Russian Airbus down

Henning said:
The satellite photos...
Click to expand...

there is actually nothing interesting there.

1. The title on top is just that, the title of the photo: "Satellite photograph of the surveillance area #1, Airplane crash at Sinai(date)"
2. Top left is the name of the satellite, date/time and resolution
3. Red squares are main crash sites.
4. Yellow squares are areas of some equipment(doesn't specify civilian or military or anything else. I think it may be military from how it's phrased)
5. Blue squares are debris from the plane

on the second image the titles of the squares simply reiterate what the squares are. No extra details

2E039ECE00000578-3299019-image-a-28_1446400504394.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the translation, DucMan, you beat me to it.
That pancake looks very sad.
Still waiting on the FDR and CVR release, hoping that they will tell us what really happened.
 
Do any sat photos label what sections of the airplane are present at each of the blue boxes? Just looking to see where the tail section ended up. My understanding is that it landed behind the fuselage and wings by a good distance.
 
petrolero said:
Do any sat photos label what sections of the airplane are present at each of the blue boxes? Just looking to see where the tail section ended up. My understanding is that it landed behind the fuselage and wings by a good distance.
Click to expand...

Not in that dailymail article.
 
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-11-03-12-29-26

AP says satellites "...detected heat around a Russian passenger jet before it crashed..."

Any guesses on how sensitive those instruments are? How much heat is required before it can be detected? Dumping a cabin volume of 70deg air into -xx deg (whatever it is at the flight levels), would that be detected? Or would it detect heat off the engines if their orientation changed and pointed exhaust at the sats?
 
Matthew said:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-11-03-12-29-26

AP says satellites "...detected heat around a Russian passenger jet before it crashed..."

Any guesses on how sensitive those instruments are? How much heat is required before it can be detected? Dumping a cabin volume of 70deg air into -xx deg (whatever it is at the flight levels), would that be detected? Or would it detect heat off the engines if their orientation changed and pointed exhaust at the sats?
Click to expand...

If the pressure vessel blows there is a good chance of rupturing something in the fuel system like a tank, fuel goes out, atomizes in the airstream and ignited by the engines.
 
Henning said:
If the pressure vessel blows there is a good chance of rupturing something in the fuel system like a tank, atomizes in the airstream and ignited by the engines.
Click to expand...

Yeah - that's possible, I guess, an Airbus thermobaric bomb.

That would be a result of the breakup, and not the cause.
 
Matthew said:
Yeah - that's possible, I guess, an Airbus thermobaric bomb.

That would be a result of the breakup, and not the cause.
Click to expand...

Correct, my bet is still on the pressure vessel being the initial point of failure.
 
Matthew said:
AP says satellites "...detected heat around a Russian passenger jet before it crashed..."

Any guesses on how sensitive those instruments are? How much heat is required before it can be detected? Dumping a cabin volume of 70deg air into -xx deg (whatever it is at the flight levels), would that be detected? Or would it detect heat off the engines if their orientation changed and pointed exhaust at the sats?
Click to expand...
I used to drive those satellites. The problem is, saying "a satellite detected heat" doesn't tell us much.

The Early Warning satellites I used to fly (Defense Support Program) operate differently from a system designed for intelligence purposes. We scanned the Earth continuously, but the scan rate was slow enough that the time of first detection wouldn't be that precise. If the ground impact didn't occur for another ~30 after the time of detection, that could indicate an air burst.

Threshold wise...well, the early warning system are designed to detect rockets being launched, and for the most part, the thresholds don't have to be that low. It's possible the regional thresholds are set low due to the volatility in the Mideast, but there are vehicle thresholds as well that are not generally touched unless a detection cell goes bad. These systems do not produce images; only cells which detect events over thresholds are presented for operator display.

That said, yes, we did detect some aircraft crashes. I remember seeing the fire after the DC-10 crash in Chicago, but this sort of thing was relatively rare. Mount St. Helens was fun, though. We saw the sun reflecting on the ash cloud...and, of course, the unnamed satellite might have seen the sun reflecting off some sort of fuel plume.

The problem is, these events are still relatively low heat (in comparison to what the satellites normally look for) and there's no automatic detection for stationary events. One can re-run the satellite data with lower ground thresholds, but they still are limited by the onboard thresholds.

