Posted on 07/18/2002 10:40:32 PM PDT by Beach_Babe
A number of witnesses to the final moments of American Airlines Flight 587 before it corkscrewed down into Belle Harbor came to the Beach Club last week for a meeting sponsored by The Wave and hosted by Kenny and Steve Good, the proprietors of the restaurant. Many of them told their stories. Some filled out witness statements provided by the newspaper. In this first of a series of articles about the witnesses, here is what some of those eyewitnesses told The Wave:
James P. Conrad
Brooklyn
Conrad was on Rockaway Point Boulevard at the Fort Tilden traffic light. His attention was drawn to the plane because it was unusually low and at a location where he normally did not see planes. "I saw a puff of white smoke come from the right side of the plane’s body, just behind the right wing. Then, there was a large explosion engulfing the body of the plane from the wing back to the tail. It was then seven or eight seconds before the plane crashed into the ground." Conrad added that "just before the plane passed over the seawall, there were debris pieces of all sizes dropping from the plane and through the smoke."
Rhoda Ross
Cronston Avenue and Beach 125
Ross first was alerted to the plane when her house shook. Pieces of the aircraft "fell all around" her house. While she never saw the plane, she heard the explosion and the plane passing over her home.
Joann Catanese
Beach60 and the Boardwalk
The ex-NYPD sergeant was at Beach 60 Street and the boardwalk when an explosion drew her attention to the plane. She says that she saw "an area from the left wing to the tail go on fire." She adds that she saw "something fall from the plane and float to the north."
Tom Lynch
Beach 151 Street and Rockaway Beach Boulevard
The ex-firefighter was nearby the Neponsit Home (Beach_Babe used to work there)when he noticed the plane "lower than usual." As he watched, he saw "an orange-red explosion, about the size of a small car," on the right side of the plane. The plane flew on normally for two or three seconds and then there was a "larger, second burst of flames, like a match on a grill." At that time, he says, "a piece of the plane separates, a piece that I first thought was the wing, but might have been the tail." He continued watching for a few seconds more as it "started a curved dive into the ground."
Barbara Johnston
400 Block of Beach 124
Johnston was on the porch of her home when she was attracted by the noise of a plane low in the sky. She had a view of the left side of the plane and its tail. The plane was "level, but losing altitude," she says. "The cockpit of the plane was hanging off and flames were coming off the front of the plane," she adds.
Neil MacLeod
Broad Channel Subway Station
MacLeod was waiting for the Manhattan train when some teens yelled "Look at that plane." He looked up and the plane was "yawing," moving in a "counter-clockwise motion." "There was fire and smoke coming from under the plane, where the right wing and the fuselage join," he adds. He says that there were "pieces falling off the plane, moving along with it." During the last few seconds prior to the crash, he says that a "long, rectangular piece came off the plane, but it was not in the shape of the tail."
Barbara Morris
Gateway National Park Golf Course
Morris was waiting to swing when she heard a plane with an "engine that was stalling out." She looked up at the plane and saw "an explosion, smoke and fire." She watched as the plane continued on and its engine fell off prior to its crash.
Mary Ellen Murray
Four Hundred Block of Beach 124
Murray was on the second floor of her house when she heard the "loud noise of a plane" flying right overhead. "I only saw flames coming from the wing closest to the bay," she says. She only saw the plane for about 15-30 seconds, because she ran to get her husband and family. She wanted to get everybody out of the house, because she believed that it was "going to crash soon."
Patrick Twohig
100 Block of Beach 114
Twohig, a retired priest, was on the second floor of his home, when he heard "a loud bang, different from the one you hear in a car accident." He looked out the window and saw the plane, which "seemed to drop and the went level again." Twohig says that "right after the bang, I saw smoke and flames towards the rear of the aircraft. I saw lots of aircraft parts fall from the plane, but I don’t know what parts of the plane they were from." He watched until the plane crashed and he saw the thick, black smoke.
Maureen Hagner
Beach 124 and Rockaway Beach Boulevard
Hagner was attracted to the plane because she "thought it was the Concorde" passing over. She looked up and saw the plane on fire. She says that she found "what appeared to be the cargo door" of the plane on Beach 125 Street.
