge its current actions based on MH170)
Seriously, in this case you have to look in the opposite direction of everything right now to think it wasn't a bomb.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let's take your comments one by one
Sure. This speaks to motive. There is no dispute that ISIS had the motive to do it. But motive is not evidence that something was done, only that one desired to do it.
ISIS (and terrorists in general) take responsibility for things they don't do. They have a vested interest in looking more powerful than they are. So any such claim by them is self-serving.
Yes. But intelligence that has not be revealed to anyone. So it's not something we know.
This is a mere inference. We don't know what the Egyptians know that caused them to do this. It isn't evidence that a bomb took down a plane.
What does that have anything to do with anything?
Such reports are false. That has been explained in the prior thread already.
Truth. But so are terrorist bombings. So what is you point?
Yes. But again like the USA and UK we don't have any data, just claims.
- Russian involvement in Syrian/ISIS conflict
- ISIS takes responsibility for plane
- UK and US suspect bomb based on intelligence
- Action taken to change aircraft travel through airport
- ISIS Paris attacks
- Reports that CVR sound signature = bomb
- Complete almost instantaneous in-flight failure of commercial aircraft is extremely rare
- Russian government states it was a bomb (I would not judge its current actions based on MH170)
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well we can doubt everything, which is a good place to be if you are doing the actual investigation, but from a helicopter view it looks like a bomb and smells like a bomb and there is more apparent and circumstancial evidence for that than anything else. There is a stronger case for a bomb than the elaborate, evidence poor and extremely hypothetical arguments for a catastrophic tail separation due to mechanical failure.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Age: 71
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A fresh study has confirmed that people are reluctant to change their minds and adapt their views, even when new information has been presented.
The research from the University of Iowa is based on previous studies indicating that people are particularly likely to stick to their original viewpoint when they’ve had to write their beliefs down– a phenomenon known as the ‘explanation effect’.
Also known as "Don't confuse me with any facts or conclusions by other involved parties, my mind is already made up"
The research from the University of Iowa is based on previous studies indicating that people are particularly likely to stick to their original viewpoint when they’ve had to write their beliefs down– a phenomenon known as the ‘explanation effect’.
Also known as "Don't confuse me with any facts or conclusions by other involved parties, my mind is already made up"
@ mountain bear.
"UK and US suspect bomb based on intelligence"
The intelligence has not been released to the public. It may have been passed on at higher echelons
"UK and US suspect bomb based on intelligence"
Yes. But intelligence that has not be revealed to anyone. So it's not something we know.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New Jersey USA
Age: 66
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Precedents?
Though I have long studied air transport safety (as a matter of personal curiosity), I certainly don't have encyclopedic knowledge of its history.
So I'm asking the readers of this thread, to help me out here. Within these constraints:
• after the early era of jets (say, post 1970)
• from an altitude at or near cruise (say, FL300 +)
• with evidence of major structural failure at altitude
• with a governmental investigation report from one of the principal countries in aviation, making clear findings of probable cause
How many times has a jet airline flight suffered a major structural failure not caused by an explosive weapon, which disabled it so suddenly that the flight crew never sent a subsequent radio message?
I haven't yet thought of an example. Anybody?
So I'm asking the readers of this thread, to help me out here. Within these constraints:
• after the early era of jets (say, post 1970)
• from an altitude at or near cruise (say, FL300 +)
• with evidence of major structural failure at altitude
• with a governmental investigation report from one of the principal countries in aviation, making clear findings of probable cause
How many times has a jet airline flight suffered a major structural failure not caused by an explosive weapon, which disabled it so suddenly that the flight crew never sent a subsequent radio message?
I haven't yet thought of an example. Anybody?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many times has a jet airline flight suffered a major structural failure not caused by an explosive weapon, which disabled it so suddenly that the flight crew never sent a subsequent radio message?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Maine USA
Age: 82
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not from post-1970, but the early Comet failures come to mind. I suppose there could be some analogous hidden fault in the Airbus A-321, but it seems unlikely. In fact, if the authorities thought it wasn't a bomb, I'd expect to see all similar aircraft at least grounded for inspection by now.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New Jersey USA
Age: 66
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over-Interpreting
@ various:
I've seen some reasoning here, which seems particularly at risk to lead to invalid conclusions.
