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

Friendly Notice

Okay everyone:

Let's keep the discussion on the OP and not other members. Talking about other members is considered Off Topic.

Do not reply to this post.

a reply to: bw1000

I forgot to mention that, nowadays, external influence must also include potential remote control, taking control from a pilot, by someone. Now we know this capability has existed for a long time in the hands of US authorities at least, and MH370 disappearance has been connected by some people to these capabilities being brought to other national authorities / private spheres.

These flights going missing etc. - who knows, maybe it's some dangerous people testing out their new capabilities.

---
Zaphod58

"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. "

Much of my point was - what stresses? Nothing that can be estimated at that place and time by experts, I believe.

There seemed to be no need for the plane to be moving frantically in the first place. Why would it? It's very improbable in those conditions.

If you mean the craft broke in two after it started its crash descent, yes, I think that's possible but still very rare.

It takes a huge amount of stress for a jet airliner plane to break into two parts with no physical impact. I gave an example of one possibility which only happens with extreme rudder movements when control is lost in a really bad storm.

The crash descent itself is known as another, but still rare possibility. Which if it happened, would leave the fact that the plane broke up before ground impact as irrelevant to the cause of the crash in the first place.

But you're right that that's a possibility, especially as break up caused by out of control descent may become something more likely after a repair job.

Could explain things. Slow people like myself were thinking the break up had to be a part of why the plane went out of control and began its descent to the crash! Thanks. I'm intrigued by the technical possibilities now, and it could be the pilot was right. If so, though, I can't help thinking why the hell would he let passengers and staff on his airline he was in control of? So he makes chit chat to his wife about a bad plane, but typical, reassuring flight info over the intercom to customers he flies to their deaths?

a reply to: bw1000

They were dropping at over 7,000 feet per minute at the start of whatever event caused the crash, then climbed back up at about 3,000 fpm, dove back down, shot back up at around 9,000 fpm, did another cycle, and at the start of the next dive data e was lost. It was recorded via the transponder.

I don't suppose anyone has noted how close this aircraft went down to the border of Israel?.

A mere 30 miles from their border. I'm sure they have radar records of what happened in the area at the time of the crash.

a reply to: Zaphod58

7000 feet per minute is only about 80 mph if they were going straight down, in pieces fluttering around and tumbling, or a high speed forward if they were in a shallow dive which is probably what broke the plane up. the only parts of the plane that carried any inertia were the engines. I would like to see a map of the debris field just cuz I don't have anything better to do than ponder about stuff on the other side of the world....

a reply to: Zaphod58

that tail is the culprit... it's to clean. the vertical stabilizer is ripped. acted as an anchor. ripped the rivets clean off.

www.bing.com... =oXm9FDZQ&simid=282127111506&thid=HS.282127111506&ajaxhist=0

a reply to: Bigburgh

This piece?.

Looks like it fell straight down and the leading edge ripped off from the impact of the landing.
Happens to be the same section of the craft that was damaged a few years back, where the rear pressure bulkhead lives.
And strangely it doesn't seem to be there any more.
And right near those numbers there is metal bent outward.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

look at it from the side. look at the vertical stabilizer. i linked above.

but yes that's the tail.

ive been wrong many times before though. i did consider the impact tear.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: Zaphod58

I would like to see a map of the debris field just cuz I don't have anything better to do than ponder about stuff on the other side of the world....

---

I think that's why we're all here, at least in part. Or you might be disabled also, like me, who would prefer to be trekking through forests with a tent and sleeping bag in my rucksack.

But anyway, isn't it interesting how the news noqadaysy seems to be obsessed with the news, and giving it in stages and building up fusses, seemingly intentionally leaving you to wonder if something stated is stated just so as to be the opposite of what comes in the next installment? (Politicians here in UK seem to love that approach with political and social news, particularly - manipulating the news and the people). Unless it's me, hopefully it's not just my obsession with some projecting!

