Uh oh: Terrorist names on doomed Air France passenger list?

posted at 11:30 am on June 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The tragic crash of an Air France flight into the Atlantic Ocean could turn out to be more than just an accident.  According to Sky News, as reported by Fox, French investigators say that two names on the passenger manifest match a list of radical Muslims considered dangerous to French security.  The revelation puts terrorism on the list of causes of the mysterious deaths of oveer 220 people (via Brian Faughnan’s Twitter feed):

Two passengers with names linked to Islamic terrorism were on board the Air France flight that crashed in the Atlantic Ocean, killing all 228 on board, it has emerged.

French secret servicemen established the connection while working through the list of those who boarded the doomed Airbus in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on May 31.

Agents are now trying to establish dates of birth for the two dead passengers, and family connections.

There is a possibility that the name similarities are simply a “macabre coincidence,” the source added, but the revelation is still being “taken very seriously.”

The Paris-based L’Express quotes a French security official who calls this development “highly significant.”  It certainly seems to make more sense than the previous hypotheses, that a lightning strike disabled the plane’s computers, which caused the pilots to fly directly into a massive turbulence.  That explanation was plausible, but deemed very unusual.  That hasn’t happened in decades to large commercial aircraft, although the particular Airbus might have had some vulnerabilities along these lines.

Also, one must keep in mind that France has always been suspected of entering this investigation with a particular mission: to keep the heat off of Airbus.  The aircraft manufacturer would lose billions if an investigation put the airplane itself at fault, in lost sales and retrofitting of the existing global Airbus fleet.  They wouldn’t falsify records to reach that conclusion, but they may show more enthusiasm for certain leads over another — including leaks to French media about them, regardless of their worth.

One point that neither Fox nor Sky News notes is that no terrorist group has yet taken responsibility for the crash.  Most of the time, they show little reluctance in making those claims; after all, the point for them is to terrorize people, and if they don’t take credit, people won’t react in the way they hope from the attack.  Al-Qaeda could use the boost in credibility, after having a number of its operations abroad thwarted by Western security.

There are still plenty of reasons to remain skeptical of all the publicly-floated hypotheses, especially since the flight had indicated some computer problems before the crash.  If these two names indicate that known terrorist risks were on the plane, though, one has to wonder how they slipped past security to get aboard, and whether they caused the crash.

Update: Added a question mark to the headline for better clarity.  Also, several people note in the comments that AQ hasn’t usually claimed credit immediately for their attacks, such as in Madrid and elsewhere, which is a good point.  I left out an icing hypothesis on the crash; be sure to read the comments.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I haven’t seen a reference to black boxes yet. The crash location is probably deep water, but I’m surprised at no mention of them. Do they not put them in Airbuses?

Dusty on June 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM

The real question is how these two got on the plane (not to mention how they got on a plane to get to Brazil in the first place).

ProfessorMiao on June 10, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Thanks for the getting the info. I agree with you here. If their names popped up now, why didn’t they prior to boarding the flight? Obviously, they didn’t use an alias if their names were on the manifest.

conservative pilgrim on June 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM

It’s human nature to want to make sense of disasters like this. This leads to speculation with little evidence. That’s to be expected. I can only hope enough pieces of the craft are found to determine the true cause of the crash. This is important. If it’s a defect in the plane, we need to know. If it’s a terrorist act, we need to know.
This won’t quell the conspiracy theories, but no amount of evidence ever does.

SKYFOX on June 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Maybe I’ve overlooked any coverage of this angle … but has anyone come forward with any phone calls, text messages, e-mails that any of the passengers were engaged in before the accident took place? Usually you can depend on seeing a side story regarding someone’s significant other having called or e-mailed enroute. Could be due to the passengers being primarily Brazilian and French those stories would appear in their respective presses and not ours. Just seems odd there’s no mention of any passenger contact in flight. Just wondering.

Monkeybrains220 on June 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Ed
Don’t wonder about how they got on.

Airline security is a joke.