The implicit premise, is that the Presumed Bad Guys are Really Clever and Highly Capable. Therefore, the way an attack played out in detail, is a reflection of Bad Guy planning and decision-making.
I think there is good evidence that in practice, people who commit such depraved acts are not especially clever, or capable. What perhaps sets them apart, is that they are really determined to do things most people would never choose to do.
Example 1: The "Bomb Trigger"
There's been much discussion (in this and the previous thread) about barometrics, timers, consumer electronic devices, etc. I wish to observe that the effect of triggering several minutes AFTER the cabin reaches its maximum pressure altitude, could be achieved by a really crude home-made trigger that by design should have worked earlier, but introduced a delay by accident.
What I'd like to remind folks of, is that it's quite possible there was a really sophisticated trigger; we don't know. It's also quite possible there was a stupid-simple trigger; we don't know. On the basis of publicly available information, we Just Don't Know.
Example 2: Killing the Black Boxes
Terrorists are inherently opportunistic: their attacks are shaped by openings and weaknesses in defenses against them. For this reason, some aspects of such attacks are quite intentional (for example, the type of targets); but others are quite accidental (this target was easier to get to).
Did someone really decide to design their attack, to disable the flight recorders?
If so, WHY? Do we really imagine terrorists sitting around a table saying, "there are some things about our attack we want to keep secret after the plane is destroyed, that MIGHT leak out from the flight recorders. Therefore, we must disable them!" REALLY??????
Did they plant a bomb aft because they concluded that this position was most likely to doom the aircraft?
Did they plant a bomb aft because they expected that this position would be easy for them to access, with a lesser risk of getting caught?
Or maybe, just maybe ... did they stick it under a rear seat, because passengers don't put stuff under seats in the last row?
________________________
Dear armchair investigators, let me remind you of the principle of least hypothesis.
Let me also remind you (as I believe somebody did on the big thread), Usama bin Laden is on record as saying he did not expect the twin towers to collapse. From his point of view, the cataclysmic scale of devastation was pure dumb luck -- the most elaborately planned terror attack the world has yet seen, made its most terrible effect by accident, not design.
Of course, we are all free to wander out onto the Grassy Knoll ... but let's remember that we are much more likely to find our own fantasies there, than anything that actually happened.
I've seen some reasoning here, which seems particularly at risk to lead to invalid conclusions.
The implicit premise, is that the Presumed Bad Guys are Really Clever and Highly Capable. Therefore, the way an attack played out in detail, is a reflection of Bad Guy planning and decision-making.
I think there is good evidence that in practice, people who commit such depraved acts are not especially clever, or capable. What perhaps sets them apart, is that they are really determined to do things most people would never choose to do.
Example 1: The "Bomb Trigger"
There's been much discussion (in this and the previous thread) about barometrics, timers, consumer electronic devices, etc. I wish to observe that the effect of triggering several minutes AFTER the cabin reaches its maximum pressure altitude, could be achieved by a really crude home-made trigger that by design should have worked earlier, but introduced a delay by accident.
What I'd like to remind folks of, is that it's quite possible there was a really sophisticated trigger; we don't know. It's also quite possible there was a stupid-simple trigger; we don't know. On the basis of publicly available information, we Just Don't Know.
Example 2: Killing the Black Boxes
Terrorists are inherently opportunistic: their attacks are shaped by openings and weaknesses in defenses against them. For this reason, some aspects of such attacks are quite intentional (for example, the type of targets); but others are quite accidental (this target was easier to get to).
Did someone really decide to design their attack, to disable the flight recorders?
If so, WHY? Do we really imagine terrorists sitting around a table saying, "there are some things about our attack we want to keep secret after the plane is destroyed, that MIGHT leak out from the flight recorders. Therefore, we must disable them!" REALLY??????
Did they plant a bomb aft because they concluded that this position was most likely to doom the aircraft?
