Clues about the fate of Airbus A321 have mounted quickly over the
last few days, pointing to the conclusion that the Russian plane was
brought down by a bomb.
The balance tipped towards terrorist action when Russia, which had urged the UK against jumping to premature judgments, finally bowed and suspended all Russian flights to and from Egypt.
The move was in response to a series of developments since Tuesday, when it was revealed that US satellite imagery had picked up a heat flash before the plane went down.
British government sources reported “chatter” picked up by surveillance agencies, hinting that a bomb may have been involved. There was alarm over the extent of lax security at Sharm el-Sheikh airport and on Friday, French media reported that sources close to the investigation were saying evidence on the black boxes pointed towards an attack.
The “chatter” was picked up by one of the most important of the overseas listening stations run by Britain’s surveillance agency GCHQ at Mount Troodos, in Cyprus. From that listening post, the British can pick up communications as far away as Beijing but the interest this time was nearer at hand, information heard linking the crash to Islamic State and a bomb.
It is convenient this should happen in the week that a draft bill enshrining and expanding the powers of GCHQ is published, but it seems to be what happened. It was a coup for GCHQ, helping to sway not only David Cameron but Barack Obama and, on Friday, the Russians.
Accident investigators said the desert location of the crash had made it relatively easy to quickly find debris from the plane. The Egyptian-led forensic team, which includes investigators from France and Ireland, is also fortunate that the back of the fuselage was not as badly burned as the rest of the plane.
Veteran investigators said there were likely to be plenty of clues to help establish the cause. The key evidence could turn out to be a blast hole with tightly curled edges, or shrapnel on seat cushions or on the bodies, which should be x-rayed before burial. Or it might be metal circuits that melted and reformed, swabs of the metal tested for traces of explosive, or the sound of an explosion caught on the flight recorder.
The fear of investigators is always that the flight recorder has been damaged or that an explosion would cut the electrical supply in the seconds the sound of explosion travelled from the the rear of a plane to the cockpit, leaving silence. But French TV station France 2 suggested this was not the case, and quoted an investigator saying that an explosion could be heard. The investigator added that the explosion was not consistent with engine failure.
The length of time that the team has taken so far to reach a conclusion is not unusual, according to Tony Cable, an investigator with Accident and Failure Technical Analysis, who has been involved with examining more than 350 crashes, including Lockerbie in 1988.
“Every accident inquiry is unique,” he said, adding that it was not possible to put a timeframe on each investigation. “It is a question of looking at it and finding evidence, to find proof positive that it was an explosive.” He said the fact that the rear end of the fuselage cleanly separated from the rest of the plane pointed towards either corrosion or an explosive device.
A British security source said a bomb could have been placed in the rear luggage compartment by a member of the airport staff motivated by money or ideology. Isis has claimed responsibility. The British government’s insistence that British passengers return home without luggage in the hold lends credence to fears that a bomb was placed in the hold of the Russian plane.
If it was a member of staff, he or she might be hard to identify if they opt to remain silent. But if a member of staff has gone missing this week, that could point to guilt or they could already be held in an Egyptian jail being interrogated. Egyptian investigators are said to be focusing attention on baggage handlers.
The Daily Mail reported that British spies were to interrogate the baggage handlers. However, given there is no direct British involvement in the crash, it seems unlikely that the Egyptians would allow this, and a British government source categorically denied it.
The balance tipped towards terrorist action when Russia, which had urged the UK against jumping to premature judgments, finally bowed and suspended all Russian flights to and from Egypt.
The move was in response to a series of developments since Tuesday, when it was revealed that US satellite imagery had picked up a heat flash before the plane went down.
British government sources reported “chatter” picked up by surveillance agencies, hinting that a bomb may have been involved. There was alarm over the extent of lax security at Sharm el-Sheikh airport and on Friday, French media reported that sources close to the investigation were saying evidence on the black boxes pointed towards an attack.
The “chatter” was picked up by one of the most important of the overseas listening stations run by Britain’s surveillance agency GCHQ at Mount Troodos, in Cyprus. From that listening post, the British can pick up communications as far away as Beijing but the interest this time was nearer at hand, information heard linking the crash to Islamic State and a bomb.
It is convenient this should happen in the week that a draft bill enshrining and expanding the powers of GCHQ is published, but it seems to be what happened. It was a coup for GCHQ, helping to sway not only David Cameron but Barack Obama and, on Friday, the Russians.
Accident investigators said the desert location of the crash had made it relatively easy to quickly find debris from the plane. The Egyptian-led forensic team, which includes investigators from France and Ireland, is also fortunate that the back of the fuselage was not as badly burned as the rest of the plane.
Veteran investigators said there were likely to be plenty of clues to help establish the cause. The key evidence could turn out to be a blast hole with tightly curled edges, or shrapnel on seat cushions or on the bodies, which should be x-rayed before burial. Or it might be metal circuits that melted and reformed, swabs of the metal tested for traces of explosive, or the sound of an explosion caught on the flight recorder.
The fear of investigators is always that the flight recorder has been damaged or that an explosion would cut the electrical supply in the seconds the sound of explosion travelled from the the rear of a plane to the cockpit, leaving silence. But French TV station France 2 suggested this was not the case, and quoted an investigator saying that an explosion could be heard. The investigator added that the explosion was not consistent with engine failure.
The length of time that the team has taken so far to reach a conclusion is not unusual, according to Tony Cable, an investigator with Accident and Failure Technical Analysis, who has been involved with examining more than 350 crashes, including Lockerbie in 1988.
“Every accident inquiry is unique,” he said, adding that it was not possible to put a timeframe on each investigation. “It is a question of looking at it and finding evidence, to find proof positive that it was an explosive.” He said the fact that the rear end of the fuselage cleanly separated from the rest of the plane pointed towards either corrosion or an explosive device.
A British security source said a bomb could have been placed in the rear luggage compartment by a member of the airport staff motivated by money or ideology. Isis has claimed responsibility. The British government’s insistence that British passengers return home without luggage in the hold lends credence to fears that a bomb was placed in the hold of the Russian plane.
If it was a member of staff, he or she might be hard to identify if they opt to remain silent. But if a member of staff has gone missing this week, that could point to guilt or they could already be held in an Egyptian jail being interrogated. Egyptian investigators are said to be focusing attention on baggage handlers.
The Daily Mail reported that British spies were to interrogate the baggage handlers. However, given there is no direct British involvement in the crash, it seems unlikely that the Egyptians would allow this, and a British government source categorically denied it.
No comments:
Post a Comment