Metrojet crash Eygpt
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- "]
- given the presence of the extra cargo hold fuel tanks, following the initial explosive energy, TNT has 5 times more combustive energy, enough to set the (leaking) extra fuel tanks ablaze, with the incomplete combustion producing thick black smoke
my (military) explosives training was limited to crudely blasting away brickwork with single quarter-kilo TNT sticks, but my uneducated guess would be that a 1 Kg TNT charge in the tail/APU section, would cause massive havoc to the tail section, not corroborated by available photos (it would however explain the HS separation )
- given the presence of the extra cargo hold fuel tanks, following the initial explosive energy, TNT has 5 times more combustive energy, enough to set the (leaking) extra fuel tanks ablaze, with the incomplete combustion producing thick black smoke
my (military) explosives training was limited to crudely blasting away brickwork with single quarter-kilo TNT sticks, but my uneducated guess would be that a 1 Kg TNT charge in the tail/APU section, would cause massive havoc to the tail section, not corroborated by available photos (it would however explain the HS separation )
1 gm TNT = 4000 JOULES.
1000 gm TNT = 4,000,000 Joules, result nothing much larger than confetti.
Latest news says the explosive was in a mixer fiz can. If this be true then no way would 1 kg be packed in it.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TNT X Combustive energy than Jet fuel? No, rather an understatement I`d say.
1 gm TNT = 4000 JOULES.
1000 gm TNT = 4,000,000 Joules, result nothing much larger than confetti.
Latest news says the explosive was in a mixer fiz can. If this be true then no way would 1 kg be packed in it.
1 gm TNT = 4000 JOULES.
1000 gm TNT = 4,000,000 Joules, result nothing much larger than confetti.
Latest news says the explosive was in a mixer fiz can. If this be true then no way would 1 kg be packed in it.
Bomb Tech: We found the device to consist of a mixture with brisance generating an overpressure of kPa and an R.E.F. in the range 0.1 to 1.0
Manager: Sir, it was the equivalent of 10g to 1Kg of TNT
Director: Minister, it was equivalent of 1Kg of TNT
Minister: The device consisted of 1Kg of TNT
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Buckinghamshire
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that picture was a sample from a "how to" in an ISIS pub, not a piece of evidence from the actual crash. I'd not read too much into it.
has this can as being from Egypt.... If it is a how to... they happen to have chosen an appropriate can.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: EHAM
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4.000.000 J is quite a lot of mechanical energy: it can lift a fire truck 40m high, to give an idea of the damage it can do. An inefficient explosion of a smaller amount of TNT will transfer far less energy to the airplane structure but would be more than destructive enough.
In my opinion the electronics can not have been only pressure based. The altitude where the bomb went off was too close to cruise alt so small measurement errors could have made the bomb fail to explode and if it would explode it would be unclear when.
Taking into account they wanted to film the explosion I think a timer was used. With a couple of sensors (vibration, pressure) it is easy to determine when the plane takes off and wait until the plane is above a predetermined camera position.
Sensor boards that can perform such functions are present in consumer electronics, it is impossible to prevent they get in the wrong hands. To prevent such an event, focus must be on detection of explosives.
In my opinion the electronics can not have been only pressure based. The altitude where the bomb went off was too close to cruise alt so small measurement errors could have made the bomb fail to explode and if it would explode it would be unclear when.
Taking into account they wanted to film the explosion I think a timer was used. With a couple of sensors (vibration, pressure) it is easy to determine when the plane takes off and wait until the plane is above a predetermined camera position.
Sensor boards that can perform such functions are present in consumer electronics, it is impossible to prevent they get in the wrong hands. To prevent such an event, focus must be on detection of explosives.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the bars were replenished in SSH and the bars sealed, then there would be no need for them to be counted by the crew. It could be that someone in the catering company could be the perpetrator. It is my belief something went off in the rear galley area due to the damage on door 4R which wouldn't be the case if it were in the hold.
A range of 0.1 to 1.0 would be equivalent to a range of 100g to 1KG (unless there's a technical point I'm missing). Or maybe the point was that managers can't do math.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hahahaha...
I'd put myself at the Director level, so I know that whatever I receive from the Manager is already filled with errors of all kinds, and whatever the Minister says I said will be ten times as distorted.
And with that, I'd say this thread has run its course. Unless some facts indicating a Black Swan event surface, there is already plenty of information here for enhancing self-education.
I'd put myself at the Director level, so I know that whatever I receive from the Manager is already filled with errors of all kinds, and whatever the Minister says I said will be ten times as distorted.
And with that, I'd say this thread has run its course. Unless some facts indicating a Black Swan event surface, there is already plenty of information here for enhancing self-education.
Last edited by thcrozier; 19th Nov 2015 at 04:00. Reason: Editorial Opinion
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Estonia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tail branch speculation
Kulverstukas wrote:
I wonder what it means... Is it part of fuselage somewhere from wings to tail, or is it close proximity to tail?
And how burns on passengers and scorched seats can be explained? Heat from explosives only is not sufficient.
PPS almost all suggestions of "tail" branch of PPRuNe armchair investigation was right
And how burns on passengers and scorched seats can be explained? Heat from explosives only is not sufficient.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bud leon: Not sure what you're getting at.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another "source/expert" told "Kommersant" that bomb was planted under seat in the right rear last row. It makes hole 0.8 x 1 m and cut signal cables to FDR. So either he has some inside info or read pprune/aviaforum.
Also there is another leak, now LifeNews: examination was carried on 34 bodies of passengers occupying rows 32-38, which bears explosion marks and also traces of TNT. No definite place of explosive device determined, versions are from rear cargo hold to under a seat to on the body of suicide bomber to upper cargo compartment.
Also "experts" claims that blast was directed from rear to front, separating tail section, so bodies of the front passengers and crew doesn't' bear explosion marks.
Also there is another leak, now LifeNews: examination was carried on 34 bodies of passengers occupying rows 32-38, which bears explosion marks and also traces of TNT. No definite place of explosive device determined, versions are from rear cargo hold to under a seat to on the body of suicide bomber to upper cargo compartment.
Also "experts" claims that blast was directed from rear to front, separating tail section, so bodies of the front passengers and crew doesn't' bear explosion marks.
Last edited by Kulverstukas; 19th Nov 2015 at 12:01.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
IIRC, in the now locked thread that video was given an analysis by someone who "gets" video creation. I vote with Kulverstukas on that score: not a good piece of input/data when analyzing the event.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also can summarize information which we know as 100% facts and can use safely now:
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
Anything else still are "leaks" and BS from unconfirmed "sources"
Any addition to the list?
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
Anything else still are "leaks" and BS from unconfirmed "sources"
Any addition to the list?