"Much more likely to have been a bomb... than a missile"
Editor’s note: Aaron Klein, writing for WND, quotes a supposed ISIS leader in Gaza who “hinted to similarities with the 9/11 attacks as far as what he described as the level of sophistication of the claimed attack on the Russian jet.”
The Director General of the Royal United Services Institute, Michael Clarke, said it was more likely the aircraft was taken down by a bomb than mechanical failure, according to the BBC.
“Early reports said that the aircraft split into two and that suggests a catastrophic failure, not a mechanical failure, but that suggests perhaps an explosion on board,” Clarke said.
“So I’d be much more inclined to think if we have to guess at this stage, it’s much more likely to have been a bomb on board rather than a missile fired from the ground.”
According to the Russian aviation agency and Egyptian officials, the Airbus A321 disintegrated at a high altitude and the flight crew did not send a distress call.
Hossam Kamal, Egypt’s civil aviation minister, contradicted an earlier report the pilot of the plane had requested an emergency landing.
The aircraft’s black box did not record that the plane had been struck by an object from the outside.
Photos of the wreckage show the fuselage skin peeled outward, evidence an explosion had occurred inside the aircraft.
Alexander Smirnov, the deputy general director of Metrojet’s parent company Kogalymavia, said the aircraft “was in excellent condition. We rule out a technical fault and any mistake by the crew.”
The aircraft’s engines had undergone routine inspection in Moscow on October 26 and no problems were found and the crew did not log any technical problems during five previous flights.
Aviation experts now believe the Russia Airbus that crashed over the weekend was taken down by a bomb or a “force acting outwards from within.”
“Early reports said that the aircraft split into two and that suggests a catastrophic failure, not a mechanical failure, but that suggests perhaps an explosion on board,” Clarke said.
“So I’d be much more inclined to think if we have to guess at this stage, it’s much more likely to have been a bomb on board rather than a missile fired from the ground.”
According to the Russian aviation agency and Egyptian officials, the Airbus A321 disintegrated at a high altitude and the flight crew did not send a distress call.
Hossam Kamal, Egypt’s civil aviation minister, contradicted an earlier report the pilot of the plane had requested an emergency landing.
The aircraft’s black box did not record that the plane had been struck by an object from the outside.
Photos of the wreckage show the fuselage skin peeled outward, evidence an explosion had occurred inside the aircraft.
Alexander Smirnov, the deputy general director of Metrojet’s parent company Kogalymavia, said the aircraft “was in excellent condition. We rule out a technical fault and any mistake by the crew.”
The aircraft’s engines had undergone routine inspection in Moscow on October 26 and no problems were found and the crew did not log any technical problems during five previous flights.
http://www.infowars.com/evidence-reveals-bomb-took-down-russian-flight-over-sinai/
1 comment:
If the missile penetrates the skin first, then detonates, it will give the appearance of an internal bomb. Having worked on Airbus planes I can say the skin is not that thick and it is pressurized to a 6 PSI differential. The other possibility is failure from inter-granular corrosion as Airbus did not use Alclad aluminum in its construction which means that the fuselage has to be painted to protect the alloy. Any leaks from the Lavatory or cargo that get into the belly set up inter-granular corrosion within the structural members due to the electrolytic action of the contaminates with the unprotected base alloys. Corrosion prevention has always been a serious issue with the Airbus where the Boeing aircraft have better construction in my opinion and are more resistant to the effects of corrosion. If the fuselage suffered a tear from inter-granular corrosion while pressurized it would blow outward like a bomb tearing the fuselage in half. Consider that there is 43,200 pounds of force on each 5 foot by 10 foot skin panel at a 6 PSI pressurization differential and it becomes evident how a catastrophic structural failure could have occurred with the result giving the appearance of a bomb. If Semtex residue is found then we will know it was a bomb. The real possibility exists that it was indeed a structural failure from poor maintenance practices of the region and nothing more. For the record I am an Aircraft Inspector.
Post a Comment