Only external force could have broken apart crashed Russian airliner – owner

a reply to: junglimogli

There was no distress call because the crew was trying to fly the plane. There were no burn marks because the most likely cause right now looks like structural failure related to the extreme maneuvering.

Sometimes an accident is just an accident.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: junglimogli

There was no distress call because the crew was trying to fly the plane. There were no burn marks because the most likely cause right now looks like structural failure related to the extreme maneuvering.

Sometimes an accident is just an accident.

Its possible .. if that were the case/mindset .. this website would not exist ..
It seems shooting down civilian aircraft for revenge/diverting attention/tarnishing image, has started becoming common ..
I wouldn't put it past the evil-doers of our world ..

Terrorists say they did it. . . I think we need to just ask them how they did it and they would be more than happy to explain it all to us. If thier story is legit then the case should be closed.

I dont see why so many people cant believe the terrorists could have done something like this when they have the means to do it, they have anti aircrat guns and even long range missles. Who knows what else they have? Does anyone know what they have, how could you?

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

So which is it? They have longer range missiles, which you state as fact, or no one can know what they have? It doesn't work both ways.

Neither of those missiles are antiaircraft missiles, so your point was what again?

a reply to: junglimogli

So the fact that this is a conspiracy website means we should throw out everything we know about plane crashes and go with whatever theory we want to? Yes it's a conspiracy site, that doesn't mean jump straight to a conspiracy.

a reply to: Zaphod58

this case is only 3 days in. fox news is painting it as an external force....
i'm trying to get back to the beginning....
www.foxnews.com...

on other threads we have a co-pilots girlfriend stating he complained of the planes condition.
one post claimed they heard screams on the recorder.....
i know the box's were recovered... but none of that info has been released.

given that it fell apart... it's getting confusing.... like trying to figure out twa800. was it shot down or did it....


at this point... not enough people and reliable sources yet.


note: my gut feels like aloha airlines. but worse.

www.aloha.net...

External force = gravity and drag.

I'm gravitating toward the sensation that this thread is a drag.

a reply to: Bigburgh

According to the transponder data they were straight and level, then suddenly went into an extreme oscillation mode. They suddenly dropped, then climbed, and repeated that several times.

Going by some of the early pictures, which I couldn't confirm were from here, it looked like they hit vertically with the wings level. It's possible the aft section broke off during the oscillations, which would explain the sudden end of data.

The recorders are being analyzed now for more information.

a reply to: Zaphod58

if what i linked is reliable. it shows the tail almost intact but separated. still to soon. and bless it, the tail almost always survives.

i did not see the dip/osculation/and attempt at recovering.. thanks for the info.



i take it back after looking at the tail section..
sure looks like the tail.. but more damaged after looking at it again.


sorry my job was to cut the batteries, spray foam and put cat litter on fluids.. after that it goes to the top. and i'm not that.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

When they get a hold of ISIS guys.first things they should do is chop off their index fingers (both hands) ... to stop all that crazy pointing ..

a reply to: Zaphod58

There was no distress call because the crew was trying to fly the plane. There were no burn marks because the most likely cause right now looks like structural failure related to the extreme maneuvering. Sometimes an accident is just an accident.

And you have concluded this based on, what?

a reply to: Zaphod58

According to the transponder data they were straight and level, then suddenly went into an extreme oscillation mode. They suddenly dropped, then climbed, and repeated that several times.

Interesting, can you post a link to his data?

a reply to: WannaPlay

a reply to: Zaphod58

ask... and you will receive.

update: The plane that crashed was 18 years old and previously had served with several other carriers. Before joining Metrojet's fleet in 2012, it was known to suffer a 2001 incident, in which it grazed the ground with its tail while landing in Cairo.

Some aviation experts theorized that such an incident could have weakened the plane's airframe, although Metrojet said the jet has been safe to fly.

the above is from fox as of 4 minutes ago.
www.foxnews.com...



according to Flightglobal.... the task of investigating the recorders is yet to be assigned.

www.flightglobal.com...

Its only been a few days since the plane 'blew up' so all theories can only be speculative at best.

If I had to guess I'd suggest that this accident is most likely down to some form of human error - poor or skipped maintenance, pilot error etc.

How would that go down in Russia?
Probably not very well.....which is one reason why the Russian authorities would want to present it as some sort of terrorist attack, (that may also suit Putin).

To be honest I have no idea if it would be possible to fudge the results, there are many civilians out there who are perfectly able to understand all the technical data, but it may not stop them trying.

It seems unlikely to me that this plane would have been shot down out of the sky by a missile, certainly not an IS or terrorist one.
But as far as I understand things it would be relatively easy to smuggle some kind of bomb aboard and to detonate it once in the air.
Again, I'm no expert, not by any stretch, but I'm certain there are many out there who, once all the evidence has been collated and examined, will be able to tell us if this is the case.

I know many may disagree with me here, but in some ways I hope this is a result of some sort of IS attack - I feel nothing but sympathy for the family and friends of those who have died......but nothing can change the fact that they have died, they can't be brought back - because if true then I'd almost guarantee that Putin stop pussy footing around and go in and try to obliterate IS, some thing we should have done a long time ago.

