Air France Crash Related To Bomb... Article And Pilot Call Bomb "Highly Likely!"

A bomb was my first thought and the evidence is accumulating that I was correct. Scattered debris fields, No distress call, Automated text message of aircraft decompression, media handling too low key? I spoke w/ a former pilot who is a friend of mine... he said that his first thoughts upon hearing of the disaster were similar to mine. This area of the Atlantic though stormy, is not known for dramatic lightning. As this was a very modern plane with fly by wire systems its electrical system was very well isolated from electrical interference as are all modern passenger aircraft.

Lightning does not disrupt electrical systems in flight as the plane is not grounded but can cause pin hole piercing of structures like wings, tail surfaces etc. according to my very experienced military pilot friend. Even in a small Cessna the major risk from lightning is a temporary blinding of the pilot. As for turbulence... Modern passenger aircraft fly successfully through turbulence around the world on a daily basis... So Let's think about this....

The fact that ONLY an AUTOMATED text message about a decompression of the aircraft would seem to indicate a very sudden problem such as would occur with a very rapid decompression occurring as the plane broke up following an explosion. Very little explosive is required to breach the compressed fuselage of a modern aircraft which once breached can result in a very rapid disintegration of the entire structure. Remember the "shoe bomber?"


Officials investigate Argentina bomb threat as pilot claims Air France Flight 447 was blown out of the sky by terrorists

http://www.dailymail.co.uk:80/news/worldnews/article-1190307/Pilot-claims-Air-France-Flight-447-blown-sky-terrorists-officials-investigate-Argentina-bomb-threat.html

By Peter Allen, Ian Sparks and David Williams
Last updated at 8:34 PM on 03rd June 2009

Investigators are examining a bomb threat called in on a flight from Buenos Aires to Paris just days before Flight 447 disappeared over the Atlantic ocean, it has been revealed.

Aviation authorities are examining the possibility of a link between the threat to the Buenos Aires flight and the mysterious disappearance of Flight 447 with 228 people on board, a source has claimed.

Meanwhile an Air France pilot said it was 'highly likely' the jet was blown out of the sky by a bomb.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We simply don't have enough evidence yet (where the hell did it disappear, the Bermuda Triangle?) to conclusively state why Flight 447 disappeared. But if this is sabotage, what's the motive? Cui bono?

?????

http://translate.google.fr/translate?u=http://www.letelegramme.com/ig/generales/france-monde/france/vol-af-447-les-passagers-de-l-airbus-01-06-2009-405611.php&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8

Notice anything suspicious?

about losing controls, losing cabin pressure, problems with the electrical system.

And passengers were texting loved ones that they were afraid.

That doesn't fit with a bomb.

You cannot text from 35,000 feet on your cell phone! You've got to be kidding me... T-Mobile Out there 400 miles out in the ocean.... Get Real!



Aviation experts said the vast area over which debris has been found suggested there was an in-flight explosion, but that did not mean a bomb had to be the cause.

The explosion and resulting break-up could have resulted from a massive depressurization inside the plane for another reason. If this happened at high altitude, the passengers would have fallen instantly unconscious and may have been oblivious to their fate.

Details of the messages sent by the plane just before it disappeared were published in a Brazilian newspaper yesterday.

The report, citing an Air France source, said the pilot sent a signal at 11pm local time saying he was flying through an area of 'CBs' - black, electrically charged thunder clouds.
Satellite data has already shown that storms were sending 100mph winds straight into the Airbus's path at that time. (Not atypical if you are flying into say the jet stream for example.... Everyday situation there. )

Ten minutes later, the plane sent a burst of automatic messages, indicating the autopilot had disengaged, the flight-control computer system had been switched to alternative-power and controls needed to keep the plane stable had been damaged.

Three minutes later, automatic messages warned that two other fundamental systems that monitor air speed, altitude and direction had failed. Then came a cascade of electrical failures in systems that control the main flight computer and wing spoilers.

The last message came at 11.14pm, indicating loss of air pressure and electrical failure. The newspaper said this could mean sudden depressurization, or that the plane was already falling into the ocean.

It had available in-flight internet. If you had WiFi, you could buy internet access while on the plane, presumebly via a satellite linkup.


I understand that similar technology for cel phones was being debated. It's technically possible, but the issue was the irritation factor of multiple people talking loudly in a crowned space for hours on end.

Perhaps AirFrance had this service in this plane?

you can go to your cell phone provider's website and text. I know I can do it from US Cellular's website. I'm not saying that happened, just that it is possible to send messages to cell phones in that way.

Unconfirmed reports in a Portuguese newspaper said passengers on board sent text messages saying "I love you" and "I am scared" to relatives when they realised their plane was in trouble. A report in the Jornal de Noticias cited a Brazilian official from an aviation union.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/01/air-france-crash-passengers

There are no cell phone towers in the open ocean. Even if there was a cell tower directly below on the surface, being 35,000 feet above that tower would still put the plane out of range of text messaging or cell phone calls.

:)

HF really isn't that 'high' by modern standards, in fact it very low requiring lots of power and very large antennas. Cell phones are VHF/UHF and are strictly line of site. With the right atmospheric conditions HF can propagate thousands of miles. Digital texting has replaced morse code.

:think:

:think:

:eyes:

There are fuel slicks in the water.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5501PB20090603?sp=true

Apart! Broke up mid air!

One fear – terrorism – was dismissed Thursday by all three countries involved in the search-and-recovery effort. France's Defence Minister and the Pentagon said there were no signs that terrorism was involved, and Mr. Jobim said “that possibility hasn't even been considered.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/air-france-jet-disintegrated-in-the-air/article1166520/

The world exists in the sorry state that it is because of all the true believers literate yet unquestioning in their unwavering acceptance of the word of those holding positions of authority. At least you can feel good in knowing the"truth?"

But an unidentified senior long-haul Air France pilot told a French newspaper: 'I have flown these jets for Air France for more than ten years and the chances of an electrical fault seem unfeasible to me.

'There are five electricity supplies on the plane and they would all have to fail.' He said a bomb was the only logical reason for why the captain failed to send out a mayday call.

Aviation experts said the vast area over which debris has been found suggested there was an in-flight explosion, but that did not mean a bomb had to be the cause. :think: Most likely Cause... BINGO! Cognitive Dissonance though prevents acceptance of what IS the most like cause...