Did they plant a bomb aft because they expected that this position would be easy for them to access, with a lesser risk of getting caught?
Or maybe, just maybe ... did they stick it under a rear seat, because passengers don't put stuff under seats in the last row?
________________________
Dear armchair investigators, let me remind you of the principle of least hypothesis.
Let me also remind you (as I believe somebody did on the big thread), Usama bin Laden is on record as saying he did not expect the twin towers to collapse. From his point of view, the cataclysmic scale of devastation was pure dumb luck -- the most elaborately planned terror attack the world has yet seen, made its most terrible effect by accident, not design.
Of course, we are all free to wander out onto the Grassy Knoll ... but let's remember that we are much more likely to find our own fantasies there, than anything that actually happened.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alternate places
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B.O.A.C 911, a B-707
Alaska Airlines MD80
I think it is healthy, (in terms of how investigators work), to suspend conclusions in favour of an abiding curiosity until we know of the physical evidence, but it certainly seems to quack...
Last edited by FDMII; 20th Nov 2015 at 16:46.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New Jersey USA
Age: 66
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ FDMII
There are other incidents as well, of jets that were at least suspected (if not necessarily confirmed) to have been abruptly wrenched from the sky by "mountain waves" or rotors in the wake of rugged peaks ... but naturally, all of these occurred far below cruise altitude.
________________
In general, since the first generation of transport jets (when engineers had to discover stuff like the effects metal fatigue on pressurized skins, and the deep-stall vulnerability of rear-engine jets) ...
Airplanes have (very simplistically) two kinds of parts. There are those which can fail, leaving the aircraft with the capacity to land safely; and those whose failure is expected to prevent a safe landing.
In jets after the first generation, catastrophic failure of the components in the second category are really, really rare. They are even more rare at high altitude, with favorable weather.
And even when such must-never-fail components DO break (from causes other than a bomb), usually the jet is able to stay in at least minimally controlled flight for several minutes afterward, or even dozens of minutes -- more than enough time for a Mayday.
I suspect (but don't know, because I haven't plowed through a database of all investigated accidents), that the Metrojet crash would, if not caused by a bomb, be the first one ever to meet the criteria I listed in my earlier post.
_______________________
Edited to add: I see you added the Alaska Airlines disaster. Even after the jackscrew mechanism had suffered a severe failure, and the plane pitched into its first steep dive, the flight crew made radio contact with ATC. It's true that they were unable to make a radio call after the jackscrew finally disconnected completely from the HS ... however, the progression of the failure was not so abrupt that the accident occurred without radio communication.
There are other incidents as well, of jets that were at least suspected (if not necessarily confirmed) to have been abruptly wrenched from the sky by "mountain waves" or rotors in the wake of rugged peaks ... but naturally, all of these occurred far below cruise altitude.
________________
In general, since the first generation of transport jets (when engineers had to discover stuff like the effects metal fatigue on pressurized skins, and the deep-stall vulnerability of rear-engine jets) ...
Airplanes have (very simplistically) two kinds of parts. There are those which can fail, leaving the aircraft with the capacity to land safely; and those whose failure is expected to prevent a safe landing.
In jets after the first generation, catastrophic failure of the components in the second category are really, really rare. They are even more rare at high altitude, with favorable weather.
And even when such must-never-fail components DO break (from causes other than a bomb), usually the jet is able to stay in at least minimally controlled flight for several minutes afterward, or even dozens of minutes -- more than enough time for a Mayday.
I suspect (but don't know, because I haven't plowed through a database of all investigated accidents), that the Metrojet crash would, if not caused by a bomb, be the first one ever to meet the criteria I listed in my earlier post.
_______________________
Edited to add: I see you added the Alaska Airlines disaster. Even after the jackscrew mechanism had suffered a severe failure, and the plane pitched into its first steep dive, the flight crew made radio contact with ATC. It's true that they were unable to make a radio call after the jackscrew finally disconnected completely from the HS ... however, the progression of the failure was not so abrupt that the accident occurred without radio communication.
Last edited by Etud_lAvia; 20th Nov 2015 at 17:00.