[Born to Conserve]

I saw a report of eyewitness pilots saying that the plane "shuddered, than spiraled into the ground belly first" [extreme paraphrasing -- don't recall the source].

A flat spind would load the engine mounts in the weakest direction. The engines would break off and fly out and away from the path of the rest of the plane, and there could easily be major damage to the wings as the engines broke away, resulting in a fuel explosion. The engines were found 800ft from the main crash site (I think), the tail parts were considerably far back (I don't recall seeing the exact amount).

No coverup -- they have no motive -- flimsy aircraft will have as bad an effect on passinger confidence as flimsy security -- no motive to lie and cover up. Everything I have heard is consistant with mechanical failure of the tail, and the resulting flat spin.

[Blueflag]

Actually the spin would not stay flat for long as the upwind wing will generate more lift than the downwind wing, and the aircraft will roll (swept wings). The aircraft by all accounts, gov't, conspiracy theorists, and eyewitnesses did roll over (not saying inverted) and not just pancake.

[VOA]

No coverup -- they have no motive -- flimsy aircraft will have as bad an effect on passinger
confidence as flimsy security -- no motive to lie and cover up.

I'm keeping an open mind...and currently leaning to mechanical failure. Especially since
I read in The LA Times (yes, I buy it occassionally for opposition research) that when
this particular A300 was delivered, one of the six attachment points for the tail fin
was loose and Airbus had to fix it after delivery.

BUT, I still am bothered by anything I hear from the NTSB that sounds questionable.
Yesterday, I happened to see Oprah. She had Mary Shiavo on, along with live (via TV)
interview with that southern lady who's a spokesperson for the NTSB.
She was trying to fortify the "wake turbulence" explanation by saying that the
Japan 747 was "fully loaded with passengers and fuel" and thus the turbulence would be maximal.

I'm not an engineer...but wouldn't amount/intensity of wake turbulence be
determined by the aerodynamics of a plane...NOT the amount of weight carried within
it's hull? In other word, if a 747 is cruising along at 450 mph, wouldn't the wake turbulence
from the votices from it's wingtips be just about the same if it was flying empty
or loaded to the max?

Maybe I'm missing something, but that statement just didn't ring true with me.