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.

 

EgyptAir flight from Paris to Cairo has vanished from Radar

page: 44
84
<< 41  42  43    45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes, i hope they manage to get it fixed so it might give some more information.




posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   

The latest evidence points to a nearly simultaneous shut-off of both the plane’s flight-data recorder and an alerting system designed to transmit malfunction messages to the ground. Those twin events can’t be intentionally commanded by pilots, according to safety experts, and aren’t part of any authorized emergency procedures to respond to fire or smoke.

The upshot, according to these experts, is that the pilots may have been struggling to cope with a significant electrical malfunction, or possibly a cascading series of malfunctions, while still at cruising altitude.

Widespread electrical problems, these experts said, most likely would have made the aircraft harder to fly by shutting off certain computerized flight-control aids. Under such circumstances, the cockpit crew would have confronted the loss of certain built-in safeguards intended to prevent aerodynamic stalls or other extreme maneuvers.

www.wsj.com...



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
The FDR stopped recording at 37,000 feet when the accident occurred. The preliminary data confirmed smoke on board. Recovered wreckage is consistent with a high temperature incident indicating fire on board.

www.reuters.com...


Like an explosive incendiary event in the galley...directly above the avionics bay perhaps????

You and I both know (I hope) an organic "fire" wouldn't develop so rapidly that a mayday couldn't be sent. The left turn off airway corridor was the 'mayday' (in my opinion). If the FDR failed at FL370, then there's probably little hope the CVR will hold any additional information.

Side note...SR111 experienced probably one of the worst fires onboard a commercial aircraft in documented history, and sadly they had plenty of time to relay their plight. Yes, TWA800 is an exception, but TWA800 was a massive conflagration by any account, a much different event than MS804. In any case, I would argue that the final report of TWA800 is far from conclusive beyond any doubt, and would further argue that one would be hard pressed to find even an NTSB investigator who would disagree. (FBI even).



edit on 6/29/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

And yet, they haven't found any evidence of an explosion in the burned areas that they've said or that have been shown in pictures of wreckage. No evidence of the skin peeling outward, only evidence of heat damage.

Oh, they're covering it up, right?



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


Oh, they're covering it up, right?


No, I don't think there's a cover up, honestly...I just don't think anyone knows at this point.

Case in point, much of the TWA800 early wreckage recovery showed easily identifiable signs of major fire, right? Hence my point of the differences between the two.

I think there are some governments who would 'like' to see a certain outcome, but I don't think the ultimate investigation is compromised at this point. The final facts may be manipulated, but at this point there is just a void of conclusive data.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The wreckage of TWA800 showed very clear evidence of an internal explosion in the outer skin with scorching in the cabin area. This wreckage shows evidence of extreme heat and soot, which is consistent with a fire, not an explosion. TWA800 didn't show large amounts of soot or smoke damage because the skin was compromised so fast that the smoke was pulled out of the cabin area. A cabin area that isn't compromised has nowhere for the smoke to go, so it leaves an impression on the areas around it.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   
It's very unfortunate, but telling, that the FDR failed at cruise. In my mind, regardless of any opinion I may have, this suggests a catastrophic and immediate event.

Would you disagree?



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

My point exactly, Zaphod!



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Both ACARS and the FDR failed at the same time. Just like with a fire in the avionics bay burning through the wiring under the floor. Which would have led to a cascade failure which would have affected a lot of systems, including things like the radio.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

And just because there was a fire doesn't mean there was a device put on board.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So you disagree...or agree?



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

That there was a fire? I've been saying that from the time they said it crashed. That an incendiary device started it? There's no evidence of that.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

No, but the counter is true as well. But then we're back to ET and meteors again. (obviously, I don't honestly subscribe to these notions, but...well, you know)

There are no facts to suggest a conclusion one way or the other.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

There's more to suggest accident at this point than there is to continue to jump to terrorism.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Namely what?

That no one has claimed responsibility yet? And/or that French officials have found no reason to believe terrorism (in a complete vacuum of facts)? Obviously French officials have a very vested interest in not leaning toward terrorism until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, wouldn't you agree? After all, the flight did leave from CDG, right?

What other facts are there?



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

We know it was a fire. We know it was in/near the avionics bay. We know that it cut power to the FDR and ACARS. We know there's no evidence the hull was breached at this point.

There is no evidence that it was started intentionally at this point, which leads to accident being the leading cause right now.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

No, we don't really know that, the only thing we know is that there has been a fire while the aircraft plunged in to the mediteranian sea.
But what caused it?
In the case of metrojet there were signs of fire and soot to in the area where the bomb was placed.
Keep in mind that the first sign was in the lavatory where cabine air goes through, cabine air is also used for the avionics bay if needed.
This means a source of fire would more likely have been inside the cabine and not in the avionics bay.
This is why i hope they will be able to extract data from the CVR, see what was going on in the last moments.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Except for the fact that with this airline, coupled with the origin and destination, terrorism is 4-5x more probable than any other cause (probably more than that even).



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   

edit on 6/30/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   

edit on 6/30/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 41  42  43    45  46 >>

log in

join