Yet another unexplained explosion

Another suspicious explosion on a passenger jet is hushed up with no explanation.

Updated 04.01.2016

On December 23rd 2015 an explosion inside a Boeing 737-800 belonging to Pegasus Airlines at Istanbul’s second largest airport Sabiha Gökçen airport, resulted in the death of one cleaner and injury to another cleaner. Though initially an armed response was put in place, it seems clear that authorities soon realised that this was obviously not a bomb and the situation seems to have been downgraded almost immediately with normal operations resuming within 2 hours.

The incident soon faded from the media and public consciousness, but alarm bells immediately rang for us so we investigated further. It is really not normal for planes to suffer explosive damage of any kind, either in the air or on the ground, so this seems to be the latest in a series of increasingly suspicious incidents that are either being ignored or simply covered up by the airline industry and relevant authorities.

Following a series of seemingly unexplained explosions on the ground and in the air over the past few years, we predicted that there would be more similar incidents. Fortunately this happened on the ground so only one life was lost but other incidents have been far more serious, with an entire plane load of passengers losing their lives on the doomed Metrojet flight which crashed in the Sinai desert late in 2015. Though our mainstream media always seem to conjure up immediate and supposedly irrefutable explanations for all of these events we feel they are far from clear-cut, but more importantly that they all have a common cause; catastrophic failures in the pressurised dispersal systems fitted to Airbus A320 and Boeing 737-800 aircraft involved in current Climate Engineering programs.

Suspicious circumstances and media cover up

According to the airport’s management, the airport resumed “normal flight operations” around two hours after the blast, so it could not possibly have been a bomb. Also the aircraft was idle and being cleaned and so will not have had any crew, passengers or luggage on board, so an explosion from a bomb or other terrorist incident is even less likely.

Despite this the reportage in the mainstream media, such as this article in The Guardian is riddled with the usual terrorist links and insinuations despite Turkish authorities stating very clearly the cause was not clear. Once again we have the press deciding what had happened before any evidence had emerged. This tenuous association with terrorism seems to be the knee-jerk response to all of these types of incidents and in this case appears to be an attempt by the mainstream media machine to divert attention from the fact that this event is both very serious and very suspicious.

An example from The Daily Telegraph artcle:

Damage to windows of the airport [terminal building] also suggest that they had been hit by shrapnel, said Matthew Finn, managing director of the London-based aviation security firm Augmentiq.

“It is too early at this stage to have any definitive thoughts, but what stands out most is what appears to be shrapnel damage on the airport windows, plus the damage done to planes some distance away,” he said. “All of these point to it being some kind of bomb.

Photo: Rex Features

We spoke with Matthew Finn from Augmentiq and challenged him on his decision to use the word bomb rather than explosion while at the same time stating “It is too early at this stage to have any definitive thoughts“. ‘An explosion’ can have many causes, and a planted explosive device is only one explanation, but crucially, in view of the immediate visual evidence, the least likely. Mr. Finn explained, as we had suspected, that he had had very little information to go on at the time he made his comments, so we have to give him the benefit of the doubt and lay blame for this misleading article on the publisher – The Daily Telegraph. Furthermore the article fails to highlight the rather crucial fact that no visible fire damage has occurred, as would be expected with a bomb (update – now we know the images we have featured are not of the stricken aircraft of those nearby that were damaged we cannot say for sure there was no visible damage)

Though not visually spectacular the damage was reportedly quite extensive, with puncture holes reported in the aircraft itself but also in surrounding aircraft and buildings some distance from the source.

Transport Minister Binali Yildirim said five planes were damaged and were now being repaired in the airport’s hanger. But he declined to give details on the possible cause. “At this moment it’s too early to give a verdict but I want to emphasise there is no weakness concerning security,” Yildirim told Anatolia.

This suggests an explosion of considerable force and as with other incidents we have linked to Climate Engineering equipment failure, it seems the damage was caused primarily by high-velocity shrapnel rather than the ‘blast’ itself. This is exactly what we would expect to see from the failure of the pressurised equipment in the front hold of the aircraft and exactly what we have seen in the more high-profile and fatal incidents such as the Metrojet – Sinai crash and the BA Las Vegas runway fire.

