IS in Egypt claimed to have shot down the Russian plane that crashed in the Sinai

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ipsedixit

There's evidence of a cargo hold fire, minus explosion. It's not clear if it was pre impact or post crash.

Can I ask your opinion on whether the ISIS video is real/of the flight in question? I know nothing of what the alleged video shows and am personally highly skeptical on the source but would like to hear your highly informed opinion of such matters.

a reply to: bastion

No, from what others have said and what I've seen online that's a totally unrelated video. I haven't had a lot of time to find the original the last couple days, but I can't even tell if that's a commercial aircraft in the video.

Another factor that, for me, increases the likelihood that this was a structural failure is what some aircraft modelers refer to as the thirty minute rule. Usually they will run the engines of an expensive model for thirty minutes before take off in the belief that most mechanical faults will show up within thirty minutes. I know its not the same thing, but still, it suggests a known time table for trouble.

This Airbus went down after 23 minutes, roughly.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bastion

No, from what others have said and what I've seen online that's a totally unrelated video. I haven't had a lot of time to find the original the last couple days, but I can't even tell if that's a commercial aircraft in the video.

Thanks for the reply, I agree it's terrible quality and the rapid release time just makes me think it's old footage (could even be cgi for how grainy it is).

Raised the subject with an old aircraft engineer who worked the shed opposite airbus and was with friends with manufacturers/egineers for 20+ years, he admittedly hasn't read in detaiil on the situation but seemed confident it was due to a failure (potentially around the wing) followed by explosion and mid air break up - he's a very intelligent guy but nt an air craft investigator though so will have to wait for proper results to come in but yours and others posts on here seem to think that's the most likely cause (if I'm understanding right).

a reply to: bastion

Yeah, so far everything I've heard points to something similar to what he described to you, except back around the aft fuselage.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ipsedixit

There's evidence of a cargo hold fire, minus explosion. It's not clear if it was pre impact or post crash.

Can I ask your opinion on whether the ISIS video is real/of the flight in question? I know nothing of what the alleged video shows and am personally highly skeptical on the source but would like to hear your highly informed opinion of such matters.

The video is a load of rubbish. Although the video is not very clear it is clear that it is not even the same type of plane.

The Washington Post is reporting that satellites picked up a "heat flash" in the area at the time of the crash.

www.washingtonpost.com... 80fff868306_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_russiaplane-540am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Several American television stations reported Monday evening that U.S. intelligence satellites had captured a “heat flash” over the Sinai Peninsula at the moment of the crash, signaling some sort of explosion either from a bomb, missile, or from the fuel on board the aircraft.

Surely, if there had been a bomb which exploded, the satellites would have captured two heat flashes, one when the bomb exploded and one when the fuel tanks burst on the ground. Maybe not. I am thinking that a concealed bomb in the aircraft would have a relatively small heat signature that would be mostly contained within the fuselage when the bomb exploded. I think the satellites caught the fuel tank ruptures and flare up.

It is interesting info but inconclusive as to the presence of a bomb, I think.

More mixed messages from "investigators":

www.theguardian.com...

The Russian state news agency RIA Novosti quoted an unnamed investigator as saying that the pattern of injuries to passengers could indicate that a strong explosion occurred on the plane before it hit the ground.

With some Russian media reports claiming crew members were concerned by the condition of the plane, speculation has grown over the possibility that a 2001 incident in Cairo, when the Airbus 321’s tail section struck the tarmac on landing, had caused structural weakness.

Detailed flight data released by FlightRadar24, a flight tracking website, showed the plane sharply gaining altitude and dropping in its last moments, a pattern some experts have said would be consistent with losing the tail.

That theory was reinforced by pictures that emerged of the same Metrojet A321 plane taken over several months in 2015 that apparently showed discoloration and surface damage on the tailfin, which some pilots suggested could be a corrosive leak.

a reply to: ipsedixit

It's not mixed. We know the aircraft exploded. SBIRS confirmed that. Do there were injuries related to the explosion. The question now is why. If that was corrosion on the tail that would explain why, probably a failure of the earlier repair.

a reply to: Zaphod58

cnn is reporting an explosive device planted by ISIS more than likely brought the plane down

www.cnn.com...

a reply to: Cosmocow

The investigators are saying the FDR recorded an engine failure. There are a lot of people not related to the investigation talking and saying a lot. The investigators are the ones to listen to and they're looking at mechanical.

The UK has suspended all British Airline flights from Sharm el Sheik.

www.theguardian.com...

The British government has suspended all flights to the UK from the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh after declaring it believes the Russian plane that crashed over Sinai may have been brought down by an explosive device. . . .

The prime minister’s spokeswoman said: “While the investigation is still ongoing we cannot say categorically why the Russian jet crashed. But as more information has come to light we have become concerned that the plane may well have been brought down by an explosive device.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I also think the people that aren't investigators (like intel agencies / media) that are saying things may have other agendas or motives (i.e. media ratings, or geo-political reasons) for claiming something is / likely is a "terror attack".

My personal opinion is that I don't know enough yet to have one.

a reply to: Cosmocow

What was actually said by the intelligence officials, who don't seem to know any more than we do is that there is a "definite feeling" within the Intel community that it was a bomb. So they don't have any more evidence that it was a bomb than anyone else. Tests done on passenger remains showed no explosive residue.

a reply to: SonOfThor

Exactly. Everyone that has talked so far has an agenda to push. The airline has to cover their butt. Intelligence officials would love to see Russia embarrassed like this, etc.

I think the "flash of light" is what has people seriously considering the bomb option. Of course ignition of a fuel tank during structural failure and explosive decompression of the aircraft could account for that, but the structural failure has been associated with the tail strike that the plane suffered. A failure that separated the tail section seen in the photos would be well aft of the fuel tanks, would it not? I think this would tilt the odds in the direction of a bomb being the source of a "large flash", as American military spokespersons referred to it.

a reply to: ipsedixit

Investigators have reportedly found an uncontained engine failure on the recorders. That would account for everything if it holds up.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Perhaps. It is difficult to judge what happened from the photos on line, but an uncontained engine failure that broke an aircraft up in mid air would surely have broken one wing up and from photos it appears as if both wings came down in one piece in the same place, unlike the tail section.

a reply to: ipsedixit

Not at all. The Qantas A380 that suffered an uncontained engine failure had very little evidence on the wing itself. Most of the debris from the engine comes out the side and exhaust. It's not exploding, it's shedding parts, and most of them follow the path of least resistance and go through the engine.

There have been dozens of uncontained engine failures over the last 20-25 years. Every one of them has had an intact wing, with shrapnel damage.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You may end up being right about the facts, but have you seen how positive a lot of folks are that this means it is now ISIS??

Some have even referred to people taking the methodical, wait and see approach such as yourself in a negative way. To me, the question will now be, how will people react if the foregone conclusive narrative is that of ISIS attack?