It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian civilian aircraft goes off radar, reportedly crashes over Egypt

page: 12
30
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Firstly I noticed somebody said everybody on board was russian. I'm not sure if this has been confirmed but I'm sure in the initial reports I was reading stated they where all russian apart from 3 passengers. 2 of them where possibly from Belarus (not 100% on that) and one passenger from Ukraine. Not sure what has and has not been confirmed. But it could be significant if a bomb was on board.

I also see they are now saying it was not a mechanical fault or pilot error and could only of been caused by "external forces".

So what "external forces" could of caused this? A bomb would not be external. A missile is external but the plane was too high. The only external force I can think of would be contact/collision of some form or possibly air pressure.

I think the fire is inevitable given the in air break up and a plane probably fairly well fuelled up so I would say unless there was an explosion of some from the fire was probably secondary to the original issue.

They also said no distress call was issued from the pilots so it was certainly sudden.

**apologies for the quadruple post**
edit on 2-11-2015 by ashpack because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   

edit on 2-11-2015 by ashpack because: phone went mad



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ashpack

The ground.

One professor, that proved he was clueless, said the sudden dive and climb they did could have been caused by clear air turbulence or an updraft, and then went on to say those are generally found near large bodies of water.

I guess that's why when I was flying sail planes I stayed away from mountains and warm areas. [/sarcasm]



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
My personal opinion is there was no terrorism involved and some form of maintenance lapse or decompression caused the full tail to come off the plane however im no expert and can only speculate.


edit on 2-11-2015 by ashpack because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   

edit on 11/2/2015 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm inclined to say pre crash, this because the fire must have been on the inside when looking at the heat signature on the debris.
I also think you're correct in stating that the tail section separated from the aircraft due to the forces during the crash.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: earthling42

I'm leaning that way myself. Post crash you'd expect to see it more spread out, and this does look like it was almost completely contained. I'd really like to see the list of cargo on board. Makes me wonder if they had batteries on board.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm inclined to say pre crash, this because the fire must have been on the inside when looking at the heat signature on the debris.
I also think you're correct in stating that the tail section separated from the aircraft due to the forces during the crash.




Interesting. I'm opposite. Tail off first fire after.

I would of thought the pilots would know about any fire rather quickly and issue a distress call.
edit on 2-11-2015 by ashpack because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ashpack

If it was the forward hold though I don't see how the tail separating starts a fire all the way up there.

It depends on how fast it started, if the detectors were working, if they thought it was a false alarm, etc. We know what they SHOULD have done, but it wouldn't be the first time a crew did the wrong thing.
edit on 11/2/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ashpack

If it was the forward hold though I don't see how the tail separating starts a fire all the way up there.


I'm thinking the tail came off and fire started during the break up. Do you not think there would be fire damage at the back knowing how quickly aircraft can go up and it's forward speed?



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

Yes, Boeing developed that. I agree with you that it isn't likely terrorists would use lasers. Plus the test was done on a small UAV, not a passenger-size jet.
Western intelligence would know if anyone copied the specs of lasers. They may not tell ATS folks if they did though...
The mere fact that it CAN be done may have sparked research in other countries - China, Russia etc.
If it's the terrorists, either no one dares to say it was a BUK-like weapon, because they don't like the implications, or the terrorists smuggled a bomb on board.
I read security at Sharm-el Sheikh isn't that tight.
Suicide bombing takes more commitment - who knows. If someone was a bearded Chechen, the Russians would let us know in no time.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ashpack

I disagree largely because we kept getting transponder data. If the tail came off first they should have lost all power pretty quickly after. We got a pretty good bit of data from the transponder.

There's at least some evidence of fire in the bits of aft fuselage, but not as bad as toys piece.
edit on 11/2/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Kokatsi

Lasers have been in development around the world since the 70s. Boeing has been the most public about their current success but they're far from the only ones. A laser though is about last on the list of possible causes IMO.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: ashpack.

I also see they are now saying it was not a mechanical fault or pilot error and could only of been caused by "external forces".

So what "external forces" could of caused this? A bomb would not be external. A missile is external but the plane was too high. The only external force I can think of would be contact/collision of some form or possibly air pressure.



They also said no distress call was issued from the pilots so it was certainly sudden.




what external force or impact could cause an emergency situation som 20k meters altitude...


a chance hit to the fuselage by space debris... not a grain of rice size object but a softball sized object, probably from a disintegrating satellite


hey a chance in 100 Billion... but like Sherlock Holmes says "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? "

re: www.bestofsherlock.com...



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: St Udio

originally posted by: ashpack.

I also see they are now saying it was not a mechanical fault or pilot error and could only of been caused by "external forces".

So what "external forces" could of caused this? A bomb would not be external. A missile is external but the plane was too high. The only external force I can think of would be contact/collision of some form or possibly air pressure.



They also said no distress call was issued from the pilots so it was certainly sudden.




what external force or impact could cause an emergency situation som 20k meters altitude...


a chance hit to the fuselage by space debris... not a grain of rice size object but a softball sized object, probably from a disintegrating satellite


hey a chance in 100 Billion... but like Sherlock Holmes says "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? "

re: www.bestofsherlock.com...


Totally agree chances of contact at that height knowing there was no other planes in the vicinity is incredibly small. To be honest I think when the say "external force" They mean no problem with the planes systems etc rather than the plane being physically hit so a bomb could be considered as an external force amongst many other things

I just came across this which shows the debris field and where the parts of the plane are located. Interesting (if accurate).
twitter.com...
edit on 2-11-2015 by ashpack because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-11-2015 by ashpack because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Thought it was interesting that even ghost planes leave impact marks...



edit on 2-11-2015 by ANonMightyMouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ashpack

pretty much the forward glide path as the debris fell...
the engines were atill attached to a rudimentary air-foil (wing remnant) so they traveled further...


it is a perplexing problem for the crash detectives to rule out bombs/missiles as the plane just seems to have fallen apart... as in decomposing ;-( X-File stuff eh?



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: St Udio

The engines went further because they are heavier and carried more inertia than the rest of the plane that was basically fluttering down in comparison.

Here is a graphic of the debris field, the engines made themselves some pretty nice splashes.




posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Here is the link to the site where I found the debris field graphic.

www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I just saw a report on my local news program and they said that since the day of the accident,nobody is flying that flight path.....to me that says alot.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join