MaksFly wrote:

Interested wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

I'm very curious why there was a delay. The reason for this, including who was on/near the plane during the delay, seems important to me.

I reckon 20 per cent of planes I've travelled on have been delayed 30 mins or more

What's the big deal about a 60 minute delay?

1 in 5 flights you go on is delayed? Wow, pick a better airline. =)

The issue is that your 1 in 5 flights is not delayed due to mechanical... but likely due to weather or delayed inbound.

Yes I agree I've rarely been delayed due to mechanical. If it was mechanical I would expect much longer delays

I don't class 60 min delay as anything major??

Interested wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

I'm very curious why there was a delay. The reason for this, including who was on/near the plane during the delay, seems important to me.

I reckon 20 per cent of planes I've travelled on have been delayed 30 mins or more

What's the big deal about a 60 minute delay?

The fact that it crashed to the ground in a fireball 10 minutes later?

Interested wrote:

MaksFly wrote:

Interested wrote:

I reckon 20 per cent of planes I've travelled on have been delayed 30 mins or more

What's the big deal about a 60 minute delay?

1 in 5 flights you go on is delayed? Wow, pick a better airline. =)

The issue is that your 1 in 5 flights is not delayed due to mechanical... but likely due to weather or delayed inbound.

Yes I agree I've rarely been delayed due to mechanical. If it was mechanical I would expect much longer delays

I don't class 60 min delay as anything major??

Well it would be 60 minutes on top of whatever the aircraft spent on the ground. Again, trying to find the source for delay.

smokeybandit wrote:

Interested wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

I'm very curious why there was a delay. The reason for this, including who was on/near the plane during the delay, seems important to me.

I reckon 20 per cent of planes I've travelled on have been delayed 30 mins or more

What's the big deal about a 60 minute delay?

The fact that it crashed to the ground in a fireball 10 minutes later?

If it was a longer delay I might think it had more relevance

Doesn't mean I'm right and you are wrong. Just saying I personally don't count 60 mins as being a long delay

AeroplaneFreak wrote:

MaksFly wrote:

The issue is that your 1 in 5 flights is not delayed due to mechanical... but likely due to weather or delayed inbound.

Who says that this was mechanical? Other than the initial report minutes after the accident.

Iranian transport authority have confirmed they say it's a technical fault day after the crash

I asked the same question. They've made a statement

MaksFly wrote:

Interested wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

I'm very curious why there was a delay. The reason for this, including who was on/near the plane during the delay, seems important to me.

I reckon 20 per cent of planes I've travelled on have been delayed 30 mins or more

What's the big deal about a 60 minute delay?

1 in 5 flights you go on is delayed? Wow, pick a better airline. =)

I use lots of airlines

Rarely do I take off on time??

They often land on time though as they allow for longer flights

Ryanair
Easyjet
Vueling
Norwegian
BA
Used to do Monarch
Virgin

I've probably underestimated how many are delayed

Albeit most delays are less than 30 mins

Just waiting for slots once on the plane can delay 30 plus minutes though at times?

Interested wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

Interested wrote:

I reckon 20 per cent of planes I've travelled on have been delayed 30 mins or more

What's the big deal about a 60 minute delay?

The fact that it crashed to the ground in a fireball 10 minutes later?

If it was a longer delay I might think it had more relevance

Doesn't mean I'm right and you are wrong. Just saying I personally don't count 60 mins as being a long delay

No, 60 minutes isn't a long delay, but the cause of the delay (and my conspiracy theory that someone put something on the plane during the delay) is important to know. Obviously investigators would be looking at that.

LH526 wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

We have some more information and verification of the Tor-M1 SAM system missile debris found.

Context / surroundings of the ditch/wall where the missile was found - at the crash site:



Also, Rouhani threatened another "Lockerbie" just 2 days ago:



Info / pictures from Peshmerganor Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/Peshmerganor/

Why would the warhead come down so close the actual wreckage (within yards) when it hit the plane minutes earlier and quite some miles away?

This search site may be one below the explosion location and not where the plane hit the ground, for sure there are debris in the area and may explain the presence of a mssile tip in the relative proximity

The biggest thing that concerns me about the missile fragment being found is the twitter account that originally posted it had "iranprotests.com" in his twitter profile. I'd be concerned that the debris was planted.

smokeybandit wrote:

Interested wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

The fact that it crashed to the ground in a fireball 10 minutes later?