The explosion and resulting break-up could have resulted from a massive depressurization inside the plane for another reason. If this happened at high altitude, the passengers would have fallen instantly unconscious and may have been oblivious to their fate.

First, everyone associated with the French gov. and the airline is very quick to dismiss an even remote possibility that there was a bomb, even though a bomb threat caused a delay to an Air France plane just a few days before. That plane was thoroughly searched and the threat was taken very seriously.

I have heard several aviation experts on CNN and also on Fox (yes, even Fox) who are independent sources -- they suggested that the massive break-up of a very large plane at altitude could very well be caused by a bomb. They all said that lightning was a very unlikely cause and that not much else would spark such a catastrophic event. Turbulence, in their view, would never rip a large plane apart at altitude.

We will see what develops.

suggest you read some legitimate information, not faux "news" from idiotic sources

try:

<http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/>

or

<http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/belfast/AF447.htm>

and, etc.....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

civilian professional pilot. Also quoting from the story as quoted. You're the one that's fos!

I so hate to hurt your feelings and dis is a fucking blog NOT a FUCKING DISSERTATION... Try and spell it fer me huh?

was caused by the FUCKING WEATHER!

You almost sound like fucking Cheney trying to spread the fear.

Mid-Air Disintegration causes the multiple debris fields.

that planes cannot even enter the area.

:eyes:

The bomb just needs to be powerful enough to breakup a small portion aircraft. Aerodynamics at 500mph do the rest.

Pan Am 105 over Lockerbie only blew out a small portion of the baggage compartment, but the aerodynamics shredded the rest of the plane.

With multiple tanks, they could be miles part, or deep undersea before they rupture.

All this business about water being sucked up 35,000 feet from the ocean... and freezing airspeed indicators is wayyyy out there.

IMO, a statement of "an Air France pilot" is not enough evidence for me to jump off this track. :shrug:

i would like some more facts first

72. You are being heavily criticized here but my husband and I have been wondering the same.

First, everyone associated with the French gov. and the airline is very quick to dismiss an even remote possibility that there was a bomb, even though a bomb threat caused a delay to an Air France plane just a few days before. That plane was thoroughly searched and the threat was taken very seriously.

I have heard several aviation experts on CNN and also on Fox (yes, even Fox) who are independent sources -- they suggested that the massive break-up of a very large plane at altitude could very well be caused by a bomb. They all said that lightning was a very unlikely cause and that not much else would spark such a catastrophic event. Turbulence, in their view, would never rip a large plane apart at altitude.

We will see what develops.

Terrorists are publicity hogs; there's no point in being a terrorist if nobody knows you committed an act of terrorism. For that reason alone I tend to doubt there was a bomb.

Compare the news coverage of this DISASTER!!!!!! As compared to other similar incidents... No comparison.... They ain't talk'n about it... Period. Bomb not possible.... WHAT? Let's see how hard they search to find the black boxes!

:eyes:

I'm sure there were citizens from various countries aboard that single plane. If one government attempted to hide it, it would have to deal with several other countries simultaneously investigating it. If there was a conspiracy, then the burden of proof rests with you. You have to prove a conspiracy, beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm sure the US has been able to shut up news networks like Al-Jazeera, a network a terrorist could readily use to advertise he blew up an Air France jet. :sarcasm:

Believe the Govt. BS It's your choice.

When was the last time a bomb took 14 minutes to complete the process of explosion?

But then we ridicule the original poster for wondering if there is a conspiracy in this particular case.

Also, for excessive use of exclamation marks!!!!!

That Likely Has an "agenda." The government people are no more qualified than pilots who fly the aircraft. Again, modern aircraft DO NOT just spontaneously break up in flight. In this day and age the most probable cause for an aircraft to break up in flight is a bomb. The BS from government sources should be what you are questioning given that the statistical probabilities all reside with the assertion I am making based on experiential data from INDEPENDENT experts which must include the Air France pilot quoted in the article. we are not talking Wright Brothers here! Wake UP!

Nobody ever suggested it just spontaneously broke up in flight. You insisted it must be a bomb, then when information emerged suggestion things went awry over a 14 minute period, you start talking about a small bomb...sure, right. The fact is you have no evidence. There was a bomb threat last week, and it was acted on and not kept secret. Some conspiracy.

But hey, go on thinking you're a genius because the possibility of a bomb occurred to you. Truth is, it occurred to lots of others too, but so far there's no evidence to back that supposition up, so we've discounted the possibility unless and until some new evidence turns up.

whatever the cause, the plane crashed in the middle of the damn ocean. It took two days just to get a ship into the vicinity, and the water runs as deep as 15,000 feet around there. there isn't a whole lot more they can do than what is already taking place, which includes multiple planes, ships, and two mini-submarines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

72. You are being heavily criticized here but my husband and I have been wondering the same.

First, everyone associated with the French gov. and the airline is very quick to dismiss an even remote possibility that there was a bomb, even though a bomb threat caused a delay to an Air France plane just a few days before. That plane was thoroughly searched and the threat was taken very seriously.

I have heard several aviation experts on CNN and also on Fox (yes, even Fox) who are independent sources -- they suggested that the massive break-up of a very large plane at altitude could very well be caused by a bomb. They all said that lightning was a very unlikely cause and that not much else would spark such a catastrophic event. Turbulence, in their view, would never rip a large plane apart at altitude.

We will see what develops.

that it's an act of terrorism. Otherwise, what would be the point?

Watch what happens down the road it will likely all come together logically at some point. My bets remains on a bomb though... Probability is strongest w/ this choice of cause. Talk to me in 30 days... Who knows even sooner perhaps?

No point in blowing up a plane if you're not going to claim responsibility.

Which is somewhat strange by omission.

