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

[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.