Skip to comments.
NTSB Chief: Crash Probably Accident
Associated Press ^
| November 12, 2001
| By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent
Posted on 11/12/2001 11:30:52 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 141-149 next last
To: Lumberjack
Thanks, Lumberjack, for getting my point. I was so upset I had to go take a nap. Now I am up, since DH came home (and fortunately I made dinner before I collapsed in a hea>).
I am fed up and I can't take it anymore. But, will read past your post before screaming into the computer again at the mess we are facing...
81
posted on
11/12/2001 1:25:10 PM PST
by
jacquej
To: MeeknMing
Marion Blakey, chairwoman of the NTSB (news - web sites), said, ``All information we have currently is that this is an accident.''
The crash triggered moments of intense concern inside the administration, struggling to cope with the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and the anthrax outbreak that followed a few weeks later. Blakely's statement is very unusual for the NTSB. No NTSB technical-type would ever make that statement at this point (and keep his job). Her comment makes much more sense when read with the following sentence. Bigtime spin. And before I'm accused of having stock in ALCOA, it may just be an effort to keep down panic. Still, it breaks a long-time and carefully preserved policy of the NTSB.
82
posted on
11/12/2001 1:25:32 PM PST
by
LTCJ
Comment #83 Removed by Moderator
To: sinkspur
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.
Pilots dump fuel but DO NOT report mechanical failure to the tower? You sound ridiculous, but thanks for echoing the government spin.
84
posted on
11/12/2001 1:28:20 PM PST
by
copycat
To: Rome2000
Excuse me, but as you are now a known terrorist suspect, I don't CARE what you think. How did you get the bomb aboard?
85
posted on
11/12/2001 1:31:21 PM PST
by
Poohbah
To: Committed
Reports of terrorism, unless very obvious, would do more harm than good just now.
As nice as Bush is and as kind as hes been to go to ceremonies every day etc..the longer this goes on the more chance we are going to take a hit. This guy is not fooling around and he doesnt care about Afghanistan and its people only power.
86
posted on
11/12/2001 1:33:14 PM PST
by
Lady GOP
To: Gargantua
I'm not sure either way. Since it IS an Airbus, I'm leaning (not decisively, just a bit) toward mechanical failure, as those things are the worst pieces of fecal material I have ever had the displeasure of being forced to ride.
Give me Boeing, or (sooner or later, if I'm dumb enough to keep rolling the dice) give me death via an Airbus!
87
posted on
11/12/2001 1:33:43 PM PST
by
Poohbah
To: one_particular_harbour
There was a huge "wham", and we dropped several hundred feet of altitude immediately. We dumped our fuel over Lake Michigan and hobbled back to Midway Airport (this was on a Midway flight about 10 years ago). Any chance your pilot dumped his fuel and DID NOT inform the tower that he was returning, as they are asking us to believe today?
88
posted on
11/12/2001 1:34:43 PM PST
by
copycat
To: Fulbright
Let's see, if it wasn't an accident, but in fact our friends in Jalabad or Baghdad, it would probably spell economic ruin for the airline industry. Must be an accident.
Actually, I think it is exactly the opposite.
Americans can accept another terrorist attack, after all we've been warned.
What the people cannot accept is an Administration that will lie about it.
There is absolutely no basis for anybody to say that this is "probably a mechanical failure".
If the official line persists in putting out this preposterous nonsense at this stage of the investigation, especially in light of the eyewitness accounts, commercial aviation is in for major hard times.
89
posted on
11/12/2001 1:36:56 PM PST
by
Rome2000
To: Rome2000
Something tells me that you have an agenda. Do you work for the Government? Actually, there are a few puffed-up, self-important "nay-sayers" who have made quite a living for themselves here on FreeRepublic (sinky, poobah, etc.) by pretending to be experts on every topic from aerodymnamics and military strategy to political science and macro-economics.
The likely truth is that, while they are actually expert at nothing more than tearing others down for voicing their opinions, the habit of doing so allows them the convenient luxury of focusing on the imaginary problems of others, while it prevents them having to face and admit to their own pathetic haplessness.
I hope this helps. :-)
To: jwalsh07
Huh?
To: Rome2000
Ever consider that a catastrophic engine failure could make a really loud noise??
To: jwalsh07
My understanding is these engines are replaceg at 10,000 hours, this engine was at 9800 hoursNo they are not replaced...they are overhauled...that is taken apart and any problems fixed. there is a big difference between replacement and overhauling.
To: copycat
Pilots dump fuel but DO NOT report mechanical failure to the tower? You sound ridiculous, but thanks for echoing the government spin.Not only that, but after they dumped fuel, they climbed and then did a nose first kamikazee dive into a Rockaway Beach residential neighborhood, just for kicks!
94
posted on
11/12/2001 1:41:27 PM PST
by
Rome2000
To: Citizen of the Savage Nation
Shh, you're being logical.
95
posted on
11/12/2001 1:43:02 PM PST
by
Poohbah
To: Rome2000
And, of course, an airplane having mechanical problems would not experience, under any circumstances, a flight control failure.
But then again, you pretty much admitted you're the bomber. Where'd you plant it?
96
posted on
11/12/2001 1:44:29 PM PST
by
Poohbah
To: sinkspur
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 terrorismActually, On another thread it was said that an AA pilot was interviewed and he said that there is no capability on the Airbus300 to dump fuel. Even if you wanted to you couldn't.
To: ag2000jon
That doesn't seem right. That would seem to be one of the most important safety functions that without, the plane would not be acceptable for flight. I highly doubt this.
To: Fulbright
Exactly! It has to be an accident or the economy takes a dive. The government is doing everything in its power to prop up the stock market. The other day United posted its worst 1/4 loss, 1 billion dollars, and expected a bigger loss for the fourth quarter yet the stock rose that day.
99
posted on
11/12/2001 1:53:35 PM PST
by
doc
To: ag2000jon
Actually, On another thread it was said that an AA pilot was interviewed and he said that there is no capability on the Airbus300 to dump fuel. Even if you wanted to you couldn't.Just wait, before this is over that plane will have developed that ability and many others.
The Bush Administration would be well advised to reign in the spin meisters and tell us they don't know, instead of putting out this preposterous nonsense less than 8 hours after the fact that this looks like an accident.
It actually looks like anything but an accident.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 141-149 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson