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.

 

Shocking video: Boeings nosedive in Kazan captured, as cause of crash is debated.

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   


Shocking security cam footage of a Tatarstan Airlines Boeing 737’s nosedive has been released, just as a number of theories about the circumstances and causes of the crash that claimed 50 lives are still emerging. The black boxes have been recovered.


Shocking video: Boeings nosedive in Kasan captured, as cause of crash is debated.

Wow! that plane was vertical. Those poor people didn't have a chance. I noticed a couple flashes just before the crash. Also complaints of vibration on landing from previous passengers. This aircraft was scheduled to be taken out of service a year ago and had been in service for over 20yrs.

on.rt.com...
edit on 2-9-2010 by SPYvsSPY because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/18/2013 by semperfortis because: Spelling




posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Holy cow thats intense.

I can only begin to imagine the horror for those aboard that flight. Truly one of the most disturbing crash videos ive ever seen


I do hope that the aircrafts maintenance is nothing other than pristine.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SPYvsSPY
 


Geez....those people must have been terrified up to the end. Those flashes could have been the lighting on the plane wings. That or the plane could have been breaking up prior to hitting I guess.

What an awful way to go...nose diving out of the sky with 50 other terrified passengers screaming around you and knowing it is about to end.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I have a thought. This aircraft went straight down in the ground/dirt. I wonder how this crash site compares to the 9/11 crash at shanksville, pa.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SPYvsSPY
 


Guess it all depends on what the surrounding terrain was like, if the soil was similar, if it hit the runway or soil, etc... I believe this plane was also a good bit smaller.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SPYvsSPY
 


Well...

Having seen the video, its pretty clear as to why the wreckage was so utterly fragmented. When planes crash, we are used to seeing segments of fuselage, the tail section, or the nose, sitting alone amongst the smaller debris, because impact angles are usually shallow, allowing for a slower break up of the airframe. But going nose in from any significant height produces totally different force displacement, and therefore completely different fragmentary patterns, namely the fact that there is barely anything recognisable of the aircraft left.

The force of the crash alone would have pancaked the airframe at that angle, but adding the detonating fuel to the mix and all you have is a mashed, mangled smudge on the ground. I would not be at all surprised to find that there is nothing much left of the victims. I imagine there were the conditions necessary for a certain degree of vapourisation, in effect during that crash.

What a bloody tragedy.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   
That was hard to watch. Sort of wished I had'nt watched it. At least, un-like Shanksville the ground did'nt open up and swallow all the debris and I beleive there's a bigger hole than Shanksvilles 15 ft wide 10 ft deep hole.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by openyourmind1262
 


We're going to have to go there every time there's a plane crash aren't we? The only thing the two have in common is the fact that they nosed in. Totally different speeds, totally different ground, totally different impacts.

On a serious note, it's not a microburst, and it's not lightning related. That aircraft was intact leading up to them nosediving into the ground.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
I'd forget Shanksville and think more of US Air Flight 427. This looks more like that rudder actuator failure than any thing else. The aircraft is of the right age to have one of those actuators. Their replacement was manditory in the US but only reccommended in Russia.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


Yeah, but I'd think that on a second approach they would have been at low altitude long enough for it to reverse on them, or defrost to the point where it wouldn't do it. It's entirely possible it was, it just seems that the timing isn't right for it to have, with 427 and the others, it happened on their first use during descent.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
According to this article the crew initiated a go around, and told the tower they were in an unstabilized approach, just a few seconds before impact.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Smells fishy to me, even a small jet like that cant go into a near vertical nose dive in seconds, they must have already been near enough vertical when the last radio broadcast was sent - the wings would rip off before the plane could turn that much.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


You can easily get into that situation. If they were unstable when they started the approach they could have pulled up too steeply and stalled, and rolled over into a nosedive. All without doing anything to the wings, and only taking a few seconds. It's a night time approach, in bad weather, and they failed to stabilized the approach. That's a recipe for disaster, and it ended as one.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Hmmm good point.

It was the sheer speed at which the plane came into the ground in the video that made me think they were like that for 10's of seconds before impact.

All the stall and crash videos ive seen over the years involve slower actual impacts, this one looks like its going full tilt.... directly down.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


You can quickly get into a high speed dive with an aircraft that size. They were fairly low when they started their go around, so it would have only been a few seconds.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by openyourmind1262
 


We're going to have to go there every time there's a plane crash aren't we? The only thing the two have in common is the fact that they nosed in. Totally different speeds, totally different ground, totally different impacts.

On a serious note, it's not a microburst, and it's not lightning related. That aircraft was intact leading up to them nosediving into the ground.
You don't have to but others maybe curious about the similarities of this crash and Shanksville. What are your qualifications to be an expert on SO many things?
Zaphod58......what is your goal here on ATS?

edit on 2-9-2010 by SPYvsSPY because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by SPYvsSPY
 


You know, there actually are other incidents of aircraft crashing nose down into the ground. 9/11 wasn't the first and won't be the last example of a 'lawn dart' leaving almost nothing in the aftermath to find or identify.

In May of 1996, ValuJet Flight 596 went into the Everglades nose first at speed. If you pull up images of the crash site, you'd think the swamp opened it's gaping maw and swallowed the whole plane in a single gulp, for the lack of anything really visible as a plane crash. Despite the work put into it, not all of it or the human remains were recovered. This, from a known location with total isolation and full control of the environment.

Terminal impact at high speed leaves very little of an aluminum tube filled with soft things like seats and cushioned walls....occupied by even softer things like people. The BIG crash sites can often see investigators in bunny suits for containment too. It's not some strain of the flu they're suited from. It's the 'form of remains' many bodies assume after such a violent end.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   

SPYvsSPY

Zaphod58
reply to post by openyourmind1262
 


We're going to have to go there every time there's a plane crash aren't we? The only thing the two have in common is the fact that they nosed in. Totally different speeds, totally different ground, totally different impacts.

On a serious note, it's not a microburst, and it's not lightning related. That aircraft was intact leading up to them nosediving into the ground.
You don't have to but others maybe curious about the similarities of this crash and Shanksville. What are your qualifications to be an expert on SO many things?
Zaphod58......what is your goal here on ATS?

edit on 2-9-2010 by SPYvsSPY because: (no reason given)


Oh SPY .. Zaph has recently been promoted to ats staff. I've been here a few years. Put it this way he is well up to date on aviation. He is my go to man for anything related to aviation. Just check his posts and threads to see how reliable and respected he is

Now I have a brown nose



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by SPYvsSPY
 


I'm hardly an expert on "so many things", but if you're going to talk aviation, I probably know almost as much as the most experienced people on here, so I'm going to talk.

I didn't realize I had to have a goal on here to be a member.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Being realistic, the video is not quite all that *good*... It is pretty grainy, you do not see the plane except for the light on it coming straight down, and you can't really see it free falling.. Just the last second of the nose dive then of course the huge explosion.. I wonder if they have a better video they are not releasing..
Shocking is a bit sensational... Shocking? Watching a syrian rebel cut and eat a dudes heart out..
sorry for being picky.
edit on 18-11-2013 by starfoxxx because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join