American Airlines Flight 587's Crash was NOT AN ACCIDENT!

Sierra Times ^ | November 13, 2001 | Angel Shamaya

[FresnoDA]

American Airlines Flight 587's Crash
was NOT an Accident.
Angel Shamaya 11.13.01

---

With all the mediawhores and government mouths telling us that American Airlines flight 587's crash (November 12, 2001) was "an accident," one need only look at the known facts -- overlaid with the Law of Probability -- to know that they are lying.

Consider the following known facts:

1) The airplane that went down was an American Airlines jet. American Airlines was used against America on 9/11. It bears the name of our nation, making it, once again, a juicy target for those who hate our country. (The airlines used on 9/11 were American and United -- the latter likely chosen to "prove" that were are not united.)

2) The airplane went down on Veteran's Day, a slap in the face of all Vets -- including those who are painting the Afghanistan desert floor with Taliban blood.

3) The airplane went down during the UN General Assembly meetings between a host of international dignitaries, in the same city where the meetings were taking place, as meetings were underway, in the same city where the largest attacks of 9/11 took place. The likely message received by the leaders of countless nations of the world: "America is losing it."

4) The engine separated from the plane, as did at least one major section of the airfoil structures (tail fin, shown recovered from the waters off of New York, CNN, not long after the crash). Reports from multiple pilots -- including one who witnessed the crash and the engine's separation from the plane -- say they have NEVER known of mere engine failure to make engines and tail fins fly off of airplanes -- in this or any other modern aircraft of its type.

5) The federal government is on record as saying the crash was "an accident" -- "some sort of engine failure" -- long before they had the voice recorder or the flight data recorder (black box, which as of this writing they claim not to have yet recovered) in their possession -- curious and suspicious to a very high degree as it's highly unscientific and unprofessional. This even though they have no records of previous airplane crashes showing such unusual "separation of parts" prior to accidental (mechanical failure) crashes of the same or similar planes as was seen in this "accident." Instead, they specifically, clearly and IMMEDIATELY released statements that break with investigatory patterns involving conclusive statements pointing to causes of crashes.

QUESTION:

What are the chances of all of the above known factors coming into play at the same time?

ANSWER:

So remote as to reside -- on the Scale of Probabilities -- somewhere between:

A) "gross statistical impossibility"

B) "utterly impossible and pointing to a clear, unmistakable cover-up."

Pick one.

I say it's B, for the following primary reasons:

1) The government and the airlines industry was, even as the flames were still burning after the crash of AA597, urging the American people to book flights for Thanksgiving and Christmas. Their fears of travel downturns are being realized, and the economic impact of said downturn is being felt painfully throughout the industry and thus the nation. Another terrorist attack just prior to one of the two largest travel weeks in the year could literally put a couple of the airlines out of business for good and have untold negative economic consequences, none of which looks good for our depressed economy.

They want you to keep propping up the American Empire with your federal reserve notes -- backed ONLY by your belief in them -- before they are no longer worth anything.

2) The federal government has been exhibiting -- forever -- a lack of trust and faith in the ability of the American people to handle the truth. They don't think you are "mature enough" to handle the truth. Your great- and great-great- and great-great-great-grandparents couldn't handle the truth about massacres of native American indians, so they painted the genocides as righteous events. Et cetera, throughout our history, right up to Waco where We The People "couldn't handle the truth" that a host of FBI and BATF agents were cold blooded murderers of innocent American women and children, so anything but the truth was made known even though what we were told was way beyond preposterous.

Your government doesn't trust you, believe in you, have faith in you, respect you or your judgement and certainly doesn't believe you can deal with the fact that the latest flying bomb was downed intentionally. But they want you to keep your head in the sand and fly another potential flying bomb in hopes you get to and from your holiday destinations alive. Those who don't, mark my words, will be declared the victims of another "accident." Either that or a "Thanksgiving Airline Disaster" would be used to justify giving some federal agency another $40 billion "to protect you." Or both.

If your government doesn't trust you, isn't honest with you, lies directly to you, hides facts and avoids discussions of known facts while trying to lure more money out of your pocket and safety from your life..., what does that say about their opinion of you?

And what does that mean about your relationship to them?

 

Angel Shamaya is the Founder/Executive Director of KeepAndBearArms.com

[RoughDobermann]

But, but, but! You started it! :-)

[Yankee]

Angel is making a total fool of himself. He should at least wait for the facts to come in before diving off the deep end.

You're doggone right!

