[eno_]

Actually a successful "shoe bomber" attack would look pretty much like 587: Plane loses control due to severed hydraulics, enters unusual attitude, and loses large surfaces due to air load. Loss of control leading to unusal attitude and midair breakup is a fairly common chain of events. No novel theories about bird strike, thrust reversers, or cheap French plastic tails required. Google up the keywords "unusual attitude" and see for yourself.

[John H K]

Actually a successful "shoe bomber" attack would look pretty much like 587:

Actually. a successful "shoe bomber" attack would look NOTHING like 587.

How does it magically cut the hydraulics without rupturing the passenger cabin? So where are all the pieces of passenger seats, overhead bin luggage, etc. blown out the plane that would have been floating on Jamaica Bay? Have you seen those photos of the test of a C4 bomb in a Walkman in a 747 (on the ground?). Massive cloud of confetti blown out of the passenger cabin. Guess what....there wasn't any for 587.

[Poohbah]

Actually a successful "shoe bomber" attack would look pretty much like 587: Plane loses control due to severed hydraulics, enters unusual attitude, and loses large surfaces due to air load. Loss of control leading to unusal attitude and midair breakup is a fairly common chain of events. No novel theories about bird strike, thrust reversers, or cheap French plastic tails required. Google up the keywords "unusual attitude" and see for yourself.

In other words, you've just made the lack of evidence of a bomb into evidence of a bomb.

BTW, the shoe bomb wouldn't work--commercial aircraft are a wee bit more robust than Al-Qaeda thought.