Michael D. Benjamin
Flatbush Avenue, nearby Nick’s Seafood and Toys ‘R Us
Benjamin and his family were driving south on Flatbush Avenue, heading for the Belt Parkway, when his daughter said, "look, that plane is on fire." He looked up and saw a "huge fire" on the plane’s fuselage. He continued to watch until the plane crashed into Rockaway.
Angela Fogarty
Eastbound on the Belt Parkway between Knapp Street and Flatbush Avenue
Fogarty first noticed the plane because "it was flying much lower than planes usually flew in that area." She thinks that she saw "something come in contact with the bottom of the plane," but she is not sure. She saw "an explosion followed by a fireball and then by smoke. "The fire lasted only a second or so, but the smoke lasted until the plane crashed," she says. Fogarty adds that she "saw something large fall from the plane," and that she thought it was the wing. "I guess that it was really the tail," she says now.
Jake Kalletta
Two hundred block of Beach 131 Street
Kalletta says that he never saw the plane, but that it was important to him to report what he heard. "I heard a very loud plane, and I thought that the Concorde was back," he says. "Then there was a loud boom and an even louder roar of engines. A few seconds later, my house shook. I yelled for the kids to get to the basement and then I looked out to the street. There was a wall of black smoke and debris all over the place.
John P. Quill
Beach 110 Street and Rockaway Beach Boulevard
Quill was first attracted to the plane by a "muffled pop in the air." He looked up towards the sound and saw the plane wobble a bit. He says that he saw "fire in the fuselage, through the plane’s windows and near the rear door." He adds that he watched as "part of the wing and the engines came off prior to it crashing."
Jerome Alks
Beach 133 Street and Newport Avenue
Alks was first attracted to the plane by the noise of the engines, "which did not sound normal." As he watched, he saw "white smoke and flames" on the fuselage. Alks believed that he saw the wing fall off the plane, but now believes that it was the tail instead.
Richard Asaro
400 block of Beach 135
Asaro was attracted to the plane by an "explosion." He looked up and saw the plane diving, spiraling down. "The entire back half of the plane was billowing black smoke," he says.
George Mowbray
Beach 116 and Rockaway Beach Boulevard
Mowbray was attracted by a plane that was "low and loud." He looked up and saw "parts fly off," as well as "flames on the fuselage near the wings."
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) chairperson Marion Blakey who, despite the eyewitness testimony of dozens of Rockaway residents, earlier announced that "there is no evidence of either explosion or fire" on the remains of American Airlines Flight 587, will soon leave that agency to become the head of the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA).
According to one news report, "Blakey appeared at news conferences to reassure an anxious public that evidence showed the (flight 587) accident was not caused by sabotage."
President Bush is expected to nominate Blakey to head the FAA sometime in the coming week.
Many Rockaway residents, however, as recently as last week at a Wave-sponsored eyewitness meeting, accused Blakey and her organization of covering up the real cause of the crash.
In addition, there has been some concern in the Rockaway community that the FAA has not kept its promise that fewer planes departing JFK Airport’s runway 31L would over fly inhabited portions of the peninsula. That promise had been made at a January meeting at PS 114, and a new plan that would ensure that planes would fly the "Breezy Track" when departing the airport, particularly during evening hours, has been postponed by the agency a number of times.
While Rockaway residents have problems with both the NTSB and the FAA, not everybody agrees with that point of view.
"They couldn’t have picked anybody better," said Representative John Mica of Florida, the chair of the House aviation subcommittee, speaking of Blakey. "She’s a tough administrator and she had great credentials."
Blakey, 54, served in the Reagan and George Bush administrations. She is reportedly a close political ally of White House Chief of Staff Andy Card.
Blakey first took the reins of the NTSB on September 26 of last year, after heading her own consulting firm for many years.
She will replace Jane Garvey, whose five-year term will expire on August 4.
By all accounts, the Flight 587 Witness meeting hosted by The Wave at the Beach Club a week ago went very well. More than 20 people from the local area – Rockaway, Broad Channel and Brooklyn, stood up and told the 150 people in the room what they had seen that day. Several aviation experts, including Stan Molin, a retired Eastern Airlines pilot whose son, Sten, was flying the A300-600 when it crashed into Belle Harbor, added their expertise.
When The Wave first decided to host a meeting for the crash witnesses, a local politician told us that we would "attract every kook in Rockaway" to our meeting.
