EIGHTH UPDATE ON NTSB INVESTIGATION INTO CRASH OF AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 587

NTSB ^ | 4 June 2002 | NTSB

[KQQL]

Terrorism was the REAL reason....but NTSB will never say that...

[jlogajan]

Terrorism was the REAL reason....but NTSB will never say that...

And we know this because -- 18% of the witnesses reported observing the airplane in a right turn; or 18% of the witnesses reported observing the airplane in a left turn?

[sinkspur]

And we know this because -- 18% of the witnesses reported observing the airplane in a right turn; or 18% of the witnesses reported observing the airplane in a left turn?

We know we damn sure can't rely on eyewitness reports to get to the bottom of anything.

Everybody saw something different.

[Asmodeus]

"Terrorism was the REAL reason....but NTSB will never say that".

If you KNOW that to be true, present your supporting evidence and reference source URLs.

If you can't do that, it's inappropriate, to put it mildly, to make either that allegation or that accusation about the NTSB.

Truth is always determined by facts, not suspicions, speculations, allegations or accusations.

[Incorrigible]

Sorry KQQL. Shoddy French manufacturing and ineffective maintenance was the cause of this one.

Now, TWA800, that's a bomb of a whole other shoe.

[CindyDawg]

hum. might be another issue here. My aikido instructor explains it the best. "turn to the right. no your other right". lol

[Fred Mertz]

· 8% specifically reported seeing an explosion.

This is significant since most on n=349 (sample size) didn't see the initial incident...assumption on my part.

[Plummz]

I'd want to see the interview transcripts before I trusted any summary put out by the NTSB.

[Fred Mertz]

Let me cut to the chase. It was the shoe bomber #1.

[Betty Jo]

I no longer believe anything this government tells me, without "GOOGLING" the heck out of it!

[John H K]

Let me cut to the chase. It was the shoe bomber #1.

Ok.

1) How does a shoe bomb in the cabin magically, cleanly separate the vertical stabilizer (with not a scrap of blast damage on it, or burns) as the FIRST thing to come off?

2) Why is there no explosion heard on the cockpit voice recorder?

3) Why was there absolutely NO cabin debris (overhead bin luggage, parts of seats, etc) found floating in Jamaica Bay, or on land leading up to the crash site, if there was a shoe bomber in the cabin (which presumably would rupture the cabin?)

[ChasingFletch]

"Let me cut to the chase. It was the shoe bomber #1.".....

Fred, you're most likely correct, take it from another personality. Anyhow, if in the unlikelyhood that it wasn't shoebomber #1, it may have been that out-of-control food and beverage cart rolling recklessly to the back of the plane (right past the shoe bomber, who was hiding in the bathroom). The cart knocked the tail off and also started a fire on the way to the back of the plane!

[ChasingFletch]

"Let me cut to the chase. It was the shoe bomber #1.".

Yep......and please give my regards to Ethel!

[panaxanax]

If it was shoddy French workmanship and the Airbus was considered unsafe, WHY WEREN'T THEY ALL GROUNDED AND THE PROBLEM FIXED??!! I'm not sticking up for the French, but look at the facts. This is another coverup.

[timestax]

bump to the top

[Plummz]

Perhaps. I've been more inclined to believe sabotage by a JFK "maintenance" crew.

[Fred Mertz]

I read probably the same convincing article that you did that said that sabotage of the hydraulic lines could have caused the type of spin that the aircraft experienced. It was very technical and very convincing, but I'm not an aviator with an aero dynamics background.

[Tymesup]

Bump