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

Sierra Times ^ | November 13, 2001 | Angel Shamaya

[Carlucci]

Thanks for rescuing me from being labled as a Tin-Foiler! (Because, you see, THEY are all out to get me!)

Now, if someone could actually dig up the G. Gordon Liddy article from OMNI magazine...

[JoeMomma]

I hate to say it, but it appears that FR has a alert with this thread. Gummint's out to get us!!! Either that, or the original post came from someone simply off his .

[azhenfud]

I've noticed historically, a direct correlation to MAINTENANCE and REVENUE. For some odd reason, the less revenue generated by airlines, the less attentive maintenance is given to individual aircraft. My thoughts are that this aircraft's maintenance logs and squawk sheets could tell a tale, too - excluding forged entries.

[philosofy123]

I do suspect a cover up. And I think it is wise to cover it up. The public would lose confidence in the government. On the other hand, the government is in not enviable posision; there are thousands of Moslems in our society who are helping out the terrorists. If you round them all, the ACLU will be up in arm.

[r9etb]

YOU FOOL!!!!!

You left your hands and face uncovered! Don't you know that's where they get in? You're next!!!!

[3catsanadog]

It's kind of like Bull Sh!t spray.

[Sloth]

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.

How is this any more unscientific or unprofessional than this author declaring "American Airlines Flight 587's Crash was NOT AN ACCIDENT!" without conclusive evidence and within only a day or so of it happening?

[imperator2]

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.

[GoredInMich]

Don't rightly know. Can't answer you truthfully. Merely stating that engines HAVE fallen off planes before, that werent the work of external forces.

I dont know the proximity of the water to the crash site, or where the engine landed..I am not forwarding any theory, only stating facts about airplane engines falling off in the past.

However............I would think the tail section, which is quite a bit lighter than the engine, would flutter down, and would not fall in the same place as the engine, being much heavier.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Reports from multiple pilots . . . "

Names, please.

[Greenpointer]

Here is an average sized Canadian Goose. Obviously large enough to take the plane out.

[Yankee]

You have a s---load of free time on your hands, don't you?

[Yankee]

A goose once bit my sister. Or was it a Moose?

I forget.

[Greenpointer]

They are huge I tell ya.

[RoughDobermann]

BTW, that's a Canada goose, not a Canadian goose. :-)

[Greenpointer]

They are a menace to windsurfers also.

[Greenpointer]

Thanks for the clarification, what the heck do I know :)

[discostu]

It's not truly intact. On one of the other threads somebody put a side-by-side of the extraction with a file photo of the plane. Most of the section below the bottom A is gone, that's a good 10 feet of tail. Between that and the rudder the infamous "undamaged" tail picture only show 1 side of about 1/3 the tail, or about 1/6 of the total tail. And, if you look closely) you can see that the back section has a very large dent (large enough that the back section pretty much IS the dent), you can really see the line to the right of the bird from there you can follow the shadow and see that the dent is huge.

Now, a lot of that could have been caused by hitting the water just as easily as by events in the air. That's why we hire experts. I'm just putting forth that this tail is clearly damaged and by no means the pristine thing a lot of people are saying in many of these threads.

[RoughDobermann]

:-) I only know because some ornithologist freaked on me once when I called them Canadian geese.