I remember my pop being furious at the ridiculous inspection of HIM before he would fly a plane out of laguardia

All while unsavory looking fellow walked right by

blatantblue on June 10, 2009 at 12:30 PM

I forgot to add it was months after 9/11

Airline sec is a JOKE

Cargo screening is a JOKE

blatantblue on June 10, 2009 at 12:31 PM

I think everyone will have to wait patiently for the full investigation to take place which will take ages. The plane has an excellent safety record but one or two faults are all it takes to bring something down but clearly something catastrophic took place over the ocean.

lexhamfox on June 10, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Dusty on June 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM

A French nuclear sub is looking for their signals at the moment, I believe.

The boxes will send out signals for about thirty days before going silent.

OldEnglish on June 10, 2009 at 12:33 PM

I haven’t seen a reference to black boxes yet. The crash location is probably deep water, but I’m surprised at no mention of them. Do they not put them in Airbuses?

They’ve only just begun to search for them.

“A French nuclear submarine has arrived at the scene of the Air France crash in the ocean off Brazil to start searching for the flight’s data recorders.”

aengus on June 10, 2009 at 12:35 PM

I haven’t seen a reference to black boxes yet.

The crash location is probably deep water, but I’m surprised at no mention of them. Do they not put them in Airbuses?

Dusty on June 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Yes, the plane did have them. There is currently hi-tech equipment, including a submarine, headed to the recovery site. The black boxes have “pingers” that send out signals to aid in their recovery, but the batteries for the pingers only last for 30 days.

It would take a deep-ocean submersib;e like the one that found the Titanic to recover those things.

Del Dolemonte on June 10, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Maybe I’ve overlooked any coverage of this angle … but has anyone come forward with any phone calls, text messages, e-mails that any of the passengers were engaged in before the accident took place? .

Monkeybrains220 on June 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM

According to news reports some of the passengers did send text messages. However I’ve not heard if this was confirmed, as the accounts came from disparate sources.

Del Dolemonte on June 10, 2009 at 12:39 PM

USN has lent two sensitive hydrophone arrays that could hear the pings to a depth of 20,000′.

As to how the terrorists could bring down the airliner, look up how the Chechnyan women brought down the Aeroflot flight.

rayra on June 10, 2009 at 12:42 PM

The first second that I heard of this disaster, I knew it was terrorism with the usual ridiculous cover ups.
.
Airplanes don’t simply break apart from weather.
.
I’m amazed that they admit the possibility even now.

FactsofLife on June 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Have they checked the passengers list for Pro-Lifers, Anti-Illegal Immigration types, or Bible Clingers? It could have even been a couple of *gasp* Constitutionalists! You just can’t trust the bastages;)

Laura in Maryland on June 10, 2009 at 12:49 PM

I’ll stick with icing for now. It’s a known vulnerability, and one that has occurred (with non-fatal outcomes) on similarly-equiped A330’s in this type of weather in this region. It is also a single causative event that could plausiby trigger the entire failure sequence as we understand it at this time.

NeighborhoodCatLady on June 10, 2009 at 12:22 PM

I have the same questions based on the same “known” sensor problem.

I wonder what the reaction of the autopilot is when that sensor experiences icing. Due to the erroneous airspeed readings would there be automatic attempts by the computer to increase or decrease power settings, leading to either an overspeed condition or a stall? (What do our HA-resident pilots know about this systems autopilot and it’s reaction.)

I also wonder about a lightening strike. Most of the time the metal skin of the plane will disappate the electrical pulse. But how do the new composite materials (which I believe have a high carbon content) work in directing, redirecting, or concentrating the electrical energy? Also, what is their melting point and what is their failure index at high temperatures?

Still looks to me, based on the error messages emanating from that flight, like the indications of a cascading series of failures due to an airframe problem.