While there were some who held non-traditional ideas about the crash, there were no "kooks" at the meeting and it is a shame that there was nobody from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) or the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) present at the meeting simply to hear the stories.
Had they done so, those agencies would no longer be sure that "twisted metal" told more of a story than eyewitnesses, who those agencies have declared to be "subjective" and "unreliable."
What surprises me more than the fact that neither the NTSB nor the FAA seems interested in the stories of the eyewitnesses, the media has shown even more disinterest with the story.
Both the Daily News and Newsday covered the story. Merle English was there for Newsday and Warren Woodberry, Jr. (along with a photographer) was there for the Daily News.
The meeting was held on Thursday. By Monday, there was still no mention of the meeting or the story in either daily paper. When I ran into Woodberry at the groundbreaking for Arverne By The Sea, I asked he when the witness story was expected to run. He said that he had "been too busy with other stories to put it together." He seemed evasive, but perhaps it was my own perception and he was just busy trying to get the Arverne story. The story about the meeting ran in the Daily News on Tuesday of this week. Newsday has yet to run the story.
Just two weeks ago, the New York Times did a long Sunday piece discrediting witnesses in general and more specifically the flight 587 witnesses. The paper went out of its way to "prove" that the witnesses’ sightings were "unreliable."
Now, we have two major daily papers virtually ignoring a story they had covered. I have to wonder why.
One of the experts at the witness meeting was a Boeing engineer named Brett Hoffstadt. He spoke eloquently about the Airbus engines and flight dynamics. He said that there was no way that the pilots "flew the tail off the plane," as had been suggested.
He wrote a long letter to Aviation Week, the industry’s premier magazine, asking why they had not covered the meeting, or at least shown an interest in what was said there.
He wrote, " Where was Av Week? Why wasn't somebody there from your staff? Will there be any account of this meeting in your publication? If not, why not? Forgive my bluntness, but if you don't see a newsworthy story here, I am shocked. I was at this meeting myself, and can tell you these witness accounts were far too specific, detailed, and consistent to be ignored or discounted. I'd like to ask your New York correspondent to do some basic reporting. (On site, not at a press conference!)
It's one thing for the major media to ignore or bury this story. It's a sad day indeed if the most respected aviation news publication decides the truth, or first-hand accounts, are better left unchecked.
Why were so many witnesses drawn to look at this aircraft because of an ‘explosive sound?’ Why did these same witnesses then see fire, smoke, falling debris, or other unusual events? If you heard the many accounts I did that night, you would have plenty of work to do. I don't know a lot about this incident, and it's a shame I have to travel 150 miles to try and learn about it.
Does your publication have a mission statement? I'd like to know where in that it says you will report and investigate important matters in the aerospace and aviation industry, except when they are politically incorrect. Why bother having a free press if you let our government dictate what the story is, or is not?"
Retired firefighter Tom Lynch has somewhat of the same thought. He wrote a letter to The Wave, detailing his thoughts. He wrote: "Having read the Daily News and Newsday on Friday and Saturday, and not seeing the story, I thought that they were probably holding the stories for Sunday’s editions. There was not a mention of the event in Sunday’s papers either. How could they ignore a story where more than 150 people expressed such concern?"
Lynch added, "What more can you expect of the media, when on January 7, six witnesses wrote a letter to the NTSB and only the New York Post thought it newsworthy."
I guess that it is possible that the articles will still appear in those daily papers almost a week later, but the chances of that happening seem more remote each passing day.
Many of those at the meeting stated a view that is gaining credulity in Rockaway. That view holds that the NTSB is covering up the real reason that flight 587 crashed and it pressuring the media to go along with them.
I found that hard to believe a month or two ago, but now I am no longer so sure.
That is not to say that the crash was a result of a terrorist act, although that is still a possibility. More likely, however is that the plane encountered some catastrophic failure while in the air that caused an explosion on the aircraft that then caused the tail and the engines to fall off prior to the crash.
Why would the NTSB want to cover that up?
Because, in the wake of the drop in ridership after September 11, another major problem with commercial aircraft might have killed the entire industry for years.
It would be much better for the industry if the NTSB could prove that the plane crashed because of pilot error or because of a mechanical problem on that one particular aircraft.
