Marks on the Airbus door. Do they show shrapnel damage?

President Sisi of Egypt arrived in London yesterday – just in time for the 409th anniversary of Britain's most famous bomb plot. Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn denounced his visit and demonstrators angered at the regime's human rights abuses gathered outside government offices in Whitehall.

But as red carpets were being rolled out for yet another visiting Arab autocrat, events took a dramatically different turn. The British government suspended all flights to and from Sharm el-Sheikh airport and it now appears that Sisi could be given a dressing-down over what he claims is his greatest strength: security.

Announcing the suspension of flights, which has reportedly stranded 20,000 holidaymakers, the British government 
said there was "a significant possibility" the Airbus that crashed over the Sinai on Saturday was brought down "by an explosive device on board the aircraft".

If a bomb did cause the crash, the only realistic possibility is that it was smuggled on to the plane at Sharm el-Sheikh – the starting point of its last fateful journey.

It is now generally established that the Airbus broke up in flight, probably because of some kind of explosion, though not necessarily one caused by a bomb. Yesterday, for example, Egyptian sources were touting the idea of an engine explosion. Another possibility is explosive decompression, possibly resulting from an earlier accident weakening the aircraft's tail.

The tail does appear to have broken off first, since a large part of it was found several kilometres away from the main crash site. Unlike much of the wreckage, it shows no signs of fire or smoke damage. However, an interior panel on a door adjacent to the tail shows marks which some are interpreting as shrapnel damage.

The tail issue has been discussed at great length, by airline professionals and others, on the PPRuNe website in a thread which now has more than 1,000 posts.

So far, though, hard evidence of a bomb is still lacking. The Egyptians, who have been checking the remains for traces of explosives, have either found nothing yet or are not saying. They do, of course, have a vested interest in playing down the bomb theory.

According to the British government, the suspension of flights was "a precautionary measure" to allow time for experts to travel to Sharm and "make an assessment of the security arrangements in place at the airport". While this might be nothing more than a precaution it could equally reflect serious doubts about security in Sharm. 

British fears about a bomb in the Airbus also seem to have been heightened by intelligence assessments from the United States. In briefings for journalists, American officials have been highlighting the bomb theory while insisting that they haven't reached any definite conclusions and have not had access to forensic evidence from the crash investigators. One US official suggested to CNN that someone at Sharm airport had helped to smuggle a bomb on board:

"This airport has lax security. It is known for that," the official said. "But there is intelligence suggesting an assist from someone at the airport."

According to CNN, the American intelligence assessments are based on monitoring the internal communications of ISIS (the most obvious suspect if it does turn out to have been a bomb attack).

A few hours after the crash a video appeared on the internet, purportedly from ISIS, which suggested the plane had been shot down. It showed a fireball exploding near an aircraft's tail, followed by a trail of smoke. However, ISIS supporters in Egypt are believed not to have weapons capable of shooting down a plane at 30,000ft and the lack of fire damage on the crashed Airbus's tail probably means it was not the aircraft shown in the video.

Nevertheless, ISIS continues to claim responsibility for the crash. But why give the impression that the plane was shot down if the actual cause was a bomb on board? One possibility is that the apparent  "shooting down" video was a false trail to divert attention from the real culprit in Sharm airport. On the other hand, the claims might just be a cynical attempt to make propaganda out of a tragedy which ISIS had nothing to do with.

Either way, we shall have to wait a bit longer for a definitive answer.
 
   
Posted by Brian Whitaker
Thursday, 5 November 2015