Another article in The National website claims not only that the incident had been a terrorist attack, but gives details of the organisation involved and that it was a mortar attack. This explanation addresses the multiple shrapnel damage and the multiple blasts but it fails to provide any supporting evidence at all so again we see more evidence of the media covering the story in a completely reckless way. We have now seen high-res images (which we cannot publish due to DHA copyright) of the scene and there is no visible damage at all to aircraft or the ground so where did the mortar land? Are we seriously to believe that airport authorities wandered onto the tarmac, saw that a mortar attack had happened and just carried on as if it were a normal occurrence. Are we also to believe that no evidence of said attack was captured on the multitude of security cameras that surround the airport or that internal cameras failed to pick up mortar shells landing on or near aircraft? No of course not, that is utter nonsense, so this story has clearly been concocted to try and explain the inexplicable circumstances. Once again we have a situation where we can legitimately ask why is that happening. Someone is lying and trying to cover something up. Furthermore how does a cleaner die from a mortar attack launched from outside an airport, when no visible damage can be seen on the aircraft inside which she was cleaning. It is a laughable explanation and exposes the desperation of those who know what really happened.

Hush, hush

An interesting quote from The National article:

International affairs expert Soli Ozel said that media outlets have “downplayed” the incident. “In my judgement it is a lot more serious than it was covered,” said Mr Ozel, a professor at Istanbul’s Kadir Has University.

We think that a bomb was clearly ruled out quite quickly by the airport security and management and that an internal explosion was the likely cause We can also rule out suspicious cargo as the plane was ‘idle’ at the gate. So, this leaves structural or technical systems failure. One would expect the entire fleet to be grounded pending further investigation as used to be the case in genuine technical or structural failures in passenger aircraft, but here we simply see the airline and airport carry on as if nothing had happened; nothing unexpected anyway. Nothing out of the ordinary. Don’t worry guys, its just another CE equipment failure. Nothing to see here… move along. This is a highly significant point which may not have occurred to most people. It also raises very serious questions about who knows what about what’s going on inside these aircraft.

Puncture holes

The Guardian article reported images on the Turkish news agency website Dogan of puncture holes in a window, or windows, of one of the planes. It is not clear at this stage which plane. We have been unable to trace those images despite extensive searches. Have they been removed for some reason we wonder ?

Below are the only 3 links to the incident we could find, and a Google image search revealed nothing.

http://www.dha.com.tr/sabiha-gokcen-blast-included-in-uks-travel-advisory-for-turkey_1096604.html

http://www.dha.com.tr/-blast-in-sabiha-gokcen-airport-one-woman-killed-_1096276.html

http://www.dha.com.tr/dhavideogaleri.asp?vid=1096142

Below we have 2 images taken from a Russian media outlet of the ill-fated Metrojet flight which we also attributed to an internal explosion of the pressurised CE dispersal equipment. We have, since first reporting on that incident, confirmed that the puncture holes are in the front section of the aircraft where we suspect the pressurised systems are located so we feel we have an extremely strong case here. We will be publishing an article bringing all of the recent incidents together with analysis of the whole situation very soon.

No damage to the tarmac or visible damage to the aircraft

We wrote to Dogan and requested all the images they had, so we could look at the damage to the primary aircraft. They removed them and are now claiming they do not exists. They claim to have sent everything they have, but the primary aircraft is not featured in any of them, and the aircraft featured in the images are both still in service so they cannot be the ones involved. Why on earth would Dogan remove and hide the evidence of a major incident unless they have been instructed to do so?

Inspection focuses on the front section of the aircraft. TC-AVP is still operational.

Shrapnel damage to terminal buildings

From a distance there is no visible damage to the aircraft. TC-CPZ

Above 3 images taken from a film on The Guardian Online website.

A bomb powerful enough to send large metal projectiles up to 150 meters* from the aircraft, into other aircraft and through laminated glass windows on the terminal building would have left the plane in tatters. And what about the fact that 3 explosions were reported. Were there 3 bombs, none of which caused visible damage or fire? We think not. One does not have to be an explosives expert to work that one out; this was not a bomb. (update – confusingly we now realise that the original images of the damaged aircraft have been censored)

Conclusion

As always it is unclear exactly who knows what really happened and is being deceitful and who is simply being irresponsible in their reportage, suffice to say this is yet another glaring example of establishment panic, chaos, hush-up and cover-up.

We are convinced this was yet another failure of the pressurised systems used in the current Climate Engineering programs. They are situated in the front hold of Boeing and Airbus aircraft and when they fail they send large pieces of shrapnel flying out of the front section of the fuselage as we have shown in other similar incidents. We have yet to establish the exact nature of the dispersal systems. We know they are fed by highly pressurised tanks concealed inside ULD containers that are loaded into the front hold of 737s and A320s as the image below shows, and indeed this image was taken at Istanbul Ataturk airport.

If such a system were to fail it would likely be at the connection/valve stage. The containers must be connected to and disconnected from the dispersal system, so any fault is likely to occur there. In such an event the valve might be sent flying at high speed out of the aircraft. It is unlikely in this case that the containers themselves failed as we would likely have seen see more extensive damage and a large volume of liquid escaping. (update – once again this is now subject to further confirmation pending the original images.)

It is unclear as yet, whether these systems are failing due to age or for some other reason, suffice to say that the frequency of these incidents is increasing at an alarming rate and there will be more.

It has to be said also that if this failure had occurred several hours earlier or later this could well have been another fatal mid-air accident with the loss of hundreds more lives. How can this just be overlooked !

Culpability

Let’s focus on the potential legal ramifications. Sooner or later, assuming we are correct, an event will occur that leaves very little room for doubt, even when smothered in the most imaginative and hysterical reportage. At that point in time people will finally realise that many airlines have been knowingly and repeatedly putting the lives of their passengers, crew and those on the ground at risk. They may also, if they follow us, realise that hundreds of people have already lost their lives due to the airlines involved failing to act to prevent this happening over and over. We have not had the time to go back and investigate the many incidents that have occurred prior to our involvement in this in 2013 but at a glance, many similarities seem to exist that suggest that this may have been going on for a long time. If we, or others like us, can prove that airlines have known about these system failures causing crashes and have failed to act then they are essentially guilty of Corporate Manslaughter or possibly worse. An excerpt from Wikipedia states:

Corporate manslaughter is a crime in several jurisdictions including England and Wales and Hong Kong. It enables a corporation to be punished and censured for culpable conduct that leads to a person’s death.

The fallout from this situation will be huge. Furthermore, if we are also correct that at least some members at the very top of our institutions, in this case the CAA, may also be complicit insofar as they either knew of the existence of the programs or should have been able to work out what was happening, but failed to investigate or act, then the issue becomes even larger.

It is indeed this fact that renders this very topic incomprehensible for many, and leaves them incapable of accepting it, or even being able to consider it, simply because they are not able to comprehend how such a huge breach of trust could arise. Its sheer size makes it literally unbelievable, so we realise we have our work cut out here but we persist all the same because we know we are onto something and we will not stop until we prove it.

Evidence

We often ponder how many times we can see this happening and how many lives can be lost before people might start to come to terms with the fact that this might actually be real. Though this single incident was not a big deal, a woman died on that plane in completely unexplained circumstances and it cannot and must not be overlooked.

We think we have put a very strong case forward to show that almost all of the aviation incidents we have witnessed in recent years have many things in common, all of which point to repeated CE systems failures and repeated cover-ups.

We are currently trying to follow up on some of the issues raised in this article and will update if any further evidence comes to light.

In the mean time all we can do is watch with increasing dismay as people continue to die. We hope you will continue to keep an open mind and not be taken in by the vague and dramatic stories that are peddled by the mainstream media. We are not saying that everybody in the media knows what is really happening, quite the opposite, they are simply doing what they are told or the best they can in confusing circumstances but surely some people must be realising that the stories simply do not add up.

* the area of damage reported by various sources was 300m. It is unclear at what distance from the source aircraft the terminal buildings or other aircraft were at the time of the blast, so we have had to estimate.