I don't have my head in the sand, see my post above. There was also a report yesterday of a supposed bomb theat against Air France somewhere in South America. I didn't read the story, and I don't know whether it's what we might call a "true rumor", but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the story was true.

Anything is a possibility at this point and until proven otherwise, I would think a bomb or some explosive event could have happened. But a weather related breakup is not improbable. Thirty odd years ago, I once saw the weather go from clear to a line super cells with a small tornado on the ground in less than twenty minutes. I was caught outside with my father (we were playing a round of golf) and watched the tornado pass by toppling every tree in its path less than 50 yards away. No one on the course was hurt, but all of us were stunned to see that happen on a fair, sunny day with no unsettled weather in the forecast. It certainly could be possible for a line of violent storms to have come up virtually out of nothing or out of a smaller squall that would seem safe on Radar. Radar can't always predict what's coming. And if the aircraft was caught in a situation where it was stressed beyond its limits a non explosive breakup could have scattered the wreckage over a wide area. And that also could explain how an automated system managed to report something was wrong. Given the number of flights each year, sooner or later an accident will happen due to a cause that has never been seen before. But a bomb is a pretty distinct possibility. As for a specific threat made against the flight or a flight out of Brazil, I've been informed a few times flying home from Europe that threats were made against my flights, and given the option to take another flight. I don't know if airlines are still as generous with such information but it is not uncommon for such threats to happen. Pathetic, but not uncommon.Regards,JohnEdit: This is a very interesting article...http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1902421,00.html

Edit: This is a very interesting article...http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1902421,00.html

I was aware of the Qantas flight 72.......... effectively the speculation brought ahead by the author of that article is not unworth of consideration........Impressive is to learn that the 'potentially failing' ADIRUs are installed on the 330 and 340 series only.........An uncommanded dive while the aircraft was passing through a severe turbulence may effectively have caused a sudden structural failure, giving no time and no chances to the crew to send any mayday.......P.S.: I was the one saying in an earlier post here, that I was refusing to consider the a/c and its people lost until the evidence of that........now all that I can say isMay them all R.I.P.

Think thouroughly about this guys. If there was a bomb onboard, the aircraft wouldn't have been able to send an automated message, because the explosion would happen so fast and all part of the raido system and aircraft would be broken up and would not function, so that kind of rules out an explosion. I'm thinking if there was high wind shear it could cause a stall... a flat stall, or the pilot could have attempted to ditch it in the ocean, but failed. I also heard about the bomb threat on the news today, and they said Air France denounced it as a fake, or something like that, AND they also said that pilot wasn't in command when the even happened I think. So if the captain wasn't flying or was not onboard the flight deck, and all of sudden there was a big shift or something like that, it could have caused people onboard to go unconscious, (Like the Quantas flight 72) What a coincidence, I am now seeing the mention of the flight above. Great minds think alike ;) Wow. I just checked and the Qantas flight was an A330-300, and I remember a webiste mentioning the instant descent was so fast, someone hit there head on the roof of the cabin and died. :(http://kdka.com/national/air.france.jet.2.1029208.html

That does not necessarily follow at all. There are lots of different types and sizes of bombs, and there is no 'guideboook to instantly blowing up an A330' for a potential bomber to consult.If a bomb is put on board an aircraft in the traditional fashion of placing it in the luggage, then there is no way to guarantee what hold it goes in, nor what angle it is stored at, nor what it is next to that might deflect the blast away and outwards through the skin. Explosives can malfunction and partially detonate, or be of an incendiary rather than explosive type. So until there is definite proof of it being something otherwise, then it is a possibility.To compare it to the 'Lockerbie' bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 Clipper Maid of the Seas, it is remarkable what parts can survive an explosion. One stewardess from that flight was actually still alive when found in the wreckage, but sadly died very soon after being located, so it is equally possible that if a fragile human being can survive such trauma for even a limited amount of time, then an electrical item such as a radio could also presumably do so, and thus transmit a message.I'd speculate it was some sort of turbulence-induced structural failure myself, as opposed to a bomb, but that is nothing more than a guess. Nothing can really be ruled out at this point.Al

Think thouroughly about this guys. If there was a bomb onboard, the aircraft wouldn't have been able to send an automated message, because the explosion would happen so fast and all part of the raido system and aircraft would be broken up and would not function, so that kind of rules out an explosion.

