Russian plane crashes over Egypt

[KGEG]

Contrary to all the evidence of course...

Some people just want to believe in the conspiracies for the sake of being different and a troll. And maybe they have indeed convinced themselves that it is the truth.

I really have no problem calling them a troll. Its pretty much what they are most the time.

And I am not a "Sheep" just because I believe what the experts of the government says. Conspiracy spreaders are just as much of "sheeps". They themselves are going along with what a crowd says to. "Oh this conspiracy theorists says this happened, so THAT must be the truth, not what the majority are saying". They love that word, anyone who believes or goes along with the accepted truth is a "sheep" I'd rather be a sheep than a smelly troll or sewer trodden rat.

And no this isn't about the "media". They just love ranting about that too. But the media does screw up stories about aviation a lot, especially when they are first breaking.


A few years ago I came across videos trying to point out the November 2001 AA New York City crash was a conspiracy. That lead me to a whole forum full of the conspiracy theorists. All it took near the end of the topic for everyone on the site to write it off as a conspiracy was the fact ONE of the people on the flight was listed as being from Israel. I recall one poster said, along these lines, "The classic sign of media lies or government lies, an indication of tampering with the truth, saying someone who died on the plane was from Israel".

So their agenda is just as anti Semitic as it is trying to find an actual alternate truth. As if someone can't be from Israel. People from Israel can get around just as much as anyone else. And not everyone from there is even a "Jew". Yes the majority are. But discounting hundreds of lives because one of them is what you think is a "Jew" is as low of human thinking one can achieve. Because they were not just saying that it wasn't caused by a rudder malfunction, they were discounting the fact that it happened at all, that the whole thing was like a hollywood movie setup and no one really died. Much like the scum who don't believe Sandy Hook really happened and that the kids who died were not real, and that the grieving parents have been told right to their faces "Your kid didn't exists".



Rant over for now.

[Evan]

Oh really? that is weird. Unless you have 50% pure oxygen in the tank, something which is impossible to happen. Pure oxygen will burn out anyway, in contact with any fuel, including your mustache, if you have any. Jet A-1 doesn't burn that easy anyway, even if the tank has 50% air and you have a spark coming from a electric wire. It won't explode.

Yes, really. The NTSB determined that the fuel vapors from the 50 gals of fuel in the tank, heating up by the AC packs under the tank, combined with the air were indeed flammable and explosive. They also had Philippine Airlines Flight 143 (a 737) as a precedent for exactly this scenario. Yes, it explodes.

They also determined that a voltage anomaly in the fuel quantity indication system, which had signs of arcing, was sufficient to ignite it. This theory was supported by evidence on the CVR of background power harmonic dropouts just prior to the explosion and an erroneously high fuel quantity reading similar to test results when applying voltage spikes to that unit. That's a lotta evidence to overlook...

On the other hand, no evidence of a bomb or missile was ever found, no petalling, no spalling, no hot gas washing, no fragment damage.

Yet the missile theory appeals to the technically ignorant, populist mentality, so...

BoeingBobby, do you know something we don't?

[elaw]

Keep in mind that in a sealed vessel, you don't have to have an explosive mixture to have an explosion! "Back in the day" there were numerous explosions of steam boilers that contained only hot water.

[3WE]

TWA 800...missile...yes...no...

Ummm, Brian...thought we were trying to stay more on topic?

Our US media is doing an outstanding job saying "evidence suggests an on-board bomb", but true to form, there is no detail as to what evidence.

[Observer]

Who said lightnings don´t strike the same place twice ?

http://www.airlive.net/2015/11/breaking-metrojet-a321-front-wheel.html

[tsv]

The bomb theory seems to becoming more popular, at least in the media.

Is it fair to say it would be relatively easy for Investigators to detect traces of whatever Chemical was used in the bomb and therefore prove it was a bomb?

Do Airports in that part of the world have many Cameras? I expect that if a bomb was placed on an Aircraft in a Western Country it would be possible to identify every single person who loaded Cargo onto that Aircraft fairly quickly by reviewing Camera Footage so it would be a hard crime to get away with. But how about in Egypt?

[Evan]

The bomb theory seems to becoming more popular, at least in the media.

Is it fair to say it would be relatively easy for Investigators to detect traces of whatever Chemical was used in the bomb and therefore prove it was a bomb?