Generally, any terrorism "like" event, multiple groups claim responsibility when many times it turns out to be nothing accident, (and certainly not caused by multiple groups)

It does seem odd that no group has fraudulently claimed credit. That might be a first for a mysterious crash.

the modern terrorist is content to cause mindless terror to no purpose

you under-estimate human evil

i know from personal experience (being a frequent flyer and having been on a trans atlantic flight hit by lightning) that lightning did not bring down this plane

we don't KNOW what brought down this plane

we now KNOW that some of the oil slick and debris is just floating garbage unrelated to the crash

there is no evidence one way or another as to what caused this crash

ALL possible causes should be investigated

it would be better if it were found to be terror than if it is found to be weather, since weather happens every day, and thunder/lightning is a daily event in some areas in the summer, so if lightning/thunder is blamed, this will ultimately be far more expensive for airlines/aircraft designers than if it's an isolated act of terror

but right now we just don't know

terrorists no longer take credit for their deeds, that's the mid 20th century thinking, but who took credit for 9-11? who took credit for anthrax? right, nobody, until several months later until * finally needled osama enough to make him kinda sorta pretend to take credit for 9-11 cuz it looked good on his resume

at this point (a few days in) on 9-11 NO ONE had taken any credit

we need to live in the world as it is now, not the world as it was in 1950

:eyes:

Now that we know exactly what happened, I guess they can call off the search and stop trying to find the flight data recorder. Nothing like a right-wing tabloid that gets itself sued for libel on an almost daily basis to root out the truth...

I read it on the Internet.

I'm sure the two incidents are related.

Probably all part of a massive Area 51 cover-up and attempt to keep the media's attention off the fact that the Catholic Church is run by the Illuminati.

It all started with fluoridation.

:grr:

:)

Post # 72! 72. You are being heavily criticized here but my husband and I have been wondering the same.

First, everyone associated with the French gov. and the airline is very quick to dismiss an even remote possibility that there was a bomb, even though a bomb threat caused a delay to an Air France plane just a few days before. That plane was thoroughly searched and the threat was taken very seriously.

I have heard several aviation experts on CNN and also on Fox (yes, even Fox) who are independent sources -- they suggested that the massive break-up of a very large plane at altitude could very well be caused by a bomb. They all said that lightning was a very unlikely cause and that not much else would spark such a catastrophic event. Turbulence, in their view, would never rip a large plane apart at altitude.

We will see what develops.

Certainly they will most likely never be found errr even IF they are... know what ah mean!

is infinitesimal. It's an undersea mountain range in that region.

IMO would indicate a bomb. Plus they found a seat according to an article I saw earlier.

Educated people ASK questions while literate people merely FOLLOW directions... This is a famous quote from John Russell

This plane was on autopilot before the autopilot system failed. It flew directly into a thunderhead cloud

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090604/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_plane

As the first Brazilian military ships neared the search area, investigators were relying heavily on the plane's automated messages to help reconstruct what happened to the jet as it flew through towering thunderstorms. They detail a series of failures that end with its systems shutting down, suggesting the plane broke apart in the sky, according to an aviation industry official with knowledge of the investigation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the crash.

The pilot sent a manual signal at 11 p.m. local time saying he was flying through an area of "CBs" — black, electrically charged cumulonimbus clouds that come with violent winds and lightning. Satellite data has shown that towering thunderheads were sending 100 mph (160 kph) updraft winds into the jet's flight path at the time.

Ten minutes later, a cascade of problems began: Automatic messages indicate the autopilot had disengaged, a key computer system switched to alternative power, and controls needed to keep the plane stable had been damaged. An alarm sounded indicating the deterioration of flight systems.

Three minutes after that, more automatic messages reported the failure of systems to monitor air speed, altitude and direction. Control of the main flight computer and wing spoilers failed as well.

The last automatic message, at 11:14 p.m., signaled loss of cabin pressure and complete electrical failure — catastrophic events in a plane that was likely already plunging toward the ocean.

...

Other experts agreed that the automatic reports of system failures on the plane strongly suggest it broke up in the air, perhaps due to fierce thunderstorms, turbulence, lightning or a catastrophic combination of events.

"These are telling us the story of the crash. They are not explaining what happened to cause the crash," said Bill Voss, president and CEO of the Flight Safety Foundation in Alexandria, Va. "This is the documentation of the seconds when control was lost and the aircraft started to break up in air."

...

One fear — terrorism — was dismissed Wednesday by all three countries involved in the search and recovery effort. France's defense minister and the Pentagon said there were no signs that terrorism was involved, and Jobim said "that possibility hasn't even been considered."

...

Planes are built to withstand the elements, but nothing is sure.

From a pilot:

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2009/06/02/askthepilot322/

Why the Air France plane crashed

And he could be wrong.

Bomb IS Most LikelY Cause. These planes just do not crash because of a storm. Quintuple redundancy on electrical systems... C'mon? Maybe a spy plane mid air but not a stinking thunderstorm!

One fear — terrorism — was dismissed Wednesday by all three countries involved in the search and recovery effort. France's defense minister and the Pentagon said there were no signs that terrorism was involved, and Jobim said "that possibility hasn't even been considered."


I DO NOT Like Being Lied To My Friend! That's the point!

You have to PROVE a terrorist was behind it. Nobody has claimed it. You would think they would go on Al-Jazeera television, an Arab TV network, and take responsibility for it. If Al Qaeda or Islamic Jihad or any number of terrorist organizations was behind the bombing, do you honestly think that they would not shout the news with glee to any news network in the world looking to find out what happened???

Wait and see but like the Air France pilot said and now two pilot friends of mine have said as well... And as a pilot to a very small but none the less significant extent from paying attention to such events and their analysis over the years... This one stinks of cover-up! I guess if I was year I would never climb aboard an airbus much less any plane if threat of TStorms was greater than say 20% at any point in the flight.

We're seriously going to have to wait for the Black Boxes to be grabbed off the ocean floor because you're not budging from your position, and neither am I.

Even w/ the black boxes you still are willing to take at face value the explanation no matter how improbable. Yes and the "official" vote counts in Ohio and Florida are always just as accurate as our news media reports and should never be questioned either. Just trust the government(s) they are have nothing to hide... why would they lie to me?

for any suspicious crash.

The fact that none have even fraudulently claimed credit is conspicuous by its absence.

I guess we should just trust the MSM completely on this one?

:freak:

Even if the probability of disaster is as low as half a percentage point, that's a big enough window for at least one unfortunate jetliner to crash through. Even though the number of passenger jet crashes due to weather can easily be counted on one hand, the chances that weather can bring down a jet is also not zero either.

and them thar aeroplane thingies fly thru them suckers every gd day ya'll getit! Wake UP and smell the f'n coffee! It's all about the economy stupid as Bill C said... We cannot have people a fear'n ta fly then the stuff will all shut down cause we're all a feared ta fly!