Yoop on June 10, 2009 at 12:52 PM

On the other hand, Brazilian army – which is responsible for the search on the crush site – rejected terrorism right away, and for the good reason: they are also responsible for the security in the airports and if terrorism is the case, people will be scared to travel to Brazil. Their biggest argument is very lame and even ridiculous: an oil spill in the ocean means no explosion onboard, means no terrorism. But terrorism doesn’t have to include an explosion (remember 9/11, for crying out loud?)! And even if it did happen, local explosion can cause damage big enough in the given circumstances to send the plane to the ocean without blowing up the plane. But now it’s another proof that Brazilian army is just trying to cover their asses and not to search for the truth.
CDeb – my deepest condolences to you and your family.

ShawarmaWife on June 10, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Still looks to me, based on the error messages emanating from that flight, like the indications of a cascading series of failures due to an airframe problem.
.
Yoop on June 10, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Yeah. An airframe problem induced by a bomb.

FactsofLife on June 10, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Still looks to me, based on the error messages emanating from that flight, like the indications of a cascading series of failures due to an airframe problem.

Yoop on June 10, 2009 at 12:52 PM

I agree. The source of the airframe problem could be extreme turbulence, or a wee bomb just big enough to lead to rapid depressurization.

ProfessorMiao on June 10, 2009 at 1:08 PM

“Hey – our security sucks, but our maintenace is great! Come fly Air France!”

I don’t think I would try to “cover” for my company by claiming that known terrorists were able to get onboard the plane.

FuriousAmerican on June 10, 2009 at 1:09 PM

The suggestions of a cover-up sound like conspiracy theorists salivating at the prospect of another round of immense silliness.

The most likely explanation for why Air France said there is no evidence of an attack is because, so far, there has been no such evidence.

There are several reasons why AF447 might have come down and so far all of them are improbable. Amongst the unlikely causes are:

(*) Pilot suicide.
(*) Pilot air-rage.
(*) An encounter with a small lump of incoming space debris.
(*) Airframe fatigue failure.
(*) Equipment failure, as per Air Quantas oxygen bottle.
(*) Bad people with explosives or other ‘weapons’.
(*) Freak weather conditions.
(*) Pilot error due to bad speed measurements.

Out of all of these unlikely possibilities, none is yet convincingly supported by evidence but the last one has the most supporting evidence.

YiZhangZhe on June 10, 2009 at 1:33 PM

An airline or immigration worker probably checked the passports during departure, but we don’t know how much information was recorded. There are several reasons why passports might get checked, with one being simply a courtesy by the airline to point out to people if they seem to not have an entry visa for a country which requires one. A security or legal check might record more details, but could get filed separately from the airline’s passenger list. Whatever happened at boarding, this report indicates difficulty in finding details.

HotWeaver on June 10, 2009 at 1:40 PM

According to Sky News, as reported by Fox, French investigators say that two names on the passenger manifest match a list of radical Muslims considered dangerous to French security.

If that is so then why were they allowed to board the plane? Because it left from Brazil and the French and Brazilians were not speaking to each other?

MB4 on June 10, 2009 at 1:46 PM

(*) Pilot error due to bad speed measurements.

Out of all of these unlikely possibilities, none is yet convincingly supported by evidence but the last one has the most supporting evidence.

YiZhangZhe on June 10, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Bad speed measurements are a technical problem, not pilot error.

ProfessorMiao on June 10, 2009 at 1:55 PM

I wonder what the reaction of the autopilot is when that sensor experiences icing. Due to the erroneous airspeed readings would there be automatic attempts by the computer to increase or decrease power settings, leading to either an overspeed condition or a stall? (What do our HA-resident pilots know about this systems autopilot and it’s reaction.)

As I understand it, with multiple erroneous airspeed signals simultaneously, the autopilot probably shut itself off and turned control over to the pilot. This is in the messages from the aircraft, except that we don’t know whether it was the pilot or the autopilot that turned the autopilot off. The plane was definitely on manual control (or some mix of automated and manual control).

I also wonder about a lightening strike. Most of the time the metal skin of the plane will disappate the electrical pulse. But how do the new composite materials (which I believe have a high carbon content) work in directing, redirecting, or concentrating the electrical energy? Also, what is their melting point and what is their failure index at high temperatures?