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the automated message was transmitted at the same time as the disaster.Further, many aircraft are fitted with an Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS). This is a datalink system that enables ground stations (airports, aircraft maintenance bases, etc.) and commercial aircraft to communicate routine messages about the status of the aircraft and its systems for maintenance purposes. An objective is to enable maintance staff to be aware of faults before the aircraft arrives and be ready to deal with them quickly. If the message transmitted by the Air France aircraft was one of those then it's quite likely that it had nothing at all to do with the disaster.

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the automated message was transmitted at the same time as the disaster.Further, many aircraft are fitted with an Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS). This is a datalink system that enables ground stations (airports, aircraft maintenance bases, etc.) and commercial aircraft to communicate routine messages about the status of the aircraft and its systems for maintenance purposes. An objective is to enable maintance staff to be aware of faults before the aircraft arrives and be ready to deal with them quickly. If the message transmitted by the Air France aircraft was one of those then it's quite likely that it had nothing at all to do with the disaster.

Yes I know what ACARS is, and they said before the incident they said that an automated message sent from the computer was sent saying that there was an Electrical Failure and Cabin Depressurization...

Last I checked an A330 or any modern jet flies way above weather. Major storms whose tops reach altitudes of +34,000FT (which would have been where this aircraft was 3hrs into the flight) would have been accounted for long before the aircraft left the ground. There's no way this flight would have been cleared to fly so close to such massive storms with the technology we have today. Now lighting on the other hand has been known to do strange things so I wouldn't rule that out but a bomb is very plausible.We all won't know anything until when and if the boxes are found with the flight data. But if this was weather related some meteorologist is going to have his head served on a platter clearing flights to fly so closely to dangerous high altitude weather. We are not living in the age of DC3's and/or B314 Clippers. Howard Hughes with his Constellation requirements for TWA forged the way for high altitude aircraft for a reason, to stay above weather. Weather along a flight route is accounted for well before the plane leaves the ground. I wouldn't be surprised is foul play is at work here. Nothing else makes since in how fast this happened with no room for the pilots to make a 'mayday' call. Systems don't just fail all at once especially on airliners. Even Swiss Air was able to make calls as each electrical system failed. Structural failure still would give room for a 'mayday' call unless we're talking about much older jetliners where total structure failer is possible due to age (TWA flight 800 but even that incident is not conclusive). This was a newer plane monitored electronically by AirFrance every step of the way. Annuals and systems checks are constantly done throughout the year. This one is very suspicious and I hope the data is found so we all know for sure what happened....

I'm with Chock -- regarding the unpredictability of the results of small explosions on board a large aircraft.In the Lockerbie incident the bomb was a mere six ounces of Semtex in a suitcase in a baggage cart in the forward left side of the cargo bays. It was a near thing that the airframe was destroyed. Ordinarily a small bomb like that might be expected to blow a large hole in the fuselage, but Boeing aircraft are built tough and 747s have survived similar damage.What made the difference in this case was that the shock waves from the explosion managed to run along both sides of a circular fuselage former. When they met again on the other side of the former, that side blew out as well. The explosion pitched the airframe up sharply but 747s have survived things like that, too.No, what brought the aircraft down was the fact that when the nose pitched up, the forward cabin structure was already in a weakened state, and the nose simply flipped up and back because of the dynamic air pressure. You can see the evidence in the form of the wires and cables trailing behind the nose in the famous pictures of the site where the cockpit came down.So explosions can do bizzare things depending on whether, how and where shock waves reflect and intersect. Intersecting reflected shock waves can actually do more damage than the primary shocks. To see this you have only to consider that the destructive power of A-bombs is increased by setting them off at a sufficiently low altitude that the primary and reflected shocks will join to form a "Mach stem", effectively doubling the shattering power of the weapon. (I didn't mention hydrogen bombs because they are primarily incendiary weapons with the result fires causing vastly more damage than their shock waves do.) (Unless you happen to be sitting in a missile silo that is the target of an H-bomb warhead.)

HelloPick this link from flightsim forums ..http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447Very interesting wheater analysis made by a professional .. about the wheater on AF447 route ... and some good comments also...Regards.

......I didn't mention hydrogen bombs because they are primarily incendiary weapons with the result fires causing vastly more damage than their shock waves do.) (Unless you happen to be sitting in a missile silo that is the target of an H-bomb warhead.)