Hell, there are dozens of television networks the bomber could go to that the US does not control. He could've easily gone to the Cuban embassy and announced the news there without fear of being extradited to the US. Or he could have gone to a country like Iran and announced it there. They are outside the control of the US as well. Hell, they're outside the control of all the European countries as well.

And why would a serious fatal plane crash due to terrorism make people more reluctant to fly than a serious fatal plane crash due to bad weather? After all, you can do something about security. You can't legislate nicer weather.

WTF, I can't believe I'm even replying to this stupidity.

:freak:

Modern jetliners will fly hundreds of miles out of their way to avoid storms. Ask a pilot.

once per year. That's a lot of lightening hits. If lightening alone brought this plane down it would be, to say the least, highly unusual.

Sid

"The pilot sent a manual signal at 11 p.m. local time saying he was flying through an area of "CBs" - black, electrically charged cumulonimbus clouds that come with violent winds and lightning. Satellite data has shown that towering thunderheads were sending 100 mph (160 kph) updraft winds into the jet's flight path at the time.

Ten minutes later, a cascade of problems began: Automatic messages indicate the autopilot had disengaged, a key computer system switched to alternative power, and controls needed to keep the plane stable had been damaged. An alarm sounded indicating the deterioration of flight systems.

Three minutes after that, more automatic messages reported the failure of systems to monitor air speed, altitude and direction. Control of the main flight computer and wing spoilers failed as well.

The last automatic message, at 11:14 p.m., signaled loss of cabin pressure and complete electrical failure - catastrophic events in a plane that was likely already plunging toward the ocean."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BRAZIL_PLANE?SITE=WYCHE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

People died in this tragedy. There wasn't a bomb.

Brainlessness is in fact a disease! You just gotta believe... Nobody in authority would everrrrr think of trying to manipulate the news now would they?

Sure, a bomb is a possibility. So is break due to especially severe weather. You have evidence that a bomb is more likely than all other explanations? Present it. I don't think you do.

As others have indicated the first problems were minor and then progressed to larger and larger issued and finally decompression and electrical failure OVER THE COURSE OF 14 MINUTES.

How many bombs do you know that take 14 minutes to destroy something as fragile as a passenger liner?

This 737 had part of it's roof and walls ripped away at cruising speed and altitude. Landed safely, only one fatality.




For example, damaging an engine and a wing. The turbines in the engine get damaged and go out of balance, perhaps breaking apart under the stress. Fragments of the turbines (which were spinning at tens of thousands of RPMs) get flung outwards, slicing into the fuel cells and hydraulic lines. Now the plane is gushing fuel (perhaps into a hot engine, resulting in fire) and hydraulic fluid. As the fluid drains away, the plane is increasingly unable to be controlled until it finally tumbles in flight.


Just a "fer-instance".

No explanation why voice contact was not heard from, though.


I suppose it could have been a hijacking of some kind. :shrug:

NOW you ARE actually THINKING :think: :applause:

Thank you again!

but the facts those same people are posting indicate 4 minutes of problems. They are tacking on 10 minutes for the pilot reporting the weather conditions. The first repost of actual problems was 10 minutes later, 4 before the plane crashed. So, even if the weather was the problem, making the 14 minute count accurate, it still would not mean that the problems took place over the course of 14 minutes, caps or no caps. If the weather was not what caused the crash, then the report of bad weather could be unrelated to the crash. Either way, what the facts show is 4 minutes of problems, 10 minutes after a report of bad weather.
I don't even have an opinion on this yet, but taking facts and turning them to fit a presumption is not the path to the truth.

and the plane over 14 minutes succumbs to the fatal wound as the pilots struggle for control. How did the Challenger blow up? A leak from the SRB joint burned through a strut holding the fuel tank on and the whole system lost aerodynamics and the whole thing wobbled and broke up. Same thing will happen to an airplane at high speed.

A couple pounds of explosives under the seat in emergency exit row is all it will take to tear the wing off. Plane would break apart in a matter of seconds. A "14 minute bomb" would give the pilot the ability to land safely.

Why didn't the thunderstorm I mean "terrorist" use a bomb they knew would do the job instead of a 14 minute bombing that looks like a thunderstorm. Kinda strange that no other bombing of a commercial airline lasted 14 minutes. Most broke apart in a matter of seconds.

I know the "terrorists" used an 14 minute teeny tiny bomb so people would think it wasn't terrorist. You know cause the whole goal of terrorism is to terrorize but they played a trick. It was a terrorist act but nobody thinks it is and when people don't think it is a terrorist they will not be terrorized..... oh wait that doesn't make sense does it.


Causes of the crash from most likely to least likely:
1) weather
2) maintenance related failure
3) defect in design of aircraft (not good we won't be able to recover)
4) aliens
5) an electromagnetic event on the Lost island
6) terrorists


I bet you are one of those people who thinks everything is a terrorist. Traffic jam = likely terrorist blew up a bridge. You lose your job = boss is a terrorist and on to you. Mom cuts off the internet to the basement where you live = terrorists got to her. You never have been on a date in last year = terrorist plot to lower your morale.

Have you caught on to the fact that I am a terrorist sent here to discredit you? We know you know and now we must stop you. Tell everyone you were kiding or we will use an ULTRA teeny tiny mail bomb. Not big enough to hurt you but big enough to burn up all your junk mail. Are you completely TERRORZED yet.

Something like that?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Once the explosion occurred on Challenger, the entire vehicle was torn apart in less than 5 seconds.

Riddle me this. The bomb that took out Pan Am Flight 103 was only a few pounds, yet after the fuselage was punctured, structural failure occurred within seconds following explosive decompression. Its pieces rained down on Lockerbie, Scotland, killing several people on the ground. The bomb was in the cargo hold with the luggage. Furthermore, the bomb itself was inside a suitcase. How do you reconcile Pan Am's massive catastrophic failure seconds after bomb detonation with the full 14 minutes it took for this Air France flight to suffer catastrophic structural failure?