The A330 is a metal body, as are all Airbuses. The Boeing 787 will be the first all-carbon skin. The carbon fiber parts do have a metal mesh in their outer layers to work as part of the lightening shielding.

Still looks to me, based on the error messages emanating from that flight, like the indications of a cascading series of failures due to an airframe problem.

With that much turbulence, the aircraft is hard to fly, and there’s a very narrow range of stable airspeeds. Too slow, and you stall. Too fast, and the airframe can fail. It’s a guess at this point, but it seems reasonable that with the pitot tubes icing up and the autopilot off, the pilot couldn’t maintain a correct airspeed, may have gone too fast for flight conditions, and the combination of airspeed and turbulence caused the airframe failure.

NeighborhoodCatLady on June 10, 2009 at 1:55 PM

It’s conceivable–as I recall, Pan Am flight 103 was intended to come down over the Atlantic, and only fell on Lockerbie due to a malfunction (or miscalculation) of the bombs’ altimeter fuse. However, I would note that an act of mass murder that looks like an accident isn’t a very effective form of terrorism. The whole political point of terrorism is for it to be known to the world that a conscious act of mass murder was committed. You can either do this the way Al Qaeda does, by launching attacks that are self-evidently intentional, or you have to at least claim responsibility for what’s happened. Since there’s no smoking gun here, and nobody has claimed responsibility, I’m still inclined to believe we’re looking at an accident. The alternative would only be a very poor and ineffective–albeit still costly in human terms–attempt at terrorism.

Blacklake on June 10, 2009 at 2:00 PM

I should add that the A330 does have a lot of carbon fiber parts, including most or all of the control surfaces. But the rest of the aircraft skin is metal.

NeighborhoodCatLady on June 10, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Since this plane was fly-by-wire and highly computerized one wonders if the manufacturer has reexamined the code that controls such planes. Was there any opportunity for code to be introduced into the systems after installation? Was any component ever exposed to the Internet even indirectly? Who manufactured the computer memory and other code bearing components?

Mason on June 10, 2009 at 2:11 PM

… I would note that an act of mass murder that looks like an accident isn’t a very effective form of terrorism. The whole political point of terrorism is for it to be known to the world that a conscious act of mass murder was committed.

Blacklake on June 10, 2009 at 2:00 PM

That seems reasonable, but politics may be irrelevent: In the headlines thread on this same information, commenter Rebar offered the an alternative possible motivation for violence that would apply if the perpatrators happened to be Muslims:

Terror is a desired byproduct, not the primary goal, of the jihad. The goal is to get to paradise by killing and/or being killed advancing islam by striking at the infidel.

Rebar on June 10, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Also, somebody with a similar that mindset who believed themselves to have committed some grevious sin might decide that the only certain way to obtain a pardon from their deity was to visit the deity in person, along with the sacrifice of a few dozen infidels.

The point being that certain ideologies could conceivably suggest more than one reason for killing people; politics might not be any part of it.

YiZhangZhe on June 10, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Mason on June 10, 2009 at 2:11 PM

I am not in a position to rule anything out but, for everybody’s peace of mind it might be worth pointing out that the methods used to software for aerospace control are far more stringent than than the methods used to develop the software used on a PC.

Comparing the two is like comparing the design processes for a modern car with the design processes for a push-powered go-cart built in a garage by two twelve year olds at the weekend.

YiZhangZhe on June 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Since people write and test software, that doesn’t make me better.

corona on June 10, 2009 at 2:52 PM

-> feel better (proving my own point!)

corona on June 10, 2009 at 2:52 PM

[OldEnglish on June 10, 2009 at 12:33 PM]

[Del Dolemonte on June 10, 2009 at 12:35 PM]

Thanks for the heads up.

Dusty on June 10, 2009 at 2:53 PM

I travel back and forth for vacation purposes from US to Brazil at least 3-4 times a year. In Brazil airports even when boarding a US based airline flight, no shoe removal, no computer out of the bag. Bet that’s changed.

