Skip to comments.
Former NTSB Official Doubts Accident Caused Flt. 587 Crash
www.newsmax.com
| 11/12/01
| Carl Limbacher
Posted on 11/12/2001 7:40:57 PM PST by Freedom of Speech Wins
Monday Nov. 12, 2001; 11:34 p.m. EST
Former NTSB Official Doubts Accident Caused Flt. 587 Crash
Aviation expert and former National Transportation & Safety Board official Vernon Grose said late Monday that he's increasingly skeptical that the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 was purely accidental.
"I am backing away from the ready idea that this is simply an accident," Grose told Fox News Channel's John Scott.
The veteran air crash prober said that he questions the sequence in which the plane broke up over Jamaica Bay before slamming into a residential area in Rockaway