Remembering this is a fly by wire aircraft... (No Mechanical connections between pilot control and flight control surfaces operated by wire to motors that actuate the flaps, slats ailerons etc. Expanding loss of control over the aircraft can result in the same net result. There has to be a cause and it most likely was not maintenance or failure in a modern aircraft, nearly new w/ multiple redundant systems. e.g., 5 back up electrical systems. All I am saying and I may in the end be wrong, but I also have a 50% chance of being right, is that ALL of my critics so AUTOMATICALLY buy in to the EXCESSIVELY QUICK government "explanation" that so out of hand excludes the MOST likely cause of a mid-air break up in particular when a threat was made just last week to the same airline????

GETTIT?

Because an explosion in a confined place will generate a concussion wave that slams up against the confining container, and it would repeatedly bounce around back and forth within a span of a few seconds. In this case, the outer surface of the plane is the container. It is difficult to believe that in a storm with 100mph winds, winds that would make the body of any jetliner flex and bend repeatedly, that a fuselage could hold air for 4 minutes after being damaged by a bomb.

"At 11:10 pm, a cascade of problems began: the autopilot had disengaged, a key computer system switched to alternative power, and controls needed to keep the plane stable had been damaged. An alarm sounded indicating the deterioration of flight systems."

If a bomb did explode, we could safely guess it exploded on or around 11:10. The only problem with the bomb theory is that it didn't rupture or crack the fuselage, causing explosive decompression. Explosive decompression, according to the automatic message sent by the plane, did not occur until a full 4 minutes later. I don't know of any airframe at 35,000 feet that could hold air as long as this plane apparently did for a full 4 minutes after a bomb blew up on it.

The bomb that took out Pan Am 103 was small enough to fit into a suitcase. When it exploded, it punched a 20 inch hole in the fuselage of the plane, causing explosive decompression instantly, but in a few seconds, the body of the plane was already breaking apart due to the shock waves bouncing around repeatedly. Pan Am 103 was not flying through a violent thunderstorm when it went down, unlike Air France 447.

I shouldn't joke about this...but the OPs arguments are just getting increasingly ridiculous.

I understand that the NHTSA disengaged once the DU terrorism experts weighed in.

a million feet of water, they're not likely to find evidence.

:shrug:

possibility of a bomb... because you know a bomb IS on the list if you are being objective... But I just don't want to consider such a terrible thing cause it just makes me feel bad...

It's more likely you don't want to consider the possibility that planes without any bombs on board sometimes end up crashing due to incompetence or bad luck.

had to be a demolition job...

they never took into account that a plane could fly into the plane!!!

bush & cheney did it and KNEW about it BEFOREHAND!!!

Don't you know that aircraft aluminum droplets were found at the bottom of the ocean - only melting aluminum could have created those droplets and jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt aluminum. :)

Thanks a lot jackass!

In depth weather analysis (and interesting comments, some of which seem to be made by pilots, though that's not something I can verify, obviously - lots of maps, graphs, and wx analysis for those who are interested)

Air France Flight 447 - A detailed meteorological analysis:
http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/


Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5501PB20090604


AP/New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/03/world/AP-Brazil-Plane.html

First, everyone associated with the French gov. and the airline is very quick to dismiss an even remote possibility that there was a bomb, even though a bomb threat caused a delay to an Air France plane just a few days before. That plane was thoroughly searched and the threat was taken very seriously.

I have heard several aviation experts on CNN and also on Fox (yes, even Fox) who are independent sources -- they suggested that the massive break-up of a very large plane at altitude could very well be caused by a bomb. They all said that lightning was a very unlikely cause and that not much else would spark such a catastrophic event. Turbulence, in their view, would never rip a large plane apart at altitude. No emergency message was sent by the crew, only the automated messages were sent, which suggests that the crew was incapacitated (pending info that may or may not come from the black box).

We will see what develops.

I realize that this is the officially sanctioned theory at this point, but it almost sounds preposterous. Planes fly through this type of weather every day and they do not rip apart catastrophically at altitude. Do we all realize what level of force we are talking apart for a massive steel structure to be suddenly ripped into pieces by wind? These were not hurricane force winds.

Is there a prior example in aviation history of a jet this size disintegrating in such a manner?

because the aftermath of the disaster does not resemble any previous case of an airliner being destroyed by a bomb at high altitude.

You are correct, commercial airliners do not typically disintegrate while flying through thunderstorms; however, there is always a chance something may go wrong. That is what happened. Pilots do not wish to fly head first into bad storms. They try to avoid them when possible for a reason.

It was not some terrorist organization whom would rather remain anonymous. The French and/or Brazilian governments are not trying to save face because they fear being laughed at by the international community. Rather, it was a purely unfortunate confluence of circumstances and events which culminated in that 1 in a million chance of 228 lives being ended at 35,000 feet. A perfect systems failure inside a perfect storm.

Earlier in the day but he did not recall where he read it... If anyone can find that? it would certainly be an item of interest if legit? Certainly , if one bomb had been removed and another bomb remained on the plane to later detonate, then the officials in charge would not be feeling very good and neither would the airline/governments involved w/ security.

Some storms in some geographical locations are worse than others. This Air France flight was flying through an area that is known for frequently producing violent thunderstorms.

Pilots will typically attempt to avoid such thunderstorms by flying around them, not through them. This is because of the very real problems that the severe winds produced by these storms can cause to an airframe.

Jetliners are not made out of steel, as that material is too heavy. Rather they are made from aluminum and carbon-based composite materials. The airframes are strong, and they are built to withstand severe levels of stress. However there are conditions that can prove catastrophic, and mother nature can provide any amount of force that she wants.


Anyways, here is the most thorough and practical theory out there right now:

http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/

This is very technical and complex analysis. The comments section is full of less technical responses that can greatly further anybody's understanding of the complexities of aviation and weather.

I don't know if we will ever have an answer but I am curious to see what develops.

exceptional. The author does not seem entirely convinced by his own analysis and notes that "surprises" will not doubt turn up once the voice recorder is found, if ever.

"However the analysis indicates that the weather is not anything particularly exceptional in terms of instability or storm structure. It's my opinion that tropical storm complexes identical to this one have probably been crossed hundreds of times over the years by other flights without serious incident."

A mystery.

72. You are being heavily criticized here but my husband and I have been wondering the same.

First, everyone associated with the French gov. and the airline is very quick to dismiss an even remote possibility that there was a bomb, even though a bomb threat caused a delay to an Air France plane just a few days before. That plane was thoroughly searched and the threat was taken very seriously.

I have heard several aviation experts on CNN and also on Fox (yes, even Fox) who are independent sources -- they suggested that the massive break-up of a very large plane at altitude could very well be caused by a bomb. They all said that lightning was a very unlikely cause and that not much else would spark such a catastrophic event. Turbulence, in their view, would never rip a large plane apart at altitude.

We will see what develops.

after all, they wrote the fucking thing.

Keep shouting 72! 72! all you want. It doesn't make your "theory", and I use the term extremely loosely, any more likely.

Sid

...in the coming years.

I think a weather induced failure of the control systems is likely. (whether by turbulence, icing, lighting, etc..)

Turbulence can cause a plane to lose height rapidly, resulting in structural damage. A crack in the airframe or the skin can degenerate, leading to catastrophic failure. It is unusual (since engineers design for this possibility) but not unknown by any means. A famous cases is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_911 which took place in Japan in 1966.

We begin, though, with late new details on 447's final minutes. That's the plane. They show massive system failure and hint at the possibility that the Airbus 330, with 228 people on board, broke up in midair Sunday night, after hitting extremely bad weather between Rio de Janeiro and Paris.

Now, remarkably, these indications come from the wounded airliner itself, search planes today locating more debris in the mid-Atlantic, water so deep, officials worry they will never -- they may never recover the so-called black boxes.

However, a messaging system aboard the plane and most other airliners is already providing clues -- the Associated Press late today reporting details. Here they are -- 11:00 p.m., local time, we now know a member of the flight crew sends the message he's flying through thunderstorms, satellite data showing 100-mile-an-hour updrafts in the area just then, 100-mile-an-hour updrafts, extreme weather.

Then, at 11:100, automatic messages show the autopilot disengaged itself, not unusual when flying in rough weather. In addition, though, messages indicate a key computer system on backup power and damage to flight controls.

In the cockpit, a warning alarm was going off. Then, three minutes later, 11:13, failure of so-called primary flight instruments, meaning the crew now has no way of knowing air speed, altitude, and even direction, also, loss of the main flight computer and wing spoilers. The airliner is now blind, and all but paralyzed. The final automated message comes at 11:14, reports of a loss of cabin pressure and complete electrical failure, signs the aircraft may already be breaking up.

Again, these are very early clues. Totally unknown is the first step in what looks like a complex chain of disaster. We're not going to speculate tonight about what might have happened. This is, after all, people's lives we're talking about.

But there are facts we can examine.

And joining us now is Robert Francis, former vice chairman of the NTSB.

Bob, the -- the automated messages paint a picture of a plane essentially going out of control. Earlier, you told our producer it's possible the vertical stabilizer, part of the plane's tail, might have been torn -- torn off. What jumps out at you? What would have happened if that -- if that occurred?

ROBERT FRANCIS, FORMER VICE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD: Well, if that occurred, you basically don't have -- have the ability to control the airplane.

I...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: And what makes you think that might have occurred?

FRANCIS: I would just say that the question of the plane breaking up is a very difficult one to deal with, knowing what we know now, even with this -- this supplementary information.

So, I caution a little bit. There are lots of things that cause -- cause the -- the plane to go out of control. If you lose all your electricity, and -- and losing the horizontal or vertical stabilizers on the airplane certainly something that could have happened that would not have been the break -- the entire breakup of the airplane.

So, I think it's -- we may be a little primary in speculating on the fact that the airplane broke up as it was falling or before it fell.

COOPER: What jumps out at you from those automated messages, though, that we now know the details of?

FRANCIS: Well, it's just a remarkable loss of just about every way to control the airplane.

I mean, you have lost your electricity. You have lost your flight controls. It's an -- it's an all-electronic-controlled airplane. There -- there is a supplementary way of -- of supplying electricity. But the chances are, with those kinds of forces, that -- that that -- that that would come out and be effective is probably pretty slim.

COOPER: And the weather that this plane experienced, 100-mile- an-hour updraft, that's extraordinary.

FRANCIS: That is -- extraordinary is certainly the word.

COOPER: Do -- do we know about other kinds of -- of weather that might have been hitting the plane? I mean, we -- we just know the vertical updraft; is that correct?

FRANCIS: Yes. But I think that it's fair to postulate that that would not be the only -- that that would not be the only winds that are -- that are there.

One of the things...

COOPER: Can you control a plane through a 100-mile-an-hour updraft?

FRANCIS: I would be surprised. I -- I don't know the answer to that specifically.

But that's a lot of force. One of the things that is interesting is, if you talk to pilots that fly regularly down in that part of the world, and particularly from the east coast down over parts of Brazil, this is not unusual. They are very, very wary about the weather as they go up and forth down in that area.

So, the pilots have really got to be paying a lot of attention to what's going on, and watching their weather radar, and hoping that the weather radar will tell them what -- what they need to know to divert.

COOPER: And, right now, it's a race to get those recorders. That's what -- that's what will tell us what happened, right?

FRANCIS: That -- that is priority one, two, three, and et cetera.

COOPER: All right.

Bob Francis, appreciate your expertise. Thanks very much, Bob.

FRANCIS: Welcome.

From: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0906/03/acd.01.html

The crew did not have time to send an emergency message as the plane ripped apart at altitude. One would think that in a violent storm, the plane (after all control was lost) would start falling, not disintegrate and create a sprawling debris field.

...sending messages wouldn't have been possible. Also, if the plane is out of control and falling apart, the crew most likely would have been too busy trying to reassure the passengers and the pilots would have been too busy to keep control of the plane to send any messages. Can you imagine what must have been happening on the plane at the time?

That last message said they are entering a major thunderstorm and we now know that storm included 100MPH updrafts. So, if there was a "bombing" it would have been a billion in 1 coincidence.

As has been stated multiple times, if it had been a successful terrorist attack, we would have heard a claim by now.

Sometimes mother nature is brutally powerful.

Planes aren't crafted out of a solid block of aluminum.

The wings are attached to fuselage, engines to wings, etc.

Very good engineers make those junctions as strong as possible. Strong enough to survive most anything.

However if you take an object flying as fast as a jet is, throw it into a storm w/ 100mph winds, then create a situation where enough force is applied to a single joint that cause it to tear apart it is going to release a lot of potential energy.

Things are going to get bad really quick.

Not making light of the crash, and I have my own conspiracies with 9/11.

:sarcasm: unless its domestic terrorism by the extreme right

To me, the situation seems similar to that flight than a bombing.

An explosion does NOT exclude the presence of a fuel slick w/ a fully fueled aircraft on an intercontinental flight.

:wtf:

All I'm saying is that it could have been similar to what happened to PA 800, in that their was an explosion on board due to a short in the fuel tank.

Not Pan Am.

Up to a reasonable degree of scrutiny, which to date the BS explanations of weather do not. Thank you!

As on expert said last night the presence of that large oil stain suggests there was no explosion



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090603/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_plane
<snip>
As the first Brazilian military ships neared the search area, investigators were relying heavily on the plane's automated messages to help reconstruct what happened to the jet as it flew through towering thunderstorms. They detail a series of failures that end with its systems shutting down, suggesting the plane broke apart in the sky, according to an aviation industry official with knowledge of the investigation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the crash.

The pilot sent a manual signal at 11 p.m. local time saying he was flying through an area of "CBs" — black, electrically charged cumulonimbus clouds that come with violent winds and lightning. Satellite data has shown that towering thunderheads were sending 100 mph (160 kph) updraft winds into the jet's flight path at the time.

Ten minutes later, a cascade of problems began: Automatic messages indicate the autopilot had disengaged, a key computer system switched to alternative power, and controls needed to keep the plane stable had been damaged. An alarm sounded indicating the deterioration of flight systems.

Three minutes after that, more automatic messages reported the failure of systems to monitor air speed, altitude and direction. Control of the main flight computer and wing spoilers failed as well.

The last automatic message, at 11:14 p.m., signaled loss of cabin pressure and complete electrical failure — catastrophic events in a plane that was likely already plunging toward the ocean.

Morons! Not all...72. You are being heavily criticized here but my husband and I have been wondering the same.

First, everyone associated with the French gov. and the airline is very quick to dismiss an even remote possibility that there was a bomb, even though a bomb threat caused a delay to an Air France plane just a few days before. That plane was thoroughly searched and the threat was taken very seriously.

I have heard several aviation experts on CNN and also on Fox (yes, even Fox) who are independent sources -- they suggested that the massive break-up of a very large plane at altitude could very well be caused by a bomb. They all said that lightning was a very unlikely cause and that not much else would spark such a catastrophic event. Turbulence, in their view, would never rip a large plane apart at altitude.

We will see what develops.

But I want to weigh in on the bomb theory and some of what has been written on this thread:

That it could've been a bomb - and as I postulated in other threads why the plane didn't blow apart immediately ala Pan Am 103 - well remember the test run of the Bojinka plot?

Two hours before e.t.a. at Tokyo, the bomb exploded at 11:43 P.M. while Flight 434 was above Minami Daito Island, which is located 260 miles southwest of Tokyo. The explosion killed 24-year old Haruki Ikegami, a Japanese businessman occupying the seat. He was an industrial sewing machine maker returning from a trip to Cebu. The explosion ripped his body almost in half.

The Boeing 747-200 made an emergency landing in Naha, Okinawa, one hour after the bomb exploded. None of the aircraft's other 272 passengers or 20 crew members died, although 10 passengers sitting in front of Ikegami were injured.

US prosecutors said the device was a "Mark II" "microbomb". Casio digital watches were used as the timers, cotton wool balls as stabilizers, and an undetectable nitroglycerin liquid concealed in a contact lens solution bottle as the explosive. Other ingredients included small amounts of sulphuric acid, nitrobenzene, silver azide, liquid acetone, and nitrate. Two 9-Volt batteries taken from children's toys were used to heat light bulb filaments and detonate the nitroglycerin. The wiring was attached to the arm of the watch using a tiny space under the calculator. The cavity was so small that the watch was worn normally. Yousef smuggled the batteries past airport security in the hollowed out heels of his shoes.

Yousef was testing the bomb for use in the proposed Operation Bojinka terrorist attack. The bomb used on Flight 434 had one-tenth the power of the bombs he planned to use in the first phase of his project which was to bomb 11 aircraft over the Pacific Ocean.

http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/definition/PHILIPPINE+AIRLINES+FLIGHT+434

And another thing that makes you go h'mmm.

Two pilots of an Air Comet flight from Lima to Lisbon saw a bright flash of light in the area where Flight 447 went down, the Madrid-based airline told CNN. The pilots have turned in their report to authorities.

"Suddenly, we saw in the distance a strong and intense flash of white light, which followed a descending and vertical trajectory and which broke up in six seconds," the captain wrote in the report.

The flash of light contributes to the theory that an explosion is what brought down Flight 447, which was carrying 228 people from Rio de Janeiro to Paris.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/170335.asp

There was also reports of orange on the ocean from a TAM flight - that could be like TWA 800 and be some fuel burning.

Getting away from a bombing theory - I heard mention last night of the tail possibly being ripped from this plane. I've wondered about the failure possibilities of composite failure in these structures since the American Airlines crash in NYC Nov 2001. It was attibuted that the tail fell from this aircraft due to the copilot overcontrolling on the rutter when they encountered wake turbulence. To me that never sounded right that a trained airline pilot would do this on wake turbulence or that an aircraft design could be pushed to failure by this.

Only point to consider on OVER control issue is that according to my fighter pilot friend there are governors or stops on the flight controls that prevent over controlling inputs at any given airspeed. Such that excessive input say at cruise speed would cause a flight control surface to fail. Excellent response to a qualitative analysis of info provided by mass media thus far.

Now "Officials" try to explain what the pilots saw as flaming debris from a satellite re-entry into the atmosphere... at precisely the same time as the plane broke up? WOW! From link in previous post.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/170335.asp

So what about that flash of light that the pilots saw?

There are other explanations besides an explosion. With their 270-degree view of the world before them, air line pilots see a lot of strange things in the sky.

"There's plenty of things that you will see that you can't identify at first because you're so far away," said David Campbell, a Seattle-based air line pilot and spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association. "The sun interacts with the ocean in odd ways sometimes."