This is going off topic, but....A typical hydrogen bomb can send shock waves out dozens of miles, well beyond that of a fission only weapon. The Tsar Bomba detonated in Russia caused blast damage over 600 miles from ground zero and broke windows in Sweden and Finland. No argument that a hydrogen bomb generates more heat energy than a fission only weapon, but also more blast energy as well. In fact by design hydrogen bombs use fissile material and in large weapons, up to half the yield comes from the final stage of fissioning. The purpose of the fusion reaction is to encourage fission in material normally not subject to it by bombarding the material with neutrons. -John

Yes I know what ACARS is, and they said before the incident they said that an automated message sent from the computer was sent saying that there was an Electrical Failure and Cabin Depressurization...

I understand that there was a series of ACARs messages:"Over a time span of four minutes, starting at 02:10 UTC, a series of ACARS messages were sent -automatically- from the plane. The first message indicated the disconnection of the autopilot followed and the airplane went into 'alternate law' flight control mode. This happens when multiple failures of redundant systems occur. From 02:11 to 02:13, multiple faults regarding ADIRU (Air Data and Inertial Reference Unit) and ISIS (Integrated Standby Intsruments System) were reported. Then on 02:13 the system reported failures of PRIM 1, the primary flight control computers that receive inputs from the ADIRU and SEC 1 (secondary flight control computers). The last message at 02:14 was a 'Cabin vertical speed' advisory."http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20090601-0These suggest to me that something went wrong at 02:10 and got progressively worse until 02:14. This leads me to think that an explosion (from whatever cause) followed by fire and possibly structural breakup can't be ruled out

A typical hydrogen bomb can send shock waves out dozens of miles ...

That's true, though in the case of even the Tsar Bomba, 4000xHiroshima, we're talking about a blast radius scaled up from 1.5 miles to 25 miles, not 50 miles or whatever.Now let me be more explicit: Blast damage falls off as the cube root of the distance from the explosion point, while radiation damage falls off as the square root. Given that thermonuclear weapon yield is mostly radiational to begin with, at a large distance the weapon effects therefore will be mostly thermal.A thermonuclear weapon directed against a missile silo would be guided to as nearly a direct hit as possible, and if it's one of ours the warhead will be a penetrator. In this case all we care about is the shockwave.In contrast, if you want to take out a city you will do a detonation at a high enough altitude to bathe the entire city plus suburbs in radiation. Yes, there will be severe blast effects, but nobody has deliverable warheads of the cited 60-80 megaton yield of the Tsar Bomba. What we have instead are MIRVed vehicles with ten miniaturized thermonuclear warheads, each of roughly 10MT yield. We do this exactly because we want to maximize radiational damage by sprinkling the target area with smaller warheads rather than less efficiently setting off a single much larger device at a single location.Furthermore, the altitude of a typical city-busting burst will be sufficiently high as to prevent the Mach Stem effect from forming. Thus to maximize blast damage around Ground Zero the weapon would have to be detonated at a relatively low altitude, effectively reducing the radius of radiational damage.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAnyway, my main point has to do with the Mach Stem effect, which is an example of intersecting shockwaves. In the case of Lockerbie, the intersecting shockwaves on the far side of the airframe had more effect on fuselage structural integrity than did the blowing out of the baggage compartment at the site of the explosion. Furthermore, the ribbed fuselage former acted as a waveguide, propagating the shockwaves to the far side with only a small dimunition of their original strength.So that's the answer to the question, How could six ounces of Semtex bring down a 747? In other words, in this case the airframe was destroyed but if the bomb had been in a slightly different position in the cargo hold, the airframe might well have survived the explosion.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNo, I'm not an expert on this stuff. It's simply that I read the Lockerbie accident report very carefully, and I read the material on Cary Sublette's nuclear weapons website very carefully. Is my memory perfect? Far from it. Am I an accident investigator? By no means.

Blast effects are very unpredictable. The British Army operates a firing range for main battle tanks with 120mm guns. It pays compensation for structural damage to some buildings upto 3km away from the firing point. Yet there are places about 1km away where the guns can't be heard.

A question. Would an airliner break up into many multiple parts in a weather related structural failure? I would tend to think that the wings or the other extended control surfaces would come off first if the stresses are severe enough and then the fuselage would come down in relatively one piece, only to break up on impact with the water. I guess I'm not sure how well an airliner's main body would hold up in severe weather turbulence and sudden airflow direction changes after a total wing failure.