Links, please? Other "versions" I'm finding are much older than yesterday.
Ohhhh noooo, I questioned one of the most respected news organizations in the world.
As a citizen, voter, and general participant in life, that's my job. I would be derelict to uncritically trust "authorities" whatever their nature.
The New York Times has been scammed, the Pulitzer committee has been scammed, but BBC is immune? Even skilled and dedicated journalists will have a few deficits in knowledge, experience, and time.
Generally I have a good opinion of the BBC; having family and friends in the UK I surf it regularly, as well as other UK news media. My point was that lack of continuity fails to prove the orange-filled Oasis bottle was placed, alone, in the fuselage and produced that explosion unassisted. Perhaps it did; but what is shown leaves plenty of room for other possibilities. If I were seeing this as a juror, my reasonable doubt would not be overcome.
As I said in my first post, BBC may well have edited the visuals for "responsible" reasons. Regardless of justification, these cuts greatly weaken their strength as "evidence."
That an open-ended fuselage section at ground level does not replicate conditions of a pressurized cabin at cruising altitude is beside the point. Even the explosion
shown could bring down an aircraft. That's not in dispute.
The question is, did that orange liquid in the Oasis bottle,
absent any other apparatus or assistive detonation, cause the damage we see?