Once they have recovered enough of the wreckage, they can look for tell-tale signs of an explosive event: outward distortions, residues, petalling, spalling, hot gas washing, tell-tale fragment damage (if it contained schrapnel). Unlike TWA 800, all the wreckage here, that which didn't incinerate, should be located. But even a small amount of plastic explosive worn on the body might set off a chain-reaction of events where the ultimate cause of destruction is not the bomb itself. Looking at the aerial photo of the main wreckage and the tail section, there seems to be a section missing between the wing box and the tail. That might be where the truth is hidden.

[brianw999]

Ummm, Brian...thought we were trying to stay more on topic?

Our US media is doing an outstanding job saying "evidence suggests an on-board bomb", but true to form, there is no detail as to what evidence.

Yes, we are. Unfortunately I have to sleep every so often and these posts popped up while I was pissing the missus off with my snoring !!

Drop the conspiracy theories please folks. Exploding fuel tanks are on topic, conspiracy theories are just another pile of tin foil hat rubbish.

[TeeVee]

why not just let people talk for god's sake? if one is not interested in reading conspiracy crap they can just skip and ignore it.

at this point ALL theories of what brought this plane down are speculative, conspiracy theories, from blaming it on pilot error, relentless pulling-up, equipment failure, maintenance failure, repair failure, missile strike, bomb, sheep farts, meteor strike, cargo shift, etc etc etc.

[Evan]

why not just let people talk for god's sake? if one is not interested in reading conspiracy crap they can just skip and ignore it.

Because this isn't the CNN or Fox forum. Hopefully, people who decide to post here have a modicum of technical aviation knowledge and see these tragedies as an opportunity for finding solutions rather than a source of vicarious entertainment. I agree with Brian. Let's limit this to reasonable speculation (at this point that's pretty wide ranging and includes terrorism).

[Gabriel]

Hopefully, people who decide to post here have a modicum of technical aviation knowledge

For the record, I don't agree with this type of profiling. People should feel comfortable posting here even if they have zilch technical aviation knowledge.

They, as we all, should however be open to be challenged, criticized and discredited, especially if the answer includes why you are wrong and how right looks.

All the above said, conspiracy theories in TWA 800 have nothing to do with this topic. Fuel tank explosion is a speculative conjecture for this accident, be it that TWA was downed by the same thing or that it was downed by a Navy missile. There were several other fuel tank explosions so nobody can say that it is a crazy or unthinkable theory (beyond the craziness and unlikeliness that these events have in themselves when they happen).

[Evan]

For the record, I don't agree with this type of profiling. People should feel comfortable posting here even if they have zilch technical aviation knowledge.

To ask questions or relate experiences and to learn, yes, I agree. To aggressively push technical theories out of ignorance... CNN or Fox or any layman forum is the better place for that. (Remember all the annoying claims that AF447 could use GPS data for airspeed?) (Remember the Polish 101 thread...)

I realize this isn't Pprune... or what Prune used to be... before all the layman settled in on it... but it should be something between that and total aviation ignorance, a place where you can have informed discussions, don't you think?

[Gabriel]

I think this could be a great place to learn, and being proven wrong is a good way to learn if you are open to accept it.

[opa-opa]

Egypt

Egypt is under tremendous political pressure to maintain the facade that their biggest tourist spot is safe and secure, and Russia is afraid to show any vulnerability to terrorism, so I doubt we will ever hear about any official evidence of a bomb or explosion, even if there was one. I'm almost 90% certain what will end up coming out of this Egyptian/Russian "investigation" is some sort of bogus exploding fuel tank scenario which they will ultimately blame on the airline, since they're the easiest scapegoat.

This is EgyptAir 990 all over again....

[Quench]

Flight ban from UK to Egypt

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/egypt

There is a significant possibility that the crash was caused by an explosive device. As a precautionary measure, we are now advising against all but essential travel by air to or from Sharm el Sheikh. UK carriers will not take passengers directly to Sharm el Sheikh airport. We are working with the Egyptian authorities and air carriers to put special security measures in place which will permit travellers in Sharm el Sheikh to return by air, whether as scheduled at the end of their stay or before that if they wish. British nationals affected by this should contact their tour operators or carriers to arrange an orderly departure.

We are not raising the threat level in the resort. The above advice applies only to air travel to and from Sharm el Sheikh.

Carriers will not be permitted to fly from Sharm el Sheikh until we are satisfied that it is safe for them to do so.

I heard on the Radio that they might send empty aircraft tomorrow in order to bring people back.