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: 13
30
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: hiddenNZ

After MH17 if there is even a hint that it was shot down the airlines are going to react. There was a lot of bad publicity after that so they're scared of a repeat.




posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

too true. British airways havnt flown that route in a while the report also said.
Also the report shows a couple of holes they said could be caused by shrapnel....they looked fairly odd,but could have been cause by anything I suppose



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: hiddenNZ

After MH17 if there is even a hint that it was shot down the airlines are going to react. There was a lot of bad publicity after that so they're scared of a repeat.


Think of the lawsuit if something were to happen later on that route ---"You knew there was a chance that this happened before and could possibly happen again, even if improbable. And you still took that route to save gas?"

Multi-million dollar civil suit.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: hiddenNZ

I agree.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
I can understand that logic...especially if a plane was shot down like MH17.......and I can also understand that these airlines may know something that we dont to not want to fly over the area.Why would they not fly over the area if they all think it was just a failure?



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: hiddenNZ

Because it hasn't been ruled a failure yet. It's far too early. It looks like a failure, and the current evidence says failure, but it takes 10 days to two weeks to come out with a preliminary report as to the most likely cause. Better safe than sorry.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Apparently the flight data revealed it is most likely a bomb or missile that brought down this jet. Here is the headline, along with a couple of excerpts:


Terrifying final moments of doomed Russian jet: Plane lurched up and down then passengers were sucked out in their seats after 'external impact' blew jet apart, flight data reveals



A doomed Russian passenger jet lurched up and down before plunging 31,000 feet after being blown apart by an ‘external impact’, airline bosses have revealed.
Travellers still strapped in their seats were sucked from the stricken Airbus A321 through a hole at the back of the jet when the tail blew off 23 minutes after leaving the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm El Sheikh, it was claimed.
The plane twice abruptly climbed nearly 3,000 feet in three seconds before falling 3,000 feet moments later in the final minutes before disappearing from radar.
It crashed in the Sinai peninsula with the loss of all 224 passengers and crew.


and....


As the first coffins of the victims – who included 17 children – were taken home to Russia on Monday, David Cameron said security officials were ‘looking very carefully’ at whether there was any safety risk to British holidaymakers travelling to the Red Sea.
Bosses at carrier Metrojet ruled out a technical fault or pilot error, indicating that a bomb or missile strike brought down the jet. Alexander Smirnov, the airline’s deputy general director, said: ‘The only possible explanation could be an external impact on the airplane.’
He refused to say what type of impact could have caused the crash but said the St Petersburg-bound Airbus was reliable and would not fall into a spin even if the pilots made a grave error because its automatic systems would correct crew mistakes.


Source



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: dianajune

Anything coming from the airline should be taken with a grain of salt. They're going to say what it takes to cover themselves as best they can. If it doesn't come from the investigation it should be looked at carefully.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
well there we are then.....wonder what could have shot it down.....or how someone got a bomb onto it?



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
true Zaphod,I guess its a waiting game now.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dianajune

Anything coming from the airline should be taken with a grain of salt. They're going to say what it takes to cover themselves as best they can. If it doesn't come from the investigation it should be looked at carefully.


Exactly !

Also with prior damage to the aft pressure bulkhead ( I remember a JAL 747 that crashed and killed everyone due to an improper fix) and the altitude they were at when whatever happened I would say a bomb or aft pressure bulkhead giving way causing a catastrophic inflight failure.

Total speculation on my part..



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: hiddenNZ

From reading the quotes all that came from the airline. According to earlier reports from the investigators there was no explosive residue yet found, and no initial evidence of an external impact.

The airline is going to try to make themselves look as good as they can, and claim that it could only have been something else and could never be related to their operations. If they came out and admitted it could have been their fault they'd do major damage to their business.

From the same article:


Alexander Neradko, the head of the Russian aviation agency, also claimed Metrojet’s comments were ‘premature and not based on any real facts’.


So there's still no evidence of an impact or bomb.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: dianajune

I'm sorry, but the daily mail is a tabloid, not a reputable news source. Its often nicknamed the daily fail here. Their watchwords are sensationalism, exaggeration, and occasional outright lying.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: BMorris
The Daily Mail might not be the perfect news source, but they have had good reports from time to time, imo this being one of them.

Here is another excerpt from that report:


British military analyst Paul Beaver said he thought the crash was most likely to have been caused by a bomb on board.
He said he was certain that Islamic State – which initially claimed it had shot down the jet – did not possess a missile system capable of hitting the plane.

‘I’m pretty convinced that Islamic State doesn’t have a “double-digit” SAM (surface-to-air missile) that is necessary to go up as far as 31,000 feet,’ he said. ‘That’s a very serious piece of equipment, and I don’t think they have that sophistication.’


Paul Beaver seems to know what he is talking about. I did some research and found this bio at Beaver Westminster, a company he founded in 2004:

Paul Beaver bio

Here is a link to his website:

Beaver Westminister Limited



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: dianajune

Except that investigators haven't said anything about a bomb or external impact. That's all from the airline execs.

It'll take 1-4 weeks for the report on the data recorders, including transcript to be completed.
edit on 11/2/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   
SBIRS detected the explosion, but not anything fired at the aircraft.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   
so there was an explosion on the plane?



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
so there was an explosion on the plane?


I wouldn't necessarily say there was an explosion on the plane. I would say the plane "exploded" to some degree but that dosnt tell us a huge amount. This could of happened secondary to the original issue.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: hiddenNZ

It could have been fuel tanks, hydraulic systems, etc. Something exploded, but it could have been as a result of the plane breaking up and not the cause of it.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 04:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Azureblue

So which MANPADS can they use again? They have no known SAM systems so it must have been a MANPADS if it was shot down, so which one is capable of reaching that altitude, and causing an aircraft that size to react like the transponder showed again?



A few facts:

We have an aircraft type with a known issue with the pitot tubes that has caused one crash previously. We have an aircraft with reported technical problems for the week prior to the accident. The aircraft flew for an airline with a previous history of maintenance problems. The pilot reported it was in poor condition technically prior to takeoff.


so what evidence is there, at this point in time, of poor maninteance being the cause????

Moreover, what kind of poor maintenance would cause a passenger liner to explode and I mean expode not just catch fire, burn and then expode. According to the video I have seen, albeit poor quality, shows a large plane in the sky and then there is a big fireball. There is no fire preceeding the exposion. This is supposedly flimed by ISIS.

This plane contained only Russian people, no other nationalities were on board. It was within striking distance of Isral but I find it hard to believe it was within striking distance by ISIS when it was 10,000 metres in the air. How would they even know where the plane was in the sky??? How would they know where in the sky it was unless they have radar that they are not using to attack the Assad govt with??? Hihgly unlikly.

Isreal has the radar capacity, the military capacity to bring it down and the movtiation. They want Russia out of Syria so the US can continue to bomb Syria back into the stone age for them like they did to Iraq and Afghansistan.

Claims that the plane had problems before take off means nothing once it got up into the air and got to cruising at 10,000 metres. Again, what poor maintence would cause an immediate explosion?? If it were the engines catching fire and then the plance crashed because of it, well thats different.

The most likly thing that would cause and instant explosion is a missile. poor mainteance would in all likleyhood cause a fire first.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join