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

Sierra Times ^ | November 13, 2001 | Angel Shamaya

[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.