Or maybe that's just how I'm being conditioned to feel?

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

The Russian passenger jet that crashed in Sinai, Egypt, must have been damaged by a force in flight and couldn’t have just broken apart, the airline of the ill-fated Airbus A321 said.

www.rt.com...

That's it so far. As such, I'm not sure T&C about quoting an entire story from another source, but it's just one sentence so far.

So the official position out of Russia was an external influence brought down the plane. They (he- the owner) doesn't accuse anyone thus far for all we know it hit a really large bird but doubtful.

I really hope this doesn't lead back to western nations and I really hope this doesn't point the finger at Russia itself. There are a lot of chess pieces at play, center board is no doubt the ME and is becoming crowded.

---

The normal, basics of this type of situation do back up more or less exactly what the airline has said: For an airliner to break in two mid air, over 30,000 feet (over less actually), with no great storm, no sudden cold air meets hot air very large differential (wouldn't be at this time of year over Egypt), nearly always means there was some external force.

That's what an expert would say in nearly all situations, while experts aren't allowed to discuss specific situations before all of the information about a crash is out there. So, it's typically what an airline itself would say, having made its own meantime enquiries and where it can seem like there is not going to be any evidence of major technical fault yet. A lot of airlines will make the same statement in these same situations - they could well have complied with basic regulations in repairs and upkeep, and so are publicly defining their position.

It's interesting, the reports about the pilot's complaints. But then why was he flying? If he went ahead and flew a plane which he knew was not safe, he himself would be liable, at least partly, for harm or death resulting, both morally and perhaps for huge sums of money if he survived. Pilots with knowledge have legal responsibilities beyond to their employers alone, and duties to act / refrain from acting in certain ways in certain situations.

It could be that the plane met basic safety standards (so the pilot submitted to the company demands to fly a jet he didn't want to) but that the pilot did not believe, somehow, these were sufficient. Interesting, but even then might he not have moral (if not legal obligations) to do more than complain to a company who doesn't seem interested in anything but making schedules. (But maybe legal also, depending on some variables.) If there was and is a discrepancy between official safety standards and what the pilot himself thought personally, it would have major consequences in flying generally.

An article mentioned possible repair to the tail 11 years ago, with a 3 month repair job then.

Of course, experts say things about planes being "safe", while protocols about repair jobs and, for example, how long they're good for are only proven insufficient if ever a plane undergoes some sort of incident (usually serious) or crash. Again, so the airline would be right to make their "external influence to blame" statement early, if it seems it could only be the safety / repair protocol which was wrong, and not the company's.

It could be that the plane didn't have a good enough repair job or a good enough repair for 11 years of good use without further action. Whether this is due to faults in the repair or after maintenance - or protocols.

With no event to make the pilot make extremes of fast rudder control movements to different directions in mid air (which might possibly make some jets break in two), it's difficult to see that this could have happened without any external influence, or a bad repair, or a repair / safety protocol (applying to all Russian airlines) which will be shown to be unacceptable.

The only 3 possibilities, it seems, and the two other than external influence may be more rare than external influences in statistics, especially with the two Malaysian jets going down recently, one known to be by terrorism.

External influences may mean sabotage in advance of flying instead of or with a incident physically attacking the plane in mid air, from inside (bomb / shooting) or outside (missile etc) the aircraft.

Technical difficulties are one thing, but everyone knows an, intact, untampered with, safety inspected plane can't just break in two without external influence in mid flight in good conditions. Again, unless there is a major problem with a safety / repair protocol.

It's hard to believe the airline would be so adamant now if it were lying seriously about technical issues. As the repercussions for it would only be much worse still, if to blame.

My money is on external influence. Who knows what current ISIS members (or friends) have had prior connections with the CIA or NASA and new, covert secret technology that may actually be quite simple to reproduce?

That's certainly not unlikely. (Remembering Saddam Hussein himself was a former CIA spy who kind of "defected" away. So indeed all of this terrible ISIS state of affairs, as it's undeniably causably linked to the Iraq invasion by US / UK and made upon mountains of absolute lies from 911 to WMDs, can be seen conceivably to stem from a shadowy American agenda to hit Saddam for hosting a Middle Eastern country leadership while forsaking his CIA agenda upon it. Then, being exemplary, ignoring the US's Petro-dollars regime. This doesn't really seem besides the point, in the conspiracy allowing interim period of knowledge for this downed plane, before the real reasons are established. Tbh, even if this plane crashed due to a poor repair job, these conspiracy or wider angle examinations are still rarely beside the point today, in much of what you can discuss. It's also the way the world functions now - for better in talking rather than worse in silence.)

a reply to: bw1000

An aircraft flying straight and level wouldn't, no. But an aircraft that is doing its best impression of the Vomit Comet is under different stresses. When an American Eagle did something similar the stress was so great the tail section snapped off. It looked remarkably like the tail section here did too. It broke in a similar location in both crashes.

I like how people are making accounts just to jump in on this.

very interesting.

And many with no intro posts.


interesting as well.

a reply to: grey580

you noticed too