Mind you, this knowledge is 38 years old. Things may have changed. :)

Intelligence sensors no doubt operate differently. However, they're probably not in a "whole world search" mode. They're looking at *an* area; if that area isn't where the accident happened, they didn't get anything.

Personally, I'm a bit skeptical, due to the paucity of information about the detection. There's enough in the "Dip****" chain that they might have detected a fire AFTERWARDS and the reports got warped into a false statement of detection of the explosion itself. Plus the potential for detecting sunlight off a plume.

The thing that gets me about the explosion-in-flight theory is, how did no one else see it? Yes, it was over the desert, but the plane would have been in line-of-sight for a number of other aircraft. No one's coming forward to report seeing the flash?

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I used to drive those satellites. The problem is, saying "a satellite detected heat" doesn't tell us much.

...

The thing that gets me about the explosion-in-flight theory is, how did no one else see it? Yes, it was over the desert, but the plane would have been in line-of-sight for a number of other aircraft. No one's coming forward to report seeing the flash?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Yeah, the CSI thing only works on TV. Unless you are looking for something, in a certain area, the world is a big place.

When the MH flight was shot down, there was a pretty good smoke trail that lasted a while and was captured on a lot of cameras. This came down mid-day, and like you said, probably within view of somebody. A mid-air explosion big enough to trigger a sensor on a satellite would likely have been seen. The wreckage images on the ground show a lot of black, almost like the impact created a fireball that could have been seen from space.
 
olasek said:
The Russian-language media report that so far no traces of explosives have been found on the wreckage.

http://www.rbc.ru/society/02/11/2015/5637648c9a794715abbcf395
Click to expand...

I'm not thinking it was a bomb onboard anymore because by now there would be news coverage of people dancing and shooting guns in the air somewhere in the Middle East by now. No one has really claimed responcibility. The ISIS shoot down claims don't count.
 
If ISIS is blowing up Russians does that mean ISIS is on our side? In Rambo II and Red Dawn the Russians were the enemy that still so?;)
 
wanttaja said:
I used to drive those satellites. The problem is, saying "a satellite detected heat" doesn't tell us much.

The Early Warning satellites I used to fly (Defense Support Program) operate differently from a system designed for intelligence purposes. We scanned the Earth continuously, but the scan rate was slow enough that the time of first detection wouldn't be that precise. If the ground impact didn't occur for another ~30 after the time of detection, that could indicate an air burst.

Threshold wise...well, the early warning system are designed to detect rockets being launched, and for the most part, the thresholds don't have to be that low. It's possible the regional thresholds are set low due to the volatility in the Mideast, but there are vehicle thresholds as well that are not generally touched unless a detection cell goes bad. These systems do not produce images; only cells which detect events over thresholds are presented for operator display.

That said, yes, we did detect some aircraft crashes. I remember seeing the fire after the DC-10 crash in Chicago, but this sort of thing was relatively rare. Mount St. Helens was fun, though. We saw the sun reflecting on the ash cloud...and, of course, the unnamed satellite might have seen the sun reflecting off some sort of fuel plume.

The problem is, these events are still relatively low heat (in comparison to what the satellites normally look for) and there's no automatic detection for stationary events. One can re-run the satellite data with lower ground thresholds, but they still are limited by the onboard thresholds.

Mind you, this knowledge is 38 years old. Things may have changed. :)

Intelligence sensors no doubt operate differently. However, they're probably not in a "whole world search" mode. They're looking at *an* area; if that area isn't where the accident happened, they didn't get anything.

Personally, I'm a bit skeptical, due to the paucity of information about the detection. There's enough in the "Dip****" chain that they might have detected a fire AFTERWARDS and the reports got warped into a false statement of detection of the explosion itself. Plus the potential for detecting sunlight off a plume.

The thing that gets me about the explosion-in-flight theory is, how did no one else see it? Yes, it was over the desert, but the plane would have been in line-of-sight for a number of other aircraft. No one's coming forward to report seeing the flash?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

At 31k why would this aircraft been in line of sight for anyone in a remote area!? I'm going with prior accident, damage to pressure vessel repaired incorrectly or should have been replaced or reinstalled incorrectly. The Russians reputation for lousy maintence and air crashes is monumental, regardless of aircrafts last checkup in Ireland.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I'm going with prior accident, damage to pressure vessel repaired incorrectly or should have been replaced or reinstalled incorrectly. The Russians reputation for lousy maintence and air crashes is monumental, regardless of aircrafts last checkup in Ireland.
Click to expand...