If it was a longer delay I might think it had more relevance

Doesn't mean I'm right and you are wrong. Just saying I personally don't count 60 mins as being a long delay

No, 60 minutes isn't a long delay, but the cause of the delay (and my conspiracy theory that someone put something on the plane during the delay) is important to know. Obviously investigators would be looking at that.

I understand. In the days of suicide bombers and martyrs I'm thinking that any bomb is as likely to be taken on the plane by some total lunatic rather than planted on the plane. With or without delay. Who wants to die with everybody else.

MaksFly wrote:

Well it would be 60 minutes on top of whatever the aircraft spent on the ground. Again, trying to find the source for delay.

Almost every flight that morning had about 30-40 minutes delay with a few of them being cancelled. I think the airspace was not cleared early in the morning therefore the delay.

I'm still very nervous today of the press coverage and the official sources.

Could it be that sources are deliberately playing down the prospect of sabotage (deliberate or accidental) because the consequences of that could be pretty severe for the entire world at this very moment. Or should we believe the sources that there is no evidence of a missile attack? If it is proven to be malevolant in 12 month's time, when let's say things are calmer, the consequences may be less worrisome.

In the current world - it is really difficult to know what to believe.

Instinct, past incidents, the videos, the photos and the region tells me this has outside influence (missile, bomb etc..). That is scary because of the potential impact on the Middle East and maybe world stability.

If the cause isn't of outside influence and this is mechanical, this is scary in many different ways. Because quite likely, we are seeing a plane pretty much "explode" post take off which just doesn't happen (except TWA800 maybe?) and that should be of concern to Boeing, airlines, crew and the flying public worldwide.

There nothing that allow to reliably link the two close images of the speculated missile head with the images of the crash site, as there are many similar structure in that region.
I notice that in the close pictures there are a hard road in a side and a field without grass in the other side. But in the alleged surrounding annotated image with the structure, there are grass all the way along one side of the structure and no hard road in that location, as shown by the two screenshots I grabbed from zoom in of online photos and videos of the crash site.

Close photos:



Alleged surrounding photo:


Screenshots of zoom in of the same location:



I suspect that the missile head is not at the crash site.

scbriml wrote:

JayBCN wrote:

Did you read the quoted source (https://www.aero.de/news-33671/Nach-737 ... sache.html)? It clearly states than Iran will transfer the black boxes to Ukraine. They will not give it to Boeing or the US, for obvious reasons.

I provided a reputable source that said the opposite.

As I said upthread, there's next to no reliable information, misquotes, translations and unsourced quotes all add to the confusion.

So, if you have two sources saying the exact opposite, which do you believe?

Online source gymnastics. We love to play these games that my source is better than your source.

We can't ignore what can always be a real factor, the perpetrating entity will control what info reaches the masses. It would be foolish to think reputable sources provide all truth. We've seen a good example of this, in this country alone. Sadly.

PixelFlight wrote:

There nothing that allow to reliably link the two close images of the speculated missile head with the images of the crash site, as there are many similar structure in that region.
I notice that in the close pictures there are a hard road in a side and a field without grass in the other side. But in the alleged surrounding annotated image with the structure, there are grass all the way along one side of the structure and no hard road in that location, as shown by the two screenshots I grabbed from zoom in of online photos and videos of the crash site.

Close photos:



Alleged surrounding photo:


Screenshots of zoom in of the same location:



I suspect that the missile head is not at the crash site.

This is starting to look less fake now

Interested wrote:

PixelFlight wrote:

There nothing that allow to reliably link the two close images of the speculated missile head with the images of the crash site, as there are many similar structure in that region.
I notice that in the close pictures there are a hard road in a side and a field without grass in the other side. But in the alleged surrounding annotated image with the structure, there are grass all the way along one side of the structure and no hard road in that location, as shown by the two screenshots I grabbed from zoom in of online photos and videos of the crash site.

Close photos:



Alleged surrounding photo:


Screenshots of zoom in of the same location:



I suspect that the missile head is not at the crash site.

This is starting to look less fake now

The Missile tip could have been blown inside the fuselage so that could be why it came down so close to the wreckage as it broke up as it got close to the ground.

The fact that no news agencies (to my knowledge) have picked up on the missile finding is telling.

Question - when I look at flight radar data for the Ethiopian 302 flight I think this also cut out early? I am in no way saying they are related but that in an accident scenario do you often get flightradar data that doesnt transmit right up until the accident?

Sorry - one more question - could this also be the case of a fan blade coming lose and cutting the wiring in the back of the plane - somewhat akin to the Southwest incident last yr? I am not sure if that causes a fireball but could easily cause the flying issues that the plan seems to have had in the videos. Thanks

So if the missile image is not fake then at some stage Iran has to comment on it

Either take responsibility or blame some rogue extremists who had access to a missile launcher

Is it possible they hit the wrong plane?

I think someone said the delays could have confused them and there was another "American" plane that could have been the actual target of a missile

It's not surprising that the missile tip / proximity fuse would fall near the crash site.

The hypothetical missile would have approached the airplane from the rear, following approximately the same flight path, then after exploding both its head and the (completely uncontrollable) airplane would have followed similar ballistic trajectories to the ground.

I don't know if these images are fake or not, but it's far from inconceivable that parts of the missile would fall near the rest of the wreckage.

morrisond wrote:

Interested wrote:

PixelFlight wrote:

There nothing that allow to reliably link the two close images of the speculated missile head with the images of the crash site, as there are many similar structure in that region.
I notice that in the close pictures there are a hard road in a side and a field without grass in the other side. But in the alleged surrounding annotated image with the structure, there are grass all the way along one side of the structure and no hard road in that location, as shown by the two screenshots I grabbed from zoom in of online photos and videos of the crash site.

Close photos:



Alleged surrounding photo:


Screenshots of zoom in of the same location:



I suspect that the missile head is not at the crash site.

This is starting to look less fake now

The Missile tip could have been blown inside the fuselage so that could be why it came down so close to the wreckage as it broke up as it got close to the ground.

Don't think it's with the main wreckage anyway

Francoflier wrote:

It's not surprising that the missile tip / proximity fuse would fall near the crash site.

The hypothetical missile would have approached the airplane from the rear, following approximately the same flight path, then after exploding both its head and the (completely uncontrollable) airplane would have followed similar ballistic trajectories to the ground.

I don't know if these images are fake or not, but it's far from inconceivable that parts of the missile would fall near the rest of the wreckage.

On what basis do you conclude that the missile came from the rear?

Why would the tip of the missile be intact?

Pudelhund wrote:

Why would the tip of the missile be intact?

That's just the guidance unit.

Pudelhund wrote:

Why would the tip of the missile be intact?

Separates before impact.

Interested wrote:

So if the missile image is not fake then at some stage Iran has to comment on it

Either take responsibility or blame some rogue extremists who had access to a missile launcher

Is it possible they hit the wrong plane?

I think someone said the delays could have confused them and there was another "American" plane that could have been the actual target of a missile

If (big IF) the picture of the missile head is genuine, then this would be a fairly sophisticated missile part of a relatively advanced launcher system, the likes of which only armies and very well equipped militias have access to.



A non-government-controlled rebel group in the region would likely only be equipped with shoulder-fired MANPAD types such as the following:




If this was indeed an Iranian missile, I still don't believe this was intentional. Probably a horrible mistake by trigger-happy idiots on high alert after the Iranian attack on US bases.

Pudelhund wrote:

Why would the tip of the missile be intact?

Because it's not the warhead. If you look at the images, it's scorched and metal is torn off around the bottom half.

This part of the missile contains the actuators and control surfaces for steering the missile. The warhead itself sits below the tip in the stack, and it detonates outward in a circle. Not forward.

PixelFlight wrote:

There nothing that allow to reliably link the two close images of the speculated missile head with the images of the crash site, as there are many similar structure in that region.
I notice that in the close pictures there are a hard road in a side and a field without grass in the other side. But in the alleged surrounding annotated image with the structure, there are grass all the way along one side of the structure and no hard road in that location, as shown by the two screenshots I grabbed from zoom in of online photos and videos of the crash site.

Close photos:



Alleged surrounding photo:


Screenshots of zoom in of the same location:



I suspect that the missile head is not at the crash site.

I made the same conclusion. Also in that last picture there are bushes and relatively green grass on one side as it the earlier pictures there were no bushes, some brown grass and also a lot of gravel. Definitely not the same place. Also maybe a different accident site altogether. would not make any assumptions based on those pictures.

PixelFlight wrote:

There nothing that allow to reliably link the two close images of the speculated missile head with the images of the crash site, as there are many similar structure in that region.
I notice that in the close pictures there are a hard road in a side and a field without grass in the other side. But in the alleged surrounding annotated image with the structure, there are grass all the way along one side of the structure and no hard road in that location, as shown by the two screenshots I grabbed from zoom in of online photos and videos of the crash site.
[...]
I suspect that the missile head is not at the crash site.

Interested wrote:

This is starting to look less fake now

morrisond wrote:

The Missile tip could have been blown inside the fuselage so that could be why it came down so close to the wreckage as it broke up as it got close to the ground.

Sorry "Interested" and "morrisond", but did you read my text before posting ? My conclusion is that the alleged surrounding annotated image is not at the same location than the close missile head location. The former is on the crash site, so the second can't (at least on the alleged location)

Pudelhund wrote:

Why would the tip of the missile be intact?

Exactly. In all the pictures I've seen of the alleged missile, nobody has asked that question.

PixelFlight wrote:

There nothing that allow to reliably link the two close images of the speculated missile head with the images of the crash site, as there are many similar structure in that region.
I notice that in the close pictures there are a hard road in a side and a field without grass in the other side. But in the alleged surrounding annotated image with the structure, there are grass all the way along one side of the structure and no hard road in that location, as shown by the two screenshots I grabbed from zoom in of online photos and videos of the crash site.

Close photos:



Alleged surrounding photo:


Screenshots of zoom in of the same location:



I suspect that the missile head is not at the crash site.

I think it is from the crash site. The crash site is huge, it's not one concentrated area.

With regards to pavement on one side, and dirt on the other.. if you look at the Ruptly image, it seems like there is concrete / hard surface on the far side with the vehicles, and dirt on the near side. Even the vegetation is the same type, and has exactly the same colors in all the pictures. Green and red/brown.

JetBuddy wrote:

We have some more information and verification of the Tor-M1 SAM system missile debris found.

It appears to be genuine.

Earlier, we only had one picture of the missile. Now we have more angles of the same missile debris, as well as images of the larger context around where it was found. And it appears to be from the crash site. Please don't ignore this.

Original image of part of SA-15 / TOR-M1 missile:



New image of the same missile from another angle:



Context / surroundings of the ditch/wall where the missile was found - at the crash site:



Also, Rouhani threatened another "Lockerbie" just 2 days ago:



Hassan Rouhani Twitter post:

https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani/statu ... 85824?s=20

The Sun:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10686727/ ... e-coffins/

Info / pictures from Peshmerganor Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/Peshmerganor/

User T4tbH, who appeared to be in the know, commented on the first picture of the missile nnosecone yesterday. His conclusion on page 14 (Post #680) was that the version of the missile was not in Iran's inventory. No one contradicted him at the time. So, in keeping an open mind about this, do these new pictures in any way invalidate T4tbH's conclusion?

Francoflier wrote:

It's not surprising that the missile tip / proximity fuse would fall near the crash site.

The hypothetical missile would have approached the airplane from the rear, following approximately the same flight path, then after exploding both its head and the (completely uncontrollable) airplane would have followed similar ballistic trajectories to the ground.

I don't know if these images are fake or not, but it's far from inconceivable that parts of the missile would fall near the rest of the wreckage.

You forget that the plane turned almost 180 degrees and flew another 20 kilometers.

757gb wrote:

Pudelhund wrote:

Why would the tip of the missile be intact?

Exactly. In all the pictures I've seen of the alleged missile, nobody has asked that question.

Its been asked a few times in this thread, and answered above

757gb wrote:

Pudelhund wrote:

Why would the tip of the missile be intact?

Exactly. In all the pictures I've seen of the alleged missile, nobody has asked that question.

It's been answered a few times in this long thread. Several types of missiles have their payload in the middle of the missile and explode next to its target. Not the stereotypical missile that goes head on into the target and the warhead is in the tip

airhansa wrote:

Has this fire been brought up? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_120 It was a fairly large fire caused by a punctured fuel tank in the aftermath of maintenance work - a fuel leak caught on fire after contacting areas heated by the engine.

That fireball only happened after the airplane stopped at the gate, and the fuel flow from the holed tank dropped onto the hot exhaust manifold of the engine.

Prior to that point, the fuel flow dispersed harmlessly into the airstream.

Guys, I am just curious. OO-DLL (DHL A300F) was struck by a manpad in 2003, had fire and such as well.

It really is something that is viable as a cause, possible hit on the engine? or took out enough of the wing to cause an uncontrolled turn to the right?

https://images.app.goo.gl/hb7PSoNf3bKQgMNB8

Francoflier wrote:

It's not surprising that the missile tip / proximity fuse would fall near the crash site.

The hypothetical missile would have approached the airplane from the rear, following approximately the same flight path, then after exploding both its head and the (completely uncontrollable) airplane would have followed similar ballistic trajectories to the ground.

I don't know if these images are fake or not, but it's far from inconceivable that parts of the missile would fall near the rest of the wreckage.

Did the plane not fly for an extended period after the damage? Some estimates as much as 14km? It would not make sense to me that an object could remain airborne for that long.

musman9853 wrote:

heyjoojoo wrote:

Did the US deploy any missile defense systems during the Iranian attack? I haven’t heard any mention of this in any of the reporting up to this point.

I wouldn’t put it past the Iranians to let a civilian airliner go into harms way and then provoke a counter-response the ends up getting the airliner shot down, all in the name of propaganda.

Remember, they did this once before with Iran Air Flight 655

There's missile defense systems in the uae and out in the Indian ocean with the cvsg but realistically nothing with the range to hit over Tehran. Only Iran would have AAA capability over Tehran

Drone activity? Could a collision with recon/combat drone bring down a 737 jet?

Did either Iran or the US have any drones in the area at the time? Will the records of these flights be available?

majano wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

We have some more information and verification of the Tor-M1 SAM system missile debris found.

It appears to be genuine.

Earlier, we only had one picture of the missile. Now we have more angles of the same missile debris, as well as images of the larger context around where it was found. And it appears to be from the crash site. Please don't ignore this.

Original image of part of SA-15 / TOR-M1 missile:



New image of the same missile from another angle:



Context / surroundings of the ditch/wall where the missile was found - at the crash site:



Also, Rouhani threatened another "Lockerbie" just 2 days ago:



Hassan Rouhani Twitter post:

https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani/statu ... 85824?s=20

The Sun:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10686727/ ... e-coffins/

Info / pictures from Peshmerganor Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/Peshmerganor/

User T4tbH, who appeared to be in the know, commented on the first picture of the missile nnosecone yesterday. His conclusion on page 14 (Post #680) was that the version of the missile was not in Iran's inventory. No one contradicted him at the time. So, in keeping an open mind about this, do these new pictures in any way invalidate T4tbH's conclusion?

Yep, I read that. He's talking about if it's an 9M331 or 9M330 missile. I can't verify what he's saying or if the report he quoted was accurate. Or if Iran has taken delivery of more than that one batch of 1200 missiles at a later time.

But it would be great if he came back and elaborated on what he meant. Or if he's done further research.

This site has some interesting info on these missiles:

https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K331-Tor.html

I don’t suspect Russia wouldn’t waste a second trying to further the wild eyed speculation via their usual methods. Especially since this involves Ukrainian airplane and the existing tensions with the US and Iran. That trio is just going to be too much temptation. Expect them to try and stir the pot.

Francoflier wrote:

Interested wrote:

So if the missile image is not fake then at some stage Iran has to comment on it

Either take responsibility or blame some rogue extremists who had access to a missile launcher

Is it possible they hit the wrong plane?

I think someone said the delays could have confused them and there was another "American" plane that could have been the actual target of a missile

If (big IF) the picture of the missile head is genuine, then this would be a fairly sophisticated missile part of a relatively advanced launcher system, the likes of which only armies and very well equipped militias have access to.



A non-government-controlled rebel group in the region would likely only be equipped with shoulder-fired MANPAD types such as the following:




If this was indeed an Iranian missile, I still don't believe this was intentional. Probably a horrible mistake by trigger-happy idiots on high alert after the Iranian attack on US bases.

There are some interesting comments from Iran about not only firing the missiles they did at US bases but that they cyber attacked them at the same time to disrupt the U.S. defence systems. And they were prepared at the time to launch more missiles etc had US retaliated

I can't imagine Iran are cyber attacking US defence systems and at the same time US arent cyber attacking the Iran defence systems etc and more to disrupt stuff. I bet US can cyber attack better than Iran for sure.

For all we know the entire defence systems of Iran may have been disrupted and down for days whilst they were in conflict. So they are more prone to mistakes like mistaking a plane with a fire on board as some kind do missile attacking against them ? As their normal defence systems were down or disrupted

Seems they are all back negotiating now

Maybe this was a mistake for the above reasons and they are all now back talking together and trying to make peace etc and the best of a bad situation

BawliBooch wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

heyjoojoo wrote:

Did the US deploy any missile defense systems during the Iranian attack? I haven’t heard any mention of this in any of the reporting up to this point.

I wouldn’t put it past the Iranians to let a civilian airliner go into harms way and then provoke a counter-response the ends up getting the airliner shot down, all in the name of propaganda.

Remember, they did this once before with Iran Air Flight 655

There's missile defense systems in the uae and out in the Indian ocean with the cvsg but realistically nothing with the range to hit over Tehran. Only Iran would have AAA capability over Tehran

Drone activity? Could a collision with recon/combat drone bring down a 737 jet?

Did either Iran or the US have any drones in the area at the time? Will the records of these flights be available?

it's possible. us stealth drones have flown over iran before. however, there would also be drone wreckage and there doesnt seem to be any.

If the airplane was hit by a missile, what kind of readings of the FDR data would either confirm or refute that hypothesis? I mean the readings of what instruments and the range of those readings?

If somebody wanted to plant some evidence would it be easier to drop it right beside where he parked his car or would it make sense carry it further into a field where somebody could spot you carrying a big interesting looking obect?

JetBuddy wrote:

LH526 wrote:

Why would the warhead come down so close the actual wreckage (within yards) when it hit the plane minutes earlier and quite some miles away?

The crash site / wreckage area is quite large. Hundreds of meters in multiple directions.

That's not the warhead itself. It's the tip of the missile, likely containing some actuators steering the control surfaces / fins during flight. It would detach before or during detonation of the warhead. The warhead itself explodes sideways in a circle, not forward. That would explain why the tip is intact.

You are right, but it does not explain why the missile-tip came to rest within a hundred yards of the debris field when the actual impact is supposed to be miles away.

Smaller sized drone would probably go completely unnoticed.
And I'm talking about civilian ones with something attached to them or straight up plain thing flying into the engine (you need some proper flying skills to be this accurate I would assume but doesn't sound unreasonable).
Another thing like somebody mentioned would be lack of proper parts to fix the issue that delayed the flight in the first place.

So....lets put the 737 was hit by a US SAM / US drone / US ICBM / US bald eagle theory to bed....

We've seen thousands of parts: body parts, fuselage parts, wing parts, tail parts, photos, shoes, cell phones, etc.

We've not seen and US built SAM parts / drone parts / ICBM parts/ bald eagle feathers.

Can we dispel this nonsense?

Ertro wrote:

If somebody wanted to plant some evidence would it be easier to drop it right beside where he parked his car or would it make sense carry it further into a field where somebody could spot you carrying a big interesting looking obect?

https://i.imgur.com/kmUOZ1A.jpg

Looking at the pic the cars stopped there cause the road ends not to mention all the evidence / debris you don't want to roll over.

Strange, I was just going to provide the source but it seems the moderator has deleted my post on first results of Ukraininian investigators.
Anyway, posting this again - after examination of engine leftovers investigators found no evidence of burn damage. Therefore they conclude that fire observed on the video was not coming from engines.
Here is the source article: https://censor.net.ua/news/3168988/na_d ... toyatelstv
It is a respectable Ukrainian news site. Unfortunately, they don't have this article in English, but you can use google translate.

So,as someone posted here before, the question is - can the engine explosion due to mechanical failure leave no burn marks on the engine itself?