And, that is just what the agency is attempting to do. In an earlier update, the NTSB reported that the first officer, Sten Molin, had taken cold medicine prior to the flight. What was that meant to do, if not to implicate the pilot, and only the pilot, in the crash?
The Wave collected witness statements at the meeting last week. We will send copies of those statements to the NTSB, to the FAA, to Congressman Anthony Weiner, to Senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton and to anybody else who might be able to give the witnesses a voice.
I heard the witnesses and I believe that they saw what they said that they saw. The problem is, nobody seems to be listening.
I have been saying this since the accident. I may have tested helicopters, and helicopters are not Fixed wing aircraft, but composite failure (The tail Spar and attach points) was the type of failure we checked every day. There is no way they flew off that tail just from turbulence, it had to be a forcefull motion that was perpendicular to the tail, which I believe the explosion and resultant aircraft disintegration provided.
One or two explosions on board, loss of control, midair breakup, and crash. This is the likeliest true account of what happened.
I am to the point of being enraged that a lying biatch like Marion Blakey will be elevated to the positon of FAA head. That is a slap in the face in addition to the lies.
The most likely scenario is that a shoebomber ala Richard Reid detonated in a seat near the right wing.
I understand why the Fedgov originally would have a motive for keeping the truth under wraps...to save the airline industry during the holiday season. I do NOT understand why they continue to downplay these eyewitness reports. I think the country is ready now to learn the truth.
In addition, the Flight Data recorder recorder "a sharp lurch to the left." This is consistent with a loss of integrity to the right wing. If the wing was damaged, the plane would lose "drag" on that side, causing it to lurch the other way. (similar to placing one oar in the water.) Backing this up are several witnesses who report seeing a wing fall off.
I wonderhas the NTSB ever released a plot of where the pieces were all found?
From the G-Man by Gary G. Toms (co-editor of The Wave)
Challenging The Big Dogs!
You know, so many of the daily newspaper editors and writers have their heads so far up their butts that it's not funny. Some, like the New York Times and New York Post, are so arrogant and prissy, largely because of the reputation they carry, that they forget what the true role of a newspaper really is. All of the awards and accolades they have received over the years don't mean squat to me if they aren't striving to maintain a sense of fairness and balance in their reporting or writing. I say this in light of a recent article that appeared in the New York Times, which sought to discredit eyewitnesses of the Flight 587 crash.
The Times ran an article that included an interview with Dr. Charles Honts, a professor of Psychology at Boise State University in Idaho, which basically denounced the eyewitnesses and their accounts of what happened to the doomed flight.
In a telephone conversation with the Wave's Managing Editor, Howard Schwach, Honts stated, "People who saw the plane crash were witnesses to an unusual event, one that probably none of them had ever seen before. The question is how, later on, that person integrates that accident and what they saw into their memory and then brings it back when they are describing what they saw."
Honts, editor of the Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, goes on to say, "These people genuinely believe they think they saw what they did not really see."
Hey, Honts, I have something to say to you. I was present for the Flight 587 meeting that featured 30 of the eyewitnesses that you and the NTSB have crapped on in recent weeks. I'm telling you, and I would tell you to your face, that these people are honorable, credible and more importantly, in great pain.
If you had been there, my dear Mr. Honts, you would have seen the anguish and frustration on the faces of people who are willing to swear on a Bible that what they saw was real. Sadly, you, and other prissy media types, were not there to witness what many are describing as a moving and powerful meeting.
I suspect that you would never attend such a meeting because you are more interested in concentrating on your scientific analysis and data than taking the time to listen to people who have had their lives forever changed by this tragedy. I don't understand how you can easily regard the eyewitnesses as people who have seen one movie too many. With all due respect doctor, as an esteemed representative of the medical community, you of all people should know that each case study will vary from person to person. Why doesn't that appear to be the case in your analysis of the eyewitnesses to the crash? It was very clear to me that you grouped them all in one category, I believe the term you used was "unreliable", when you, along with the NTSB, should have evaluated each eyewitness report separately. You failed to do that, didn't you Doc? In my book, that's not following standard medical procedure.