Thought I read where Airbus had done that work?
 
Phoenix said:
If ISIS is blowing up Russians does that mean ISIS is on our side? In Rambo II and Red Dawn the Russians were the enemy that still so?;)
Click to expand...

ISIS is a 50% deal, half of what they want we want, however the half that wants it wants to take it away from our financial syndicate so they can have it free from usury as Islam requires.
 
FastEddieB said:
CNN reporting explosive device, allegedly planted by ISIS.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... That would be awful convenient for Vladimir Putin's adventures in the Middle East. If anyone back home was questioning why they are fighting for Assad when they really can't afford it, this sweeps all that noise away.

Do we really know there was a bomb? How do we really know it was ISIS? Will we ever know? This doesn't smell right to me.
 
The evidence given on CNN was:

1) The claim by ISIS, originally discounted.

2) A satellite "heat signature" at the moment the aircraft disintegrated.

3) ISIS "chatter" confirming plans.

I'm only the messenger, but that was the story at about 5PM EST today.
 
FastEddieB said:
The evidence given on CNN was:

1) The claim by ISIS, originally discounted.

2) A satellite "heat signature" at the moment the aircraft disintegrated.

3) ISIS "chatter" confirming plans.

I'm only the messenger, but that was the story at about 5PM EST today.
Click to expand...

Until I hear it from the Egyptian or Russian equivalent of the NTSB I'm not buying it. The last I heard was that no traces of explosive residue had been found. CNN will say anything for ratings. Our news services are under no obligation what so ever to tell the truth, and that comes from a judge's ruling for Fox.

I already provided one perfectly rational non bomb scenario for the heat signature.

That ISIS claims it is a natural and the chatter expected as it makes a great recruiting opportunity.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Until I hear it from the Egyptian or Russian equivalent of the NTSB I'm not buying it. The last I heard was that no traces of explosive residue had been found. CNN will say anything for ratings. Our news services are under no obligation what so ever to tell the truth, and that comes from a judge's ruling for Fox.

I already provided one perfectly rational non bomb scenario for the heat signature.

That ISIS claims it is a natural and the chatter expected as it makes a great recruiting opportunity.
Click to expand...
I heard it was a bomb from a British source before hearing it from CNN, forget who it was as it was during work.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I heard it was a bomb from a British source before hearing it from CNN, forget who it was as it was during work.
Click to expand...

The U.K. Media has the same interests and owners as the US outside the BBC, some of their stuff is as bad as ours. Like I said, Putin has no reason to withhold the information, if there's a bomb involved, the information would be forthcoming from him or official channels, especially since Egypt is running the investigation and they could use that to gain support in their problems with ISIS.
 
Henning said:
The U.K. Media has the same interests and owners as the US outside the BBC, some of their stuff is as bad as ours. Like I said, Putin has no reason to withhold the information, if there's a bomb involved, the information would be forthcoming from him or official channels, especially since Egypt is running the investigation and they could use that to gain support in their problems with ISIS.
Click to expand...

Here's a source that you will like then:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/russian-airliner-downed-bomb-151104232326705.html
 
Several long time investigators have been on the electric TV saying that a bomb on board or a missal attack would be apparent to even the most jr. Investigator and be easy to analyze......residue, metal tearing patterns, on and on. No one has said its a bomb and they are no more certain than anyone writing on this site including me. Putin probably would not want to admit his financially troubled empire has lousy airlines on top of everything else plus if he claims a bomb did it it provides him greater license to go wild in Syria where he's had a staffed base for many years. If this keeps up I shall have to contact professor Irwin Cory. After putins performance in the Ukraine when the airliner went down it proved he is a consummate liar.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Here's a source that you will like then:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/russian-airliner-downed-bomb-151104232326705.html
Click to expand...

:lol: Actually I do like it as there is no sensationalism or editorializing involved just reporting, and when you read it it's completely hedged with 'may' and there is no definitive statement, or mention of evidence. This is the problem with 24/7 media outlets, they always have to say something, and they have to change what they say a bit and add new words to keep people watching and clicking. The primary constituent of the Internet economy is 'click bait' and so far everything I have seen coming out saying 'bomb' is nothing more than click bait filled with speculation and no solid information.

