Posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:50 PM PST by smorgle
Ask any lawyer, judge, or prosecutor.
Eyewitness accounts are used every day in criminal and civil trials.
The government even has a witness protection program.
Loose nuts sink ships.
If you could just look into his eyes, you would realize that there is no way this was an accident.
But this doesn't deter most Freepers from yelling, "The Feds are lying, the Feds are lying". We have already heard different "eyewitnesses" tell differing stories. Plus, this is New York. I would bet many are still scared sh!tless. Heightened emotions cause mistakes. Freepers usually frown upon kneejerk reactions. Not this time apparently.
Not necessarily. Depends on what stuff is in the tail and what it connects to. You can't forget the hydraulics and electronics that are in planes, and what happens to them when parts get ripped off the plane is usually bad. For example the infamous DC10 engine falling off incident of the late '70s. The DC10 was a magnificent plane and could survive the loss of 2 out of 3 engines (actually part of the training for that plane was that if a wing engine cacked to power down the surviving wing engine, run off of the tail engine which would be easier to steer with because it was centered horizontally on the plane which wing engines aren't). Problem was "loss" didn't include "fall off". When the fateful engine actually fell off the plane it ripped huge chunks of the hydraulics and electronics out with it (they're just hoses and wires after all, nothing super special about them), this yanked out enough of the control system that none of the surfaces were responsive, thus the plane became an unguided missile (with uneven thrust because an engine had just fallen off).
Now you're going to say that's not an explosion, and you're right. But, that's also just a wing engine. A lot of important electronic hubs are in the tail, because the tail is generally the safest part of an aircraft, it makes sense to put stuff in there. One of the things generally in the tail is the FDR, the FDR connects to probes and sensors all over the plane, it is literally wired up to everything. What happens when you yank that sucker out with the same kind of force that crippled the DC10 20+ years ago? Power surges are a safe bet. Power surges have a tendency to lead to sparks. Sparks in fuel chambers are very bad.
Now, I'm not saying that IS the answer. Not really even saying it could be the answer. What I am saying is that when you start yanking parts off of planes all kinds of stuff can happen (remember, planes are designed around the idea of surviving system failure, not violent system removal, there's a built in assumption that by the time parts are falling off the plane is already SOL), and you quite simply cannot say without equivocation that explosions aren't on that list of possible repercussions.
Hadn't thought of that...*grin*
Anyway, what does it matter? The government's handling it and how they conduct the investigation is none of your damn business anyway unless you work for the NTSB.
So...relax, everybody! Go book a flight to Vegas!
This was why one engine was separate of the crash....so they said.... Then the other engine was found at a different location....the government explanation then went a flock of birds were ingested causing one engine to fail causing the plane to violently rotate which caused the good engine to fling off the wing......
Oops! initial engine inspection showed no damage from either uncontained failure or bird ingestion....
Then were told that the pilot dumped his fuel into the bay knowing there was a problem and hoped to circle to land......The voice recorder proved that wrong.....Also, the Airbus300 doesn't have fuel dump capability.
Then the tail and part of a wing was found in the bay, looking cleanly sheared.....(explains the fuel in the bay)
Now were being told wake turbulence from the preceding departing jet was the cause, even though separation was an additional 20 seconds that day......
Wake turbulence can be a factor in landings when the plane is close to the ground but will not cause a Airbus 300 to breakapart in flight.....
Gee, all the baggage matched didn't it???? Although I didn't notice a lot of terrorist getting out of the planes on 9/11 either.....
If the word bomb is mentioned the stockmarket nosedives, several thousand airline employees lose their jobs and the airline/tourist industry will come completely apart.....Possibly plunging the US into a deep recession and the world into a depression......
The pressure on our government is enormous to limit the damage.....Does it matter whether a public proclamation is made?
The passengers are still dead, the same government resources would be committed........A little lie wouldn't hurt would it? Especially since people are so receptive to believe it.....
NeverGore
Yeah, and the trade towers came down because a spider got tangled in his web and kicked too hard against the building.
Everytime I read about people painting corrosive agents on the plane (which is entirely plausible), I remember that scene.
I'm sure the mechanic crews and airport security videos are getting a thorough examination.
Ask any lawyer, judge, or prosecutor. Eyewitness accounts are used every day in criminal and civil trials.
Hell, yes! I'm appalled by how many people here have suddenly decided to play the old, two-bit Public Defender routine, trying to convince others that an eyewitness "didn't see what he thought he saw." It's one thing to say that sometimes eyewitnesses err--it's something entirely different---and wholly insidious---to cop the attitude that eyewitness testimony ipso facto has to completely discounted.
Maybe it's due to some kind of corrupt psychological syndrome in the wake of the Fl. 800 cover-up...
We did a test in my psych class (based on a semi-famous test done years earlier) that really showed just how crappy human memory really is. In this test we're shown "live footage" of a car accident then given a sheet with 10 questions about the accident, all short answer stuff. There were a couple of "seed" questions in there, things phrased to push you towards changing your memory of the accident. Then we collated the answers and rewatched the the accident. My favorite question was "did the pickup truck in the accident have a gun wrack?", only one person in class (about 40, no I wasn't the smart one) answered correctly, which was: what pickup truck, there weren't any. No that's a little unsubtle, but it's lack of subtlety illustrates the point: 39 out of 40 people had their memories edited to include a non-existent pickup because the question made them decide they were wrong.
Keep that in mind when you're on a jury. Eyewitness testimony ain't worth squat. But people worship it.
Never listen to anybody who hasn't held the wreckage in their hands and under their microscopes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.