Personally, I'll wait for the official report from DEBKAFILE and the Al-Jazeera Network's documentary.

[webster]

Very nice Profile page!

[Yankee]

It's not the size that matters; it's the length! :-)

See, now I have heard that it's not the length, but rather the girth.

FRegards,
Stubby

[ruoflaw]

I remember this same person releasing another press release some time ago...you are right in my opinion...they should stick to 2nd Amendment issues.

[bjcintennessee]

Thanks for chuckle on the tin foil and what not. I needed it after going brain-dead trying to read FresnoDA's filibuster.

[wjcsux]

Thanks for the information. What puzzles me is that other than on Fox News, no one has pointed out that the vertical stabilizer apparently came off this aircraft prior to the engine coming off. It appears to me the catastrophic structural damage that was a result the vertical stabilizer coming off the airframe caused the aircraft to come apart in flight.

[xp38]

I see this has degenerated into another Blame Canada thread!!

[bjcintennessee]

Your government doesn't trust you, respect you or your judgement...

What has the American public done over the past years to earn any trust or respect?? The American voters put the Clintoons in office for eight looooooong years!!!

There are still too many people who think we need the government to take care of us, to protect us from ourselves. (We all need a village.... -- gag!)

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

"I have not heard a single government spokesman say that this was definitely an accident, have you?"

Exactly. The NTSB has stated that it is being treated as an accident until EVIDENCE of terrorism is found.
Not the same as saying "it was an accident".
I think the tin-foil is on a bit too tight.

[texasbluebell]

If the severed engine hit the vertical stabilizer over the bay, one would assume that both would fall into the water, right?

But it's still bothering me that that stabilizer, from what I could see on tv, did not look damaged, in fact looked too perfect to have been hit by an engine.

[katze]

#47 I hope you feel better after this wasted effort. But, please tell me what TWA800 has to do with AA578. I assume you posted Elaine Scarrey's EMI theory?

[discostu]

Well it's hard to tell if it really did. Because of inertia, and aerodynamics things can land first that didn't fall off first. In general you can say: that which landed first came off first, but there can exceptions. Personally I think Fox is going off a little half cocked on this. It's entirely possible (not necessarily likely, but possible) some part of the plane came off and smacked the tail off and because of the different weights, and direction of inertia fell farther down crash from the tail. You also have to keep in mind that there are different definitions to "fell off". In general when some part of the plane ceases to be riveted to the plane we consider that part to have fallen off, but there are wires and hoses all throughout the structure, so the metal could fail, allowing a part to fall off, but the hoses could keep it attached for a while. I'm betting that will be the NTSBs explanation that some part (wing or engine, or a little of both) broke structural integrity which allowed it to become a projectile that knocked the stabilizer off (it really does look kind of like that tail got punched by a very large fist pretty much dead center in the logo), but was still attached by hoses and wires long enough to get dragged forward with the rest of the plane (but managed to knock to tail completely free possibly because of the diferent way hydraulics are connected to the tail). Or the tail could have caught a big push backwards from the explosion, or just grabbed a sea breeze right. There are so many ways things "could have" happened.

One of the deep secrets the NTSB doesn't like to talk about is that there are anomolies in every crash. Some things happen that just don't fit. What they do is try to find an explanation that works for 95% of the evidence and write off the other 5% as "crashes are chaotic and nobody can ever really know what happened to every single part during a crash". The tail could wind up in that 5% that they just don't get.

[wjcsux]

Thanks for the info. The vertical stabalizer would make a pretty good sail.

[Widower of AA Flt 191]

Do you recall American Airline Flt 191 that crashed at Chicago on May 25, 1979? Engines indeed do just fall off an aircraft. When engines tear off there is sometimes little a pilot can do no matter what his hours in the air are, look at the hours for this flight crew. Accidents do sometimes happen and don't have to be some big secret coverup

[en regalia]

scary, i was about 13 years old when i read that OMNI article...Liddy talked about how the embrittlement agent could be hidden in a simple highlighter or other sharpie like marker. all they needed to do was trace along the rivets/seams of the plane. metal fatigue would result when the pressure at altitude increased..this sounds very plausible...

[swarthyguy]

pingeru flt 587.

[texianyankee]

Thanks!

[TankerKC]

Shouldn't this be listed under "Humor"?

[ReignOfError]

scary, i was about 13 years old when i read that OMNI article..

I think I was about 13 years old when I first read this FR thread. Okay, slight exaggeration.