The fourth estate has been coopted into the corporate culture of profit über alles. Something like this, when word comes from Russian or Egyptian state sources, then I will believe it's a bomb. The British angle I understand, even though the Russians aren't Brits, they are Christian Europeans with the same aristocracy, British politicians could use Russian martyrs to their own political aspirations in their own internal issues with ISIS like Bush used WMDs in Iraq.
 
Henning said:
:lol: Actually I do like it as there is no sensationalism or editorializing involved just reporting, and when you read it it's completely hedged with 'may' and there is no definitive statement, or mention of evidence. This is the problem with 24/7 media outlets, they always have to say something, and they have to change what they say a bit and add new words to keep people watching and clicking. The primary constituent of the Internet economy is 'click bait' and so far everything I have seen coming out saying 'bomb' is nothing more than click bait filled with speculation and no solid information.

The fourth estate has been coopted into the corporate culture of profit über alles. Something like this, when word comes from Russian or Egyptian state sources, then I will believe it's a bomb. The British angle I understand, even though the Russians aren't Brits, they are Christian Europeans with the same aristocracy, British politicians could use Russian martyrs to their own political aspirations in their own internal issues with ISIS like Bush used WMDs in Iraq.
Click to expand...

I agree with aljezerra, direct and to the point, no hysterics and very much like the BBC. Excellent coverage. of course there are those who will say" ya can't trust them Muslim fellers! Better watch em." Sort of like the idiots who said the pope would run the country if Kennedy was elected.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
I agree with aljezerra, direct and to the point, no hysterics and very much like the BBC. Excellent coverage. of course there are those who will say" ya can't trust them Muslim fellers! Better watch em." Sort of like the idiots who said the pope would run the country if Kennedy was elected.
Click to expand...

I often reference them, the only way to get a picture of what is going on is to understand both sides, and I haven't found AlJezzera to be extremist in their editorial slant at all, actuall, as with this article, I find little to no slant. BBC and AlJ make a good pair to read and compare with what the US media is putting out.
 
Henning said:
:lol: Actually I do like it as there is no sensationalism or editorializing involved just reporting, and when you read it it's completely hedged with 'may' and there is no definitive statement, or mention of evidence. This is the problem with 24/7 media outlets, they always have to say something, and they have to change what they say a bit and add new words to keep people watching and clicking. The primary constituent of the Internet economy is 'click bait' and so far everything I have seen coming out saying 'bomb' is nothing more than click bait filled with speculation and no solid information.

The fourth estate has been coopted into the corporate culture of profit über alles. Something like this, when word comes from Russian or Egyptian state sources, then I will believe it's a bomb. The British angle I understand, even though the Russians aren't Brits, they are Christian Europeans with the same aristocracy, British politicians could use Russian martyrs to their own political aspirations in their own internal issues with ISIS like Bush used WMDs in Iraq.
Click to expand...
Henning, what rock have you crawled from under? The media has always existed for the government or profit.

BTW, AJZ is using the same sources as the others.

I do find it a little odd that a person who doesn't cite their sources has issues with the sources that are cited.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Henning, what rock have you crawled from under? The media has always existed for the government or profit.

BTW, AJZ is using the same sources as the others.

I do find it a little odd that a person who doesn't cite their sources has issues with the sources that are cited.
Click to expand...

No, not always, besides, it's not "government profit" government doesn't make a profit, and government doesn't keep or make money, the people who lead the Federal Reserve and the markets do that, and the Federal Reserve is a private banking syndicate. What the government does is to serve the Federal Reserve and the markets by forcing the money to keep moving and collecting fees and making imaginary profits that Fed can issue more new money to cover and charge yet another fee. The government acts a conduit to take any money the consumer isn't spending, and make sure it gets spent. That is why the Welfare system was created in such a poor fashion. That's why one of the first things that was applied to the US Constitution when we hired Rothschild's to handle the nation's finances officially in 1913 was we got an income tax, exactly the type of tax the founders did not want, and we have basically set aside or seriously marginalized all taxes on the business sector that the founders instituted to run the country. Since we gave the country back to the aristocracy, we have fallen into a system of financial feudalism where everybody has to kick up to the bank.

The media is no more than an arm of the multinational corporate business sector.

When I see things in the media that don't make sense, I will question the source whatever it may be.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
me too....

but, a blind squirrel finds a nut.....once in a while. :goofy:
Click to expand...
Occam's razor.
Russian plane, in the ME, comes apart at altitude, terrorist immediately claim responsibility.

I'd have been surprised if it was anything other than a bomb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top