But I think it's fairly safe to say it's not that, as I alluded to in the first comment I made above. A plane crash happens - could be a dud plane just - but the way things are it's fairly hard not to think that anything has some kind of bigger plan involved. And isn't someone arranging things like that? Certainly it seems to me that news agencies are changing things in approach & attitude from yesteryear - maybe they're pandering to people who are looking for something? And maybe people are looking for something because, simply they're not stupid. And why are news agencies doing that anyway (it's not my imagination that they are, as far as I can tell)?

A news event which could be a poorly kept plane illustrates how things are today to me. 25 years ago I was aware of questioning everything, absolutely everything, in the news, and thinking of likely mandates and agendas in manipulation(s). But I didn't care because I knew it was at least intended and I didn't care to be manipulated like that. The benefits of the internet today are undoubted, but it also means there is a society in which, to me, it seems more or less impossible to avoid this kind of angle on things. Once we couldn't think, and accepted mass media because there was no choice. Today, there seems little choice but for to be very unaccepting of so much, even to the bitter death of a simple news piece!

Maybe people in the old days would look on us with glee or relish, thinking that that's surely why campfires came into existence, even if a remote web forum might seem a little cold and spaced out.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bw1000

They were dropping at over 7,000 feet per minute at the start of whatever event caused the crash, then climbed back up at about 3,000 fpm, dove back down, shot back up at around 9,000 fpm, did another cycle, and at the start of the next dive data e was lost. It was recorded via the transponder.

---

I'd agree with MyHappyDogShiner there, still very unlikely to cause a break up at that altitude. It's just within a typical airliner's comfortable cruising height. Without an interfering, physical event, it's where air resistance is a lot greater, where there would be much more concern. But, as is being mentioned here, this article suggests concern among some investigators about the metal bent outward.

Link, The Aviationist

a reply to: bw1000

It's not just the descent rate, it's the hard pull up and push over between incidents. That's almost exactly what happened with the American Eagle ATR. They had a couple of hard pull ups and push overs and the tail section snapped as a result at almost exactly the same place that this one did.

Sorry to ruin some people's day, but, if the information on that graph is correct, my money is on wind shear or clear air turbulence causing a structural failure.

AA Flight 587 lost the vertical stabilizer after hard rudder operation. If there was indeed a tail issue then maybe a similar structural failure in this one.

If the video isis released along with the claim of responsibility is genuine, I would say it was definitely a bomb on board.

What's scariest about the vid is that the bomb is possibly being triggered remotely by those filming it, or they had a timer set to an exact moment.

You can clearly see an explosion in the middle of the aircraft followed immediately by black smoke.

link

link2

a reply to: Zaphod58

You posted this pic which can be found on this site,

www.avweb.com...



If you zoom in on the pic you will see that it says "vertical speed in ft per sec.". This graph does not indicate actual altitude.

And the article says,

ADS-B data is not considered reliable enough for accident investigations and the real story will likely be revealed in the flight data recorder, which was recovered late Saturday.

If you look at Flightaware24 their graph shows actual altitude and I don't see the "parabolic" flight pattern in there.




And they note,

An important note about the csv file. Rows are in time order based on when data was processed from each receiver and not necessarily in chronological order.

www.flightradar24.com...


So any analysis, or conclusions being made based on this data are to be taken with a pinch of salt, just like the people using this data to do so.

originally posted by: angus1745
If the video isis released along with the claim of responsibility is genuine, I would say it was definitely a bomb on board.

What's scariest about the vid is that the bomb is possibly being triggered remotely by those filming it, or they had a timer set to an exact moment.

You can clearly see an explosion in the middle of the aircraft followed immediately by black smoke.

link

link2

Except that no bomb residue was found on the debris and the Egyptian president among others shared doubts ISIS was involved.

Another thing, as posted previously by someone else, it was awfully close to the Israeli border. Which still beggars the question why if all Muslims hate and loathe Israel, they seemingly get a pass in all this Caliphate business. That is the most bizarre in all this. Nothing at all is what it seems.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.

Why not?

originally posted by: Playboy6933

originally posted by: grey580
I like how people are making accounts just to jump in on this.

very interesting.

[SNIP]

Maybe if you weren't so hostile and showed a little decorum.