For you, and the NTSB, to say that meetings with the eyewitnesses are pointless is inconsiderate and insensitive to the witnesses and families of the victims. When no one, including yourself and the NTSB, has put forth any plausible answer for the crash, what other recourse do these people have but to come together and tell their stories? People like you, the NTSB, and the lop-sided media, won't give them the time of day, or the respect they deserve. They needed a vehicle, and The Wave gave them one. Screw any person, or media outlet, that had a problem with that. Oh, and to the daily that ran a mention about the meeting, but purposely left out the fact that The Wave was serving as host, screw you too!
The families (who were present at the meeting) have waited eight months for answers, only to be dissed by the NTBS and other government officials. It's time to stop the nonsense! So, instead of defecating on the grieving families and the testimony of eyewitnesses, I suggest that both you and the NTSB shut your mouths, know your roles, cease with all the scientific jargon and bureaucratic red tape, and act like you have some compassion and sense!
These are very credible people, with very credible backgrounds. Many of them are "trained observers" (NYPD, FDNY, and other emergency responders) and have been recognized in some way by the agencies and organizations they represent. Did you take that into consideration before you made your blanket statement Doc? I don't think so! Did you interview them? I don't think so! Did you read the reports they submitted to the FBI and NTSB? I don't think so! So, what gives you the right to say they are unreliable? You know what Doc? You need to get out more, and stop relying so much on your stupid, outdated data.
Okay, I now invite the New York Times, and all the other news outlets that have dissed the eyewitnesses, to turn around so I can kick them in the @#$ next. I will exclude the Daily News and Newsday because they were kind enough to send Warren Woodberry and Merle English to cover the meeting. Woodberry's story ran this week, and I suspect that English's piece will soon follow. Kudos to those newspapers.
It's time to go back to school kiddies! Remember journalism 101? What is fair and balanced reporting? Raise your hands! Very good Mr. Cronkite. It's when you present both sides of the argument. That being the case, does the New York Times deserve a C, D, or F on the article that included the interview by Dr. Honts? That's right kids. They deserve a big, fat F because they could have easily gone out and obtained an article from a psychologist who challenged Honts' findings. Instead, they ran with what he said, and have aided and abetted in making the eyewitnesses look like a bunch of nut jobs! I've got news for you. They are NOT nut jobs, and even the staunchest critic that attended the meeting will tell you that.
I want to issue a formal challenge to all the daily papers, WB 11, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NY1, MSNBC, Larry King Live, FOX News, and others media outlets. If any of you believe in presenting a story fairly, and you aren't under some type of government restraint regarding this story, then make it your business to get Vic Trombettas, Tom Lynch, Patrick Twohig, Michael Benjamin, and others who were present at this meeting in your papers and on your shows. You've listened to the theories of the NTSB, and other aviation experts, why not let the witnesses and other experts present their case? Instead of having some psychologist tell the world that they are crazy and unreliable, give the public a chance to decide for themselves. If any of you have a sense of integrity, you will give them a forum to be heard. After all, as media people, that IS what we are here for.
And from the US Read website:
NTSB Statements on Flight 587 Videos
Ted Lopatkiewicz, of the NTSB, made the following statement to me about the number, and quality, and acquisition dates, of any and all Flight 587 videotapes:
"There are two videos. The first was taken by someone at JFK and shows the accident airplane rolling down the runway and taking off. Then the camera turns away and when it returns, all you see is smoke rising in the distance. The second is a series of surveillance cameras from MTABT. There are 3 feeds of some interest. Two are from toll booths and you can see the blurred, grainy image of the plane in the distance. The third is from a pole in a parking lot and I believe all you see is the immediate aftermath of the impact with the ground, the smoke rising from the ground. I would not call the toll booth views "specks" because, though it is blurry, it appears to be the outline of an aircraft. But since it is a subjective description, maybe other people would call it a speck. Once we release these images, everyone can judge for themselves whether "speck" was the right word to use. In any case, our investigators are hopeful they will provide us some use."
Ted also clarified that the NTSB has had both these videos in their possession since the week of the crash.
The NTSB will not be releasing images from these tapes, or the tapes themselves, prior to the docket being opened.
US Read has some debris maps posted.
I asked Victor Trombettas about debris in the bay. He told me that NYPD harbor units, FBI, NTSB, etc have been read the riot act about talking to him. Vic has a wealth of information concerning flight 587 and welcomes correspondence from interested parties. He can be reached thru the link at the US Read website.
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.