Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some reports that ACARS data showed a rapidly spreading fire on board. Could indicate a bomb, but then again Swissair Flight 111 went from fine to totally destroyed in under 15 minutes due to electrical arcing in the in-flight entertainment system that ignited the insulation. Impossible to say right now.

Totally incorrect again on this subject. No one ever reported a rapidly spreading fire. Only that smoke was reported in several areas of the aircraft because of smoke alarms going off. This "smoke" could just as easily as been from a bomb inside the aircraft. Stop spreading crap like this.

Bombs are generally quick. How would smoke alarms have time to go off in several parts of the plane?

You watch too much TV. When a bomb goes off on a plane, it is not blown into 50 gazillion itty bitty pieces. It blows up, causes sudden decompression, takes out flight controls and starts fires. Then the plane falls out of the sky. Even with a massive explosion like that which occurred on TWA 800, it only blew the blame into large segments. So, if a bomb went off taking out flight controls and stabilization surfaces, it would account for the turns, the plummet and fire and smoke.

At this point, who knows for sure.

If you look at the data from Pan Am flight 103, it did break up immediately. This flight must have been on a small plane. Is there a reason you think it would have taken a while? This doesn't sound like what happened with the ValueJet flight #592.

Pan Am 103 did not break up immediately. After the bomb blew a less than 2 foot hole in the fuselage, the nose cone/cockpit peeled away. Intact. When it fully disengaged, it struck engine number 3 and fell. It crashed into the ground largely intact.

The remainder of the airframe separated into 3 pieces. 3. Not a bazillion. 3. All of which crashed in almost the same location.

Many of the people on board pan am 103 lived until it hit the ground.

Do you remember the Hawaiian Air incident. A full third of the airframe skin peeled off and away and the aircraft landed safely.

TWA 800? A massive explosion, yet large parts of the airframe remained intact until it hit the water.

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine this could be true but my coworker flies Egypt Air somewhat often and claims pilots and crew regularly smoke in the bathrooms & cockpit. He claims you can smell it. Can't wrap my head around how that could be true.

Totally true.

Anonymous wrote:It didn't have many passengers.

It was a red eye, literally middle of the night flight, which I have taken out of CDG before, they are usually super cheap. That may be why not many people on board.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine this could be true but my coworker flies Egypt Air somewhat often and claims pilots and crew regularly smoke in the bathrooms & cockpit. He claims you can smell it. Can't wrap my head around how that could be true.

Smoking is possible - but I don't see how it would ignite the plane. Remember, up until just about 15 years ago, smoking was allowed on international flights. There used to be non-smoking "sections" of the plane - which of course, made no sense. I could see people trying to push the limits, in certain circumstances (I don't know if some cultures look the other way, for example). But again, with smoking being allowed as long as it was, I don't see how that could be a valid issue.

The cause seems far more suspicious than smoking. Has anyone come forward to claim responsibility (for anything else)?

Someone would be allowed on board with a lighter or matches?

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine this could be true but my coworker flies Egypt Air somewhat often and claims pilots and crew regularly smoke in the bathrooms & cockpit. He claims you can smell it. Can't wrap my head around how that could be true.

Smoking is possible - but I don't see how it would ignite the plane. Remember, up until just about 15 years ago, smoking was allowed on international flights. There used to be non-smoking "sections" of the plane - which of course, made no sense. I could see people trying to push the limits, in certain circumstances (I don't know if some cultures look the other way, for example). But again, with smoking being allowed as long as it was, I don't see how that could be a valid issue.

The cause seems far more suspicious than smoking. Has anyone come forward to claim responsibility (for anything else)?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It didn't have many passengers.

It was only 1/2 full. 320s are not small

320s are incredibly common. The same type of plane is the one that landed on the Hudson.

I can't imagine this could be true but my coworker flies Egypt Air somewhat often and claims pilots and crew regularly smoke in the bathrooms & cockpit. He claims you can smell it. Can't wrap my head around how that could be true.

