NTSB Chief: Crash Probably Accident

Associated Press ^ | November 12, 2001 | By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent

[MeekOneGOP]

Let me see if I have this right. Your e-mail buddy (who is not an eyewitness) is 75% sure it was a SAM, but NO EYEWITNESS reports seeing a SAM. Do you see a problem with this?

You have it correct and, yes I do see a problem with that. That is why my post says also "I just have a hard time believing this is a deliberate act, but sure wanna know."

Thanks.

[jwalsh07]

According to a former NTSB investigator engines on the Airbuses are designed to seperate on catastrophic failure. Did you know that?

[Lady GOP]

My guess is that a bomb was planted. We know terrorists want to bankrupt this country and knock out mass transportation and they can do that. If mechanical then why wasnt there ever a mayday from the pilot ?

Plane accidents do happen and depature and return are dangerous...absolutely. After planes dont just explode for no reason. Call me crazy but......Its them again.

[Committed]

As a very long time pilot and engineer, the day's observations of pieces being recovered from Jamaica Bay show me that the plane was literally blown apart in the air, either by a bomb or a fuel explosion similar to TWA.

At this point, I feel sure we're looking at terrorism. It doesn't surprise me that officials are reporting a likely accident. Reports of terrorism, unless very obvious, would do more harm than good just now. We shall see......

[Rome2000]

Another airline related terrorist incident would destroy commercial aviation quicker than a mechanical problem.

Actually, Government officials making premature preposterous statements like "it was probably an accident"when all evidence and common sense points to the opposite will do more to destroy what little trust was left in the Government.

How does makking people believe that they may not only die on American Airlines as a result of a terrorist attack, but they also have to worry about the engines falling off help that airline or any other?.

Something tells me that you have an agenda.

Do you work for the Government?

[Poohbah]

Actually, there WAS a Mayday, and the plane was also seen dumping fuel into Jamaica Bay and trying to return to JFK. In other words, they were acting like they had mechanical problems.

[mewzilla]

It doesn't even have to be a bomb, or a bomb on the inside</> of the plane. All they'd need is someone with access to the plane while on the tarmac. And given the oxymoron that still is airport security, it probably wouldn't be that big a problem.

[sinkspur]

Actually, there's way more evidence that there was a bomb than not (little things like people hearing an explosion and pieces like the wing and engine falling off and landing away from the main crash site).

You need to look up the thread on the GE CF-6. Catastrophic engine failure can destroy the engine, the shroud, and blades can rip into the wings and fuselage. The CF-6 has been failing on an irregular basis for ten years.

"People hearing" don't mean anything when fuel explodes, no matter what the cause.

As walsh says, why would a terrorist blow up a plane destined for one of the poorest countries in the world?

[jwalsh07]

There definitely could be criminal mischief mechanically. In fact thats the only theory that would argue that it was a terrorist since the destination of the flight would not necessarily be known when the failure occurred. I'm arguing that there has been no evidence of a bomb from what I have heard today and I listened very closely to the contemporaneous accounts this morning on WABC the local NY radio station. They did a good job finding and talking to witnesses on air. No mention of SAM's and several insisted there was no explosion from their vantage point.

[Jim Scott]

There is NO evidence that a bomb blew up that plane.

Correct. Appreciate your attempts at sanity on this thread.

It seems as if many folks want the crash to be the result of a terrorist.
I don't have much trust in government either but this instant analysis and final conclusions based on limited information is pointless. Too many know-it-alls who don't know much but like to think they do. Yes siree, can't fool those folks. They KNOW.

I'll hold judgement until we see more information and if the government witholds too much information or gets all coy about responding to questions and showing proof of simple mechanical failure then I'll get on the 'terrorists did it' bandwagon. It's a little too early for that at this point.

[mewzilla]

And the phrase "mechanical problems" doesn't mean much, to my mind, until we know whether or not there was criminal intent involved in development of the problem.

[Lady GOP]

Actually, there WAS a Mayday

Really where is that being reported..? Last time checked the only thing they could confirm was an explosion. Please send me a link.

[MeekOneGOP]

If anybody is hysterical it is you, I'm LMAO at your posts!

Me too, actually. He should audition for the Comedy Club? ;-)

[Poohbah]

I heard it on local radio (San Diego) a few minutes ago. No link handy, will look.

[Gargantua]

Conversely, the only way you can be sure that it was not a "terrorist" act was if you yourself did it. Just relax, I'm sure you'll enjoy the cavity search. Weirdo.

[Clinton's a rapist]

The CF-6 has been failing on an irregular basis for ten years.

From that, I take it you are predicting the FAA will be grounding all planes with the CF-6 real soon now. Correct?

[Rome2000]

Actually, there WAS a Mayday, and the plane was also seen dumping fuel into Jamaica Bay and trying to return to JFK. In other words, they were acting like they had mechanical problems.

That is a direct contradiction of Ari Fleischers press confrence when he was asked if there was any indication of trouble aboard the flight.

Here we go again, if the story doesn't fit the facts, change the story.

Does the word PREPOSTEROUS mean anything to you?

[mewzilla]

Don't be so hard on the people whio are hoping for terrorists to be responsible for this. That, in it's own way, is less hard to take than the idea that a plane can just--ooops--fall out of the sky. OBL's guys would also be earier to take than a domestic airline that was screwing and/or killing its own customers by skimping on maintenance or and/or buying cheapie spare parts.

Personally, I'm with the folks who are hoping that the other guys did it.

And I also am aware than anything human-made is intrinsically imperfect and could fail at any time, but I'm hoping that's not the cause, either.

[NixNatAVanG InDaBurgh]

> Actually, you're letting your shotgun mouth get ahead of your BB gun butt. The latest is that the pilot was dumping fuel seconds after take-off. Pilots dump fuel when they believe they can return to an airport. Not likely that this was terrorism. More likely that it was catastrophic engine failure.

Sinkspur, WHY NO COMMUNICATION????? NONE? There are usually more than one person in the cockpit. Why, if the pilot could have been dumping fuel, which I've been told is unlikely according to the type of plane it was, wouldn't SOMEONE have radioed the tower? Think about it before you start insulting people who are rightly untrusting of government pronouncements, especially the NTSB, none of whom were on the scene until AFTER the fact and AFTER many eyewitnesses had already been heard from.

[MeekOneGOP]

As a very long time pilot and engineer, the day's observations of pieces being recovered from Jamaica Bay show me that the plane was literally blown apart in the air, either by a bomb or a fuel explosion similar to TWA.

At this point, I feel sure we're looking at terrorism. It doesn't surprise me that officials are reporting a likely accident. Reports of terrorism, unless very obvious, would do more harm than good just now. We shall see......

Thanks, friend! I nominated yours for "Number one response on the Thread". Can I get a second on that nomination???