He gave an example from one of his flights into Cincinnati.

"There was this huge fireball just flying into the sky, and it looked like it flew right over the airport at our level and then it broke into pieces," he said. "Turns out it was satellite space junk re-entering the atmosphere."

Debris from space "will create an incredible amount of light ,and it's practically impossible, if you're just looking at it, to get a sense of how big it is, how far it is," Campbell said.

Could it be possible that you're the only person who doesn't know that the lemming mass suicide thing was contrived by Walt Disney in a movie?

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/world/europe/05plane.html?_r=3&hp&loc=interstitialskip

WASHINGTON — In the first hint that malfunctioning airspeed indicators might have played an important role in the crash of an Air France jet bound for Paris early this week, Airbus issued a warning on Thursday to all its customers to follow established procedures when pilots suspect the devices are not working right.

The message, approved by French investigators, said that the reminder had been sent “without prejudging the final outcome of the investigation,” but clearly it pointed to the possibility that mismanaging the plane’s speed had been one step in a cascade of on-board failures, leading to the crash northeast of Brazil on Monday and the death of all 228 people on board.

The message noted that “there was inconsistency between the different measured airspeeds” in the Airbus 330 that crashed, one of several error messages that were sent by the plane’s automatic systems to an Air France maintenance base.

The Brazilian military said early Thursday that it had recovered the first piece of floating debris from the plane, a structural support piece about eight feet long that might have come from the jet’s cargo hold. But on Thursday evening, the military said that information had been incorrect, and that the debris had probably come from a ship or another source. ...snip

more at the link

<http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/>

Wind sheer is common in violent thunderstorms. And the plane could have been vulnerable; according to an earlier report (which I don't have the link to right now), the plane had been in a wing "dinging" accident on the tarmac a couple months before - which could have put stress on the fittings holding the wing that was run into at low speed, especially if they weren't replaced because it wasn't suspected that there might have been damage induced into the metal structure itself. (I've worked in shipbuilding, and have had to learn how metal can be stressed and compromised during the welding processes)

Here's my armchair speculation -

Flying through the storm, heavy turbulence could have started excessive shaking - and tossing the plane (explaining the anecdotal frightened text messages from passengers). This stresses the already compromised fittings, which can start fracturing and splitting due to the jolts, causing electrical failures in the wiring going through the wing, and eventually fuselage damage as the wing flexes at a far greater rate and distance than it's designed to.
Even if there was no previous damage to the fittings or structure of the plane, a wind-sheer or rapid cyclonic activity within the storm could cause similar structural stress or damage to a wing, aileron, or rudder component.
At high altitude and high speeds on a fairly large plane, any small structural damage becomes catastrophic fairly quickly - easily within a half hour. The damaged wing can come off, the fuselage can sheer back as happened in that plane in Hawaii - where the pilot was able to slow the much smaller plane down and drop altitude enough to keep the plane from splitting apart while flying. Unlike the Hawaiian Air flight, due to the location, the storm, the size of the plane, the altitude and speed, the pilot couldn't slow down or drop altitude enough to keep the plane from splitting apart and falling into the ocean.

People who tend to jump on the idea that it could only be a bomb, that natural phenomena could never take down a plane in good working condition, have never flown through a really nasty thunderstorm with lightning, wind sheers, and sideways tornadoes before.
Back in 1982, I was on a C-141 MAC flight landing in Tinker AFB (Oklahoma), and we caught the leading edge of a storm like that coming down. Those who remember what an "E-ticket" ride meant - well, that was damn near a "K" ticket ride - "K" for "when are we going to be Killed?"
Damn near broke my arm, and I ended up with some nasty bruised ribs and a strained neck and back from that experience - the web "Jump" seating with lap belts along the fuselage does not keep you in your seat too well, but it was a better ride than the poor officers sitting in the two rows of five seats that had been bolted in for passengers; the last row came loose and bounced around into the row in front, giving the three officers in the front row some serious damage, and it almost bounced into the rest of us while we were touching down. If we hadn't landed, I don't know what would have happened to that plane.

Haele

Nice story and your insight is one more opinion where there has yet to be a definitive explanation where reasonable probabilities still reside in the "neighborhood" of suspected foul play. Wait and see... but 100mph updrafts freezing the air speed pitons is stretching things a bit as well.

They are all THEORIES right now.

What I don't get is why people are so viciously putting down the bomb theory????????

on landing or takeoff when they drive plane at low altitude in to the ground.

It is interesting that the plane did suffer earlier damage. That could certainly be a factor in a structural failure. I remember the crash of Japan Airlines Flight 123 which suffered a rear bulkhead failure after an improper repair was done. It had earlier smacked the underside of tail of plane on runway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123

I see right now they are leaning to icing of pitots that caused speed to be registered improperly. This has been a factor in past crashes.

No loose ends.

Because the plane isn't grounded? I think you grossly misunderestimate the power of lightening.

It isn't like the 110V coming into your house. It's more power than most entire power plants.

The shear magnitude of the power going through systems intended to deal with one hundred thousandths of that will cook.

You need to talk to an expert, rather than trying to act like one. Your own words indicate you're absolutely no expert.
GAC

However, it seems rash to rule out anything - including a bomb - until (or if?) all the information comes in.

Brazil is most likely downplaying the bomb possibility because, for one, the weather is such an obvious potential culprit, and two, it would cause great alarm.

By the way, I don't think you can rule out a bomb just because nobody claimed credit for it. If someone on the plane was targeted for murder or assassination, the perpetrator would be only too happy to have it go down in history as a weather-related crash.

the aircraft was not downed by lightning, if the aircraft was downed by lightning this would be infinitely more frightening than the oddball terrorist bringing down a plane once every 7 years...no planes would be able to fly in the south in the summer

if you have no experience in what you're talking about, fine, but when you don't know what you're talking about it doesn't seem QUITE fair to yell at the other poster for not knowing what he/she is talking about

believe it or not, engineers are aware of lightning storms and planes are designed to deal with the issue of being struck by lightning -- if they weren't a plane would be coming down virtually every day if not more often spring through summer

i would say that virtually all of us who are frequent flyers have been on an airliner hit by lightning, yeah, it's "interesting" but of course it does not wipe out the plane's electrical system, they have redundancies