Marcus on June 10, 2009 at 2:59 PM

I’m with the “not terrorism” group here. Not because I think terrorists are above this type of thing. Far from it. Remember that the goal of terrorism is not to kill a few hundred innocent infidels, that’s just a bonus to them. To paraphrase the old saw, “Put your foot on the throat of a few hundred and a billion will tremble.” If you don’t claim resonsibility in a high profile way, no media reward = no trembling masses.

Hucklebuck on June 10, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Usually, French security is pretty good. I would think that the SDECE would have been on this by now. However, the French would have a reason to keep the heat off AirBust, especially given Boeing’s delays on the 787.

victor82 on June 10, 2009 at 3:31 PM

Forgive me for not reading through all the comments but wondering if this was a R&D run. We’ve all heard the stories of potential bombs assembled on board (ingredients that can pass security). This could be the ‘all systems go’ signal.

Limerick on June 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM

oh we’re not to know the world is dangerous. We’re so fragile a people who can’t even handle seeing a bare breast for goodness sakes let alone know it may be possible we’re sitting next to a terrorist still under this Administration. If it was terrorism, then just say it. We know terrorists have handbooks on doing these sorts of things over water for the very reason it makes it hard to prove. I sure hope the FBI is funded well. They will be pretty busy figuring all this out. Surely there’s a clue to be found and yes they have black boxes on Airbusses.

johnnyU on June 10, 2009 at 3:54 PM

Whether it’s icing the pitot tube, terrorists or scrambled computer which caused the crash, neither Airbus nor Air France looks good given multiple failures of proceedures and hardware.

burt on June 10, 2009 at 4:05 PM

I never bought the lightning story because I deemed credible a pilot’s opinion that they would have avoided the storm altogether and that it would have just been nuts for them to fly into it. I have always suspected terrorists, but of course, we’ll simply have to wait for more information.

gocatholic on June 10, 2009 at 4:07 PM

What about this theory based on Qantas 72? I haven’t seen it discussed here, and it certainly seems plausible.

hungrymongo on June 10, 2009 at 5:05 PM

They wouldn’t claim responsibility if it was a test run.

They may have found another way to bring a plane down. Not necessarily a bomb. You have to look at it from all angles.

If it was a test run, and a method they know can be found out, we could expect more of this happening in a short time.

Then again, it could be a fault with the airframe.

Sterling Holobyte on June 10, 2009 at 5:34 PM

Bad speed measurements are a technical problem, not pilot error.

ProfessorMiao on June 10, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Correct, as the pitot tubes have heaters in them to prevent them from icing up. But a rapid buildup of ice could overwhelm the heater.

Del Dolemonte on June 10, 2009 at 5:52 PM

haven’t seen a reference to black boxes yet. The crash location is probably deep water, but I’m surprised at no mention of them. Do they not put them in Airbuses?

Dusty on June 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Dusty,
Try to find one article about the crash that doesn’t mention how hard it will be to find the BLACK BOXES. Then, you and Bin Laden can finish sweeping out the cave you live in.

pleaseandthankyou on June 10, 2009 at 7:12 PM

You from Lafayette?

darclon on June 10, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Yes, originally. Live in Houston now.

CDeb on June 10, 2009 at 7:19 PM

I’m sorry to hear that. My condolences to your family. Were they living in France, Brazil or other?
My wife is from Brazil.

shick on June 10, 2009 at 11:45 AM

They were living in Rio, as my uncle was working on assignment there for Devon Energy. They were on their way to Spain and Paris for him to attend training and then some R&R.

CDeb on June 10, 2009 at 7:21 PM

they had lived in Brazil for 10 years and were on their way to France for a vacation?

Del Dolemonte on June 10, 2009 at 12:03 PM

No, a little less than a year.

CDeb on June 10, 2009 at 7:23 PM

Are they the professor(s) from the Houston area?

newton on June 10, 2009 at 12:23 PM

My uncle was a geologist and my aunt was a physical therapist until her fibromyalgia no longer allowed her to work. She was still a very fun and happy person, though.

CDeb on June 10, 2009 at 7:25 PM

What about this theory based on Qantas 72? I haven’t seen it discussed here, and it certainly seems plausible.

hungrymongo on June 10, 2009 at 5:05 PM

Very important information regarding recent events with that model of aircraft. Interesting that these incidents have gotten so little press.

I can imagine the flight computer going through the same kind of contortions and attempted corrections if suddenly presented by rapidly changing or significantly errorneous airspeed readings, similar to the faulty air flow readings described in the linked article.

Yoop on June 10, 2009 at 7:36 PM

Yes, it is positively absurd that more emphasis has not been placed on the obvious failings of the Airbus 330 as regards four other similar circumstances where the pilots lived to tell the tale. The total and disastrous failure of the 330 electronic flight control system has been fully documented in these other incidences. Any competent accident investigator can only conclude that, in the absence of any convincing evidence to the contrary (which is unlikely to be developed), it must be assumed that this is simply another case of the total failure of the 330 flight control system. To suggest that the French government will not engage in covering up the issue is preposterous, as this is exactly what they have clearly been doing for years! Boeing is not perfect, neither the B-29, nor the B-52, nor the fantastic KC-135 (707), was without fault. However, I was in a ghastly mid-air collusion in a 707 in 1966, and lived to tell the tale. I will continue to ride in Boeing aircraft, period.

John Adams on June 11, 2009 at 12:47 AM

I agree. The source of the airframe problem could be extreme turbulence, or a wee bomb just big enough to lead to rapid depressurization.

ProfessorMiao on June 10, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Unlikely it’d be a “wee bomb” as described; after the BOAC Comet crashes of the early jet age, there were a pair of pretty basic fixes introduced to make pressurized planes safe to fly (there was even a movie, starring Jimmy Stewart if I remember right, based on the investigation and subsequent fixes Boeing came up with).

Airbus has a history of autopilot “issues.” End results are not encouraging, to say the least. What I find interesting is the scenario I heard the other day on FNC, that the rudder might have been “overcorrected” similar to the 2001 crash (also an Airbus, an A300) over Brooklyn. The difference in this case is that the stabilizer doesn’t look to have come off the fuselage, according to the photos of the raised tail that are out there.

Long story short, I go out of my way to make sure I don’t fly on an Airbus, under any circumstances.

Blacksmith on June 11, 2009 at 1:30 AM

I thing the investigation will ulitmately determine what happened and I think AQ knows this so they don’t need to come out and make claims of responsibility right away (if this is in fact an act of terrorism).
In the meantime, while the investigation is ongoing, it gives any supporting terror cell ability to physically distance themselves from the act while in the end ultimately getting responsibility. Then you may see AQ release a video then claiming it as their own.

What also to expect….the same “truthers” who are in denial about 9/11 will come out again with more theories of shadow governments, black helicopters, etc. which by the way inadvertently aids AQ.

brennan251 on June 11, 2009 at 1:55 AM

Another possible conspiracy is engines. If this Airbus used a RR turbofan, that may have come from Great Britain which was allowed to become a Muslim country. It’s not much different for other airlines as some may use a GE turbofan, made by the Obama GE company. Obama being another Muslim leader.

Jeff from WI on June 11, 2009 at 8:10 AM

Is There More To This Story?

The mystery of the cause of the Air France Flight 447 disaster continues to grow each day due to the conflicting Government leaks in Paris. This is what happens when the Government owns part of the Airline.How can the French Government investigate itself? They have lost all credibility into the investigative process. Why is no one investigating the possible Rio airport security breaches and its relationship to this disaster?

Is it not time for the NTSB to consider grounding all affected Airbus model flying into US airspace?…

luckybogey on June 11, 2009 at 10:51 AM

Airbus…The Yugo of Jumbo Airliners

Jeff from WI on June 11, 2009 at 11:42 AM

I’d rather of taken the trip in a 1929 Ford Tri-Motor than an Air Bus

Jeff from WI on June 11, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2