Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    bear™ rests his case
    Monster? I don't drink that ****. Think bear, who introduced us to caffeine. Islamists!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beta_tester)
    I'm not making assumptions, I am basing it on past study of similar incidents.
    You have made up your mind based on no FACTS at all other than your assumptions

    As you say you are not an expert in the field yet you are so sure this 'Could not have been a bomb'

    Best do the right thing and wait for the facts before deciding don't you think?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    You have made up your mind based on no FACTS at all other than your assumptions

    AS you say you are not an expert in the field yet you are so sure this 'Could not have been a bomb'

    Best do the right thing and wait for the facts before deciding don't you think?
    I have based it on facts.

    Fact 1: bombs effects are amplified at higher altitudes, this bomb was set to go off 20 minutes before landing, a dumb move by terrorists
    Fact 2: a plane swerving left and right is not possible for a plane that has been crippled by an explosive, source
    Fact 3: Paris and Cairo are two of the most secure airports, given their two recent terror attacks
    Fact 4: no one has claimed responsibility, within 6 hours of it becoming breaking news across the world, ISIS claimed responsibility for the previous EgyptAir crash

    So yeah, keep on pretending that Islam is the problem if it makes you feel safer flying
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beta_tester)
    I have based it on facts.
    What facts do you know about the crash?

    I know you seem to know 'facts' about other crashes but what facts do you know about this actual Crash

    and it seems in your rush to attack you didn't read (or understand) my post

    Best do the right thing and wait for the facts before deciding don't you think?

    Or another way best not to day things like 'it definitely wasn't' until we know what it was

    note definitely 'without doubt'

    But your last line is rather telling and does define where you are coming from and why you seem so desperate for this 'not to have been a bomb'
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    If not a bomb, then three other potential causes then show up.

    1. Mechanical failure
    2. Pilot Suicide
    3. Explosive Decompression.

    Even so, there's an eerie correlation between this incident, Metrojet Flight 9268 and Daalo Airlines Flight 159.

    1. All three flights were operated by either an Airbus A320 or an aircraft in the A320 Family.
    Spoiler:
    Show






    2. All three flights were en-route to or over North African airspace.

    3. All three were travelling towards or over areas that are hotspots of fighting between ISIL and governmental forces.

    Makes you think, doesn't it?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    conspiracy theories ( pace Fullofsurprises ) are really only appropriate for 12 year olds who breakfast on Doritos and Relentless.
    I'm overwhelmed, please, Bear, stop with the praisings.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beta_tester)
    3. Paris and Cairo are very secure airports. Given the recent attacks in Paris, and the Metrojet bombing, both countries seriously upped their security. I would be very surprised if an explosive got through either airports.

    Maybe your overall analysis is right, that it likely was not a bomb, but one flaw is the idea that Paris is superbly secure - given that they have only recently dismissed quite a number of airport workers for alleged radicalisation, it would appear that there could easily be a serious flaw in the security there.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Or another way best not to day things like 'it definitely wasn't' until we know what it was
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Destoroyah)
    If not a bomb, then three other potential causes then show up.

    1. Mechanical failure
    2. Pilot Suicide
    3. Explosive Decompression.

    Even so, there's an eerie correlation between this incident, Metrojet Flight 9268 and Daalo Airlines Flight 159.

    1. All three flights were operated by either an Airbus A320 or an aircraft in the A320 Family.
    You missed another obvious potential cause: attempted hijack.

    How is the aircraft type relevant to any cause for the disaster other than mechanical or system failure? Are A320 pilots more prone to suicide? Is the A320 a particularly easy plane to hijack? Are there extra good places on the A320 in which to hide bombs?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Not sure if it's related but if I was because of a terrorist attack from ISIS apparently they've claimed it was them and then killed 20 'spies' by lowering them and literally disolving them in nitric acid. Absolutely disgusting how far terrorism has gone (again I'm not sure what the cause of it was)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beta_tester)
    It was almost certainly not brought down by a bomb, unless it was a really small one which singularly killed the pilots and no one else. This is why:

    2. A plane hit by any decent size explosive would've been completely destroyed midair. The EgyptAir and PanAn explosives broke it in mid air, it would not have been capable of this 'left then right circle' manoeuvre, which is what is explained in the source I linked. It would more likely have been split in two and fallen down, being completely uncontrollable - evidently the plane was intact after this 'incident' and it managed to turn, a broken plane would not have been detected to do this.
    (Original post by beta_tester)
    I have based it on facts.

    Fact 1: bombs effects are amplified at higher altitudes, this bomb was set to go off 20 minutes before landing, a dumb move by terrorists
    Fact 2: a plane swerving left and right is not possible for a plane that has been crippled by an explosive, source
    Fact 3: Paris and Cairo are two of the most secure airports, given their two recent terror attacks
    Fact 4: no one has claimed responsibility, within 6 hours of it becoming breaking news across the world, ISIS claimed responsibility for the previous EgyptAir crash

    So yeah, keep on pretending that Islam is the problem if it makes you feel safer flying
    Bombs don't always down aircraft

    I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you're comparing it to other events then you have to do so equally.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think it'll ever be found


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The BBC is reporting an Egyptian military bulletin that aircraft wreckage and passenger belongings have been found 180 miles north of Alexandria.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-36339614
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Destoroyah)
    If not a bomb, then three other potential causes then show up.

    1. Mechanical failure
    2. Pilot Suicide
    3. Explosive Decompression.

    Even so, there's an eerie correlation between this incident, Metrojet Flight 9268 and Daalo Airlines Flight 159.

    1. All three flights were operated by either an Airbus A320 or an aircraft in the A320 Family.
    Spoiler:
    Show






    2. All three flights were en-route to or over North African airspace.

    3. All three were travelling towards or over areas that are hotspots of fighting between ISIL and governmental forces.

    Makes you think, doesn't it?
    Are you suggesting some form of surface to air attack over the sea? Seems a bit of a stretch to think that Al Qaeda affiliates would have that kind of capability.

    Presumably just as plausible is some kind of 'error' in military targeting - we've had civil airliners brought down in the past by military forces due to alleged 'accidents'.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You missed another obvious potential cause: attempted hijack.

    How is the aircraft type relevant to any cause for the disaster other than mechanical or system failure? Are A320 pilots more prone to suicide? Is the A320 a particularly easy plane to hijack? Are there extra good places on the A320 in which to hide bombs?
    Ah, that too.

    Interestingly, the A320 is also one of the most advanced aircraft in the world. It is almost completely controlled by inputs to the computer system. However, the fact that this is the third incident involving an A320 in the span of a single year (or fourth if the Germanwings crash is included), and the fact that the prior two incidents with an A320 were the direct result of terrorism is strange indeed.

    I don't think A320 Pilots are more motivated to suicide, that's simply ludicrous. I'm sure that in the coming weeks we'll learn more information crucial to understanding what happened in the air on that fateful day.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xsarawr)
    I don't think it'll ever be found
    That was a well-timed post, wasn't it?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Destoroyah)
    the fact that this is the third incident involving an A320 in the span of a single year (or fourth if the Germanwings crash is included), and the fact that the prior two incidents with an A320 were the direct result of terrorism is strange indeed.
    Why? This is one of the most widely used commercial aircraft types. It is the fastest-selling airliner and 7,000 have been built, with 5,000 more on order.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Are you suggesting some form of surface to air attack over the sea? Seems a bit of a stretch to think that Al Qaeda affiliates would have that kind of capability.

    Presumably just as plausible is some kind of 'error' in military targeting - we've had civil airliners brought down in the past by military forces due to alleged 'accidents'.
    That's very true. I'm not saying that this was the result of a Sea-To-Air missile, as that seems unlikely. It's just strange that three airliners, all of the same type, are involved in either critical or fatal incidents, two of which are the direct result of explosive decompression caused by a bomb.

    In addition, the A320 initially had many accidents when it was first introduced because of its high-tech computer system. Heck, when it first appeared at an airshow, it crashed into a forest.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Nearly three decades have passed since then, and the A320 is now one of the most reliable and safe jets there is. It seems unlikely that this is the result of a technical error.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    How is the aircraft type relevant to any cause for the disaster other than mechanical or system failure? Are A320 pilots more prone to suicide? Is the A320 a particularly easy plane to hijack? Are there extra good places on the A320 in which to hide bombs?
    Aircraft type is no correlation. For airlines of this size it's only ever going to be an A320 derivative or a B737 derivative - there simply aren't other options for airlines to buy.

    There are some 6,700 A320s and 6,500 B737s in service globally. Law of averages puts these two as the most likely to be hit simply because of how many there are.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hovado)
    have to agree

    So much use of 'definitely' when we know sod all other than it has gone missing
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 16, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.