Coinkydink? Or something more... sinister?
The five nuclear experts killed in a plane crash in northern Russia earlier this week had assisted in the design of an Iranian atomic facility, security sources in Russia said on Thursday.
The five Russian experts were among the 44 passengers killed when the Tupolev-134 plane broke up and caught fire on landing outside the northern city of Petrozavodsk on Monday.
The experts - who included lead designers Sergei Rizhov, Gennadi Benyok, Nicolai Tronov and Russia's top nuclear technological experts, Andrei Tropinov - worked at Bushehr after the contract for the plant's construction passed from the German Siemens company to Russian hands.
The five were employed at the Hydropress factory, a member of Russia's state nuclear corporation, and one of the main companies to contract for the Bushehr construction.
The sources said that the death of the scientists is a great blow to the Russian nuclear industry.
The experts were tasked with completing construction of the plant and ensuring that it would be able to survive an earthquake.
According to the sources, although Iranian nuclear scientists have in the past been involved in unexplained accidents and plane crashes, there is no official suspicion of foul play.
No official suspicion. But apparently one helluva lot of unofficial suspicion.
Most interesting.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Deaths, Odd News, Russia, Stories
Comments (14)
Well, with the crappy safet... (Below threshold)1. Posted by jim m | June 23, 2011 1:50 PM | Score: 10 (10 votes cast)
Well, with the crappy safety record of Russian commercial aviation it's hard to say that this was from foul play. You can be sure it wasn't us with obama kissing Medvedev's boots at every opportunity. I would hope that if it was Mossad that they would have done it a long time ago.
1. Posted by jim m | June 23, 2011 1:50 PM |
Score: 10 (10 votes cast)
Posted on June 23, 2011 13:50
2. Posted by irongrampa | June 23, 2011 2:08 PM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Be more inclined to attribute this to the sorry state of aircraft maintenance as practiced by the Russians. Talking to some friends in aviation, they said to a person that NO WAY would they ever fly on ANY Russian airline.
Anecdotal, but there were some scary tales of planes being cannibalized to repair flyable units, drunk pilots and maintenance personnel, plus general disregard about maintenance procedures in many cases.
"Fly Russian Air, if you dare".
2. Posted by irongrampa | June 23, 2011 2:08 PM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on June 23, 2011 14:08
3. Posted by Justrand | June 23, 2011 2:13 PM | Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
nuclear scientists helping Iran build nuclear weapons in order to kill all the Jews just tend to be "unlucky".
i.e., nothing to see here...move along :)
3. Posted by Justrand | June 23, 2011 2:13 PM |
Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Posted on June 23, 2011 14:13
4. Posted by JLawson | June 23, 2011 2:38 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Dead men tell no tales...
4. Posted by JLawson | June 23, 2011 2:38 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on June 23, 2011 14:38
5. Posted by Chico | June 23, 2011 2:39 PM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
When I see "Tupolev-134" and "crash" in the same sentence, I don't think "conspiracy."
That model is older than a Boeing 727.
5. Posted by Chico | June 23, 2011 2:39 PM |
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on June 23, 2011 14:39
6. Posted by Sep14 | June 23, 2011 2:45 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Good grouping.
6. Posted by Sep14 | June 23, 2011 2:45 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on June 23, 2011 14:45
7. Posted by Gmac | June 23, 2011 2:47 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Well, I completely agree with Chico.
Tupolev aircraft (An oxymoron if ever there was one) are not exactly well known for their low frequency of fatal crashes, in fog or clear weather.
I would chalk this up to unfortunate coincidence.
7. Posted by Gmac | June 23, 2011 2:47 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on June 23, 2011 14:47
8. Posted by jim m | June 23, 2011 2:57 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
I guess they should have done it in 4 years.
8. Posted by jim m | June 23, 2011 2:57 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on June 23, 2011 14:57
9. Posted by simkeith | June 23, 2011 3:47 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
The TU-134 is a crappy Soviet copy of the less crappy French Caravelle. These planes date from the 1960's, and giving it's origin, airline operating it, and the country it was being operated in, I'm far more inclined to say it was an accident caused by bad maintenance, poor piloting or both, rather than something more sinister.
9. Posted by simkeith | June 23, 2011 3:47 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on June 23, 2011 15:47
10. Posted by DJ Drummond | June 23, 2011 3:59 PM | Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Concur.
The initial reports indicated the aircraft stalled while trying to land; the sharp angle of the wings makes the -134 notoriously dangerous in wind gusts. The plane simply nosed in while landing, and the crash happened before the pilot had the chance to utter the Russian variant of 'ah sh-".
Also, the crash did not happen in a time frame congruent to the team's presence in Iran. It was a northbound flight from Moscow, not coming back from or headed to Iran.
Finally, if someone was going to destroy the plane, it would be easier and leave no evidence to just arrange for a mid-air release of the cargo bay, rather than try for a mechanical malfunction on landing.
10. Posted by DJ Drummond | June 23, 2011 3:59 PM |
Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Posted on June 23, 2011 15:59
11. Posted by Jay Guevara | June 23, 2011 4:36 PM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Back in the day I flew on an internal flight in the USSR that made Aeroflot (the international airline) look like Singapore Airways.
The pilot (obviously a Red Air Force alumnus) brought the plane in for a landing like a Stuka minus the siren. Several honeydew melons someone had brought aboard broke loose and careened up the aisle as passengers stuck their feet out to block them. (Good thing they couldn't figure out how to put chickens on top of the plane.)
True story.
11. Posted by Jay Guevara | June 23, 2011 4:36 PM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on June 23, 2011 16:36
12. Posted by Sep14 | June 23, 2011 5:18 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
"Finally, if someone was going to destroy the plane, it would be easier and leave no evidence to just arrange for a mid-air release of the cargo bay, rather than try for a mechanical malfunction on landing."
Ron Brown just rolled over in his icy tomb..
12. Posted by Sep14 | June 23, 2011 5:18 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on June 23, 2011 17:18
13. Posted by serfer62 | June 23, 2011 10:22 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Security isn't all that hot either. It cost me 3K Soom ($3.00) to smuggle my weapon on board when security descovered it.
I've often wondered how much for a case of C-4...
13. Posted by serfer62 | June 23, 2011 10:22 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on June 23, 2011 22:22
14. Posted by Jim Addison | June 24, 2011 2:04 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
We have a rare consensus here, it seems, including even Chico. It's Occam's Razor, a principle which most conspiracy theorists would do well to learn. It could save them multiple heart attacks and gallons of spittle.
14. Posted by Jim Addison | June 24, 2011 2:04 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on June 24, 2011 02:04