Re: OT: Airbus computers may have malfunctioned

On Jun 9, 9:57 am, "yclept...@xxxxxx" <yclep...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 9, 10:35 am, michaeltham...@xxxxxxx wrote:



On Jun 7, 6:22 am, Matanya Ophee <matan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 7, 1:58 am, michaeltham...@xxxxxxx wrote:

I wouldn't rule out terrorism either.

of course. Always a possibility. However, terrorists usually stage
such events to gain exposure to their cause. So far, no such terrorist
organization claimed credit for this.

MO.

I think the more we learn about this catastrophe the more it points to
two scenarios.  One, to a break up of the plane at altitude caused by
faulty speed sensors and bad weather, or an onboard explosion.  All
this assuming that the leakage of information is true and reliable.
Companies like Boeing and Airbus in this new age of fascism, are no
different from governments, and national security claims are used as
an excuse to disinformation and secrecy.

It seems that this particular Airbus had problems with the speed
sensors a year before, and you know what it can mean if a pilot
doesn't know the actual speed of his plane, especially in turbulent
weather.  Also, composite materials such as carbon fibre etc, don't
like a lot of stress. It seems from reports that a part of the tail
section shows evidence it came apart at altitude, and Airbus had a
similar problem with a rudder as well as engines breaking off the
plane in the the NYC crash of 2001. This of course was blamed on pilot
error.

The other scenario suggests a bomb on board........ other pilots
reported seeing a bright white explosion, and a rapid decent that
lasted for about six seconds.

One unnamed Air France pilot suggested that a bomb could be the cause
of the crash.

He said: “One can very well imagine that a bomb caused the aircraft's
depressurisation and that the plane took time to break up. It could
just as well have been a big bomb that blew up the entire plane, which
would explain why the aircraft didn't have time to send an alert
signal.”

"If there was an explosion on board, the wreckage would have been
spread over a very wide area, as it was.

"So in my opinion there is no other option than the highly likely
theory that a bomb went off on the plane - perhaps even a large bomb
that destroyed it in mid-air leaving no chance to send a message."

He added: "I have flown these jets for more than ten years and the
chances of an electrical fault seem unfeasible.

"There are five electricity supplies on the plane. And to cause it to
break down completely they would all have to fail. Even then, a type
of wind turbine takes over to generate power.

"We cannot know if it crashed after being struck by lightning. But we
know this is very rare."

Nice link for those who like to proceed from what is known or likely
in order to understand what is unknown and what is unlikely.http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/
Cheers,
MD

Lots of information! I found his conclusions flawless, I assume
everyone investigating this disaster has called it quits thanks to his
insightful analysis. First time in history a weather man has
successfully determined the cause of an airliner crash. I bet they
don't even need to retrieve the black boxes at this point.

Thanks MD for the no bull***, logical, rational, conclusions.

Tashi
.

Loading