Yes they are involved

IDF coordinating with Russia, Egypt to help locate felled Russian plane in Sinai - Breaking News - Jerusalem Post

Benjamin Netanyahu: We are in contact with Egyptian, Russian governments regarding circumstance of crash - Breaking News - Jerusalem Post

@hamster3null Purely from a physics perspective, a pressure wave traveling forward seems unlikely in a simple explosive decompression. I guess we have to define "explosive". I'm talking about a section of fuselage departing for whatever reason. This pops open like a soda can, not a bomb. Your examples all involve an actual explosion: TWA800 fuel tank/missile (whichever story you want to believe), Buk a missile, in either of those cases, the pressure wave is generated by an explosion, not the "explosive" decompression.

If of course there was a bomb on board, the same theory applies and a pressure wave could indeed have travelled front ways far enough to disturb the pressure ports.

ADIRU
 

wrong data from the inertial reference unit can lead to a hardover

high rate of descent followed by higher climb rate in a short time, leading to higher G load

Can somebody calculate the G load with the given data?

The A320 family as I have stated before climb very slowly . When the rate falls to around approximately two hundred feet a minute they fly level. They accelerate a few knots past the target climb speed and then pitch up again and resume climbing. This is repeated until the aircraft reaches its cruise level.
The ground speed from FR seems very low for a climb in a heavy aircraft. If the aircraft speed falls to below green dot at high level it will neither climb or accelerate and a descent will be required to accelerate the aircraft and allow climb to be resumed.

@physicus the AC has a speed near to the speed of sound, so it’s more unlikely to give a statement from physics of a wave which cannot travel faster than the speed of sound in either case of explosion or decompression.

Russian authorities ground Kogalymavia fleet
 

Russian news agency Interfax reports that the country's transportation authority has grounded all of Kogalymavia's Airbus 321:

My first link models a pressure wave that is caused precisely by removing part of pressurized fuselage. The wave propagates in all directions (since the aircraft is subsonic) and it's actually stronger in the forward direction because it's compressed in that direction.

TWA 800 was not destroyed directly by the fuel tank explosion. The explosion cracked the fuselage, which was then blown apart by the pressure differential between the cabin and the outside air.

None of that is actually true.

The A320 climbs very well to the level the aircraft recommends you climb to.

Whilst engaging in general speculation is never helpful (and the endless debate about the FR24 data is a fine example of the bottomless rabbit holes some people like to go down) the emerging pictures and information on the wreckage spread tend to suggest a high altitude break up. Caused by I've no idea.

The picture of the tail section shown on various news media sources is interesting though. Obviously the collapse damage to the empennage is mostly down the impact with ground. Likewise the lower fuselage damage and that around the L4 door. There are, however, signs of the fuselage skin peeling outwards (red arrows) possibly indicative of a force acting outwards from within. Similarly there's the very clean break around the fuselage frame. It looks like an initial failure as opposed to something twisting and tearing apart as it fell.

http://i1113.photobucket.com/albums/...FEC5ED1E3C.jpg

Given the comments I have read regarding security at Sharm, it does seem sensible at this juncture for authorities to investigate the possibility some sort of smuggled device being used to down the airliner.

A word from military industry professional. I would like to end all the missile scenarios.
Sinai is a demilitarised zone, you cannot simply move a SA 11 battery into it. The area is strictly monitored by Egyptians and Israelis, it is impossible to position a complex missile system there without being noticed. Not mentioning obtaining the whole system, which is not only a launcher, but also command component, acquisition radar and logistics vehicles.
As it comes to MANPADS, thanks to Wassenaar arrangement, trading of those is limited to government to government transactions. Each of the sets has a serial number which allows to track the whole history of ownership. Therefore they would be too precious for a terrorist group to waste on an airliner. It's much simpler to install a pressure activated explosive charge. On the technical side, such missile sets require heat seeker cooling procedure before target acquisition, operating them is not computer game - easy. Even if you complete the procedure, the best combat proven MANPADS have effective range of 5-6 km and effective ceiling of 3-4 km. As you can see, reaching fl 33 is out of question.

Hope it helps.

This quite accurate cut along frame (spanthout) looks suspicious.

UPD: on the other side, if it falls upside down, it was naturally teared along frames and ribs (as we can see at the tail fin breakage) after vertical stabilizer hit the ground.

Within hours (literally) the Egyptian authorities declared all sorts of things (distress call, recorders being decoded, no bomb, no missile).

If I were MAK I'd isolate the area from these buffoons as soon as possible, god help us if they touch the DFDR's.

And given that ISIS urged a holy war against Russia just a couple of weeks ago, 'it does seem sensible at this juncture for authorities to investigate the possibility some sort of smuggled device being used to down the airliner'.

Islamic State urges jihad against Russians, Americans: audio | Reuters

And note that ISIS made this threat against 'crusaders' on Oct 13th - the very day that the Knights Templar were all destroyed by King Philip the Fair. It demonstrates the historical context that they are operating within.

Fuselages often naturally tear along fuselage frames, but not normally from flight loadings. Ground impact could create a tear, as could an internal detonation. So if the tail is not situated right next door to the fuselage, it may suggest the latter.

I hope it's usual post-accident hassle, not any bad intent. Uncertain information, people who is not part of investigation speaking, multiplied by journalists and internet... :ugh:

ISIS urged holy war against everybody so anything happening since they can propagate as their deeds.

@hamster3null thanks for the TWA800 article link, very illuminating and compelling evidence that I was wrong. The details would be a little different at an air temperature of -50C (namely the speed of sound is about 10% slower) and the speed of the aircraft was higher. Short of finding their simulation code and plugging in our numbers, I suspect your theory has merit and is plausible.

It's quite common measure in Russia to ground any fleet if there is any suspicion that accident was result of some malfunction which can be common around type and/or maintenance conditions.

Same was with Tu-204/214 fleet after VKO overrun.

Fin and rudder on russian Metro A320
 

Kulverstuka #235 at 1158

My take on fin and rudder , pic at #233 and earlier.....

Fin reduced to a stub.
Not ripped or graunched by the inverted ground contact you suggested.
Very clear in earlier picture, leading edge of top half of fin
has collapsed onto the 'stub' due to
high vertical G force at pancake type impact
Looks as if rudder had departed before the 'collapse'

I can't see any traces of dirt or sand on fin leading edge as well as on top of rear fuselage where it's torn off the main. The same with cockpit bottom seems intact and clear from any traces of ground.

On the other hand, any part which is strongly damaged bears prominent traces of dust and sand/ground, literally excavates it.

Doesn't it mean that parts which are clear doesn't contact ground or make it with small speed?