Anonymous wrote:It didn't have many passengers.

It was only 1/2 full. 320s are not small

It didn't have many passengers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some reports that ACARS data showed a rapidly spreading fire on board. Could indicate a bomb, but then again Swissair Flight 111 went from fine to totally destroyed in under 15 minutes due to electrical arcing in the in-flight entertainment system that ignited the insulation. Impossible to say right now.

Totally incorrect again on this subject. No one ever reported a rapidly spreading fire. Only that smoke was reported in several areas of the aircraft because of smoke alarms going off. This "smoke" could just as easily as been from a bomb inside the aircraft. Stop spreading crap like this.

Bombs are generally quick. How would smoke alarms have time to go off in several parts of the plane?

You watch too much TV. When a bomb goes off on a plane, it is not blown into 50 gazillion itty bitty pieces. It blows up, causes sudden decompression, takes out flight controls and starts fires. Then the plane falls out of the sky. Even with a massive explosion like that which occurred on TWA 800, it only blew the blame into large segments. So, if a bomb went off taking out flight controls and stabilization surfaces, it would account for the turns, the plummet and fire and smoke.

At this point, who knows for sure.

If you look at the data from Pan Am flight 103, it did break up immediately. This flight must have been on a small plane. Is there a reason you think it would have taken a while? This doesn't sound like what happened with the ValueJet flight #592.

This flight was a small plane? Really?

Does, not doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some reports that ACARS data showed a rapidly spreading fire on board. Could indicate a bomb, but then again Swissair Flight 111 went from fine to totally destroyed in under 15 minutes due to electrical arcing in the in-flight entertainment system that ignited the insulation. Impossible to say right now.

Totally incorrect again on this subject. No one ever reported a rapidly spreading fire. Only that smoke was reported in several areas of the aircraft because of smoke alarms going off. This "smoke" could just as easily as been from a bomb inside the aircraft. Stop spreading crap like this.

Bombs are generally quick. How would smoke alarms have time to go off in several parts of the plane?

You watch too much TV. When a bomb goes off on a plane, it is not blown into 50 gazillion itty bitty pieces. It blows up, causes sudden decompression, takes out flight controls and starts fires. Then the plane falls out of the sky. Even with a massive explosion like that which occurred on TWA 800, it only blew the blame into large segments. So, if a bomb went off taking out flight controls and stabilization surfaces, it would account for the turns, the plummet and fire and smoke.

At this point, who knows for sure.

If you look at the data from Pan Am flight 103, it did break up immediately. This flight must have been on a small plane. Is there a reason you think it would have taken a while? This doesn't sound like what happened with the ValueJet flight #592.

I worry it was something "dumb" like lithium batteries in the cargo hold, hoverboard fires, or something similar. Something very preventable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some reports that ACARS data showed a rapidly spreading fire on board. Could indicate a bomb, but then again Swissair Flight 111 went from fine to totally destroyed in under 15 minutes due to electrical arcing in the in-flight entertainment system that ignited the insulation. Impossible to say right now.

Totally incorrect again on this subject. No one ever reported a rapidly spreading fire. Only that smoke was reported in several areas of the aircraft because of smoke alarms going off. This "smoke" could just as easily as been from a bomb inside the aircraft. Stop spreading crap like this.

Bombs are generally quick. How would smoke alarms have time to go off in several parts of the plane?

You watch too much TV. When a bomb goes off on a plane, it is not blown into 50 gazillion itty bitty pieces. It blows up, causes sudden decompression, takes out flight controls and starts fires. Then the plane falls out of the sky. Even with a massive explosion like that which occurred on TWA 800, it only blew the blame into large segments. So, if a bomb went off taking out flight controls and stabilization surfaces, it would account for the turns, the plummet and fire and smoke.

At this point, who knows for sure.

Even worse. Then the people on the plane had time to panic and know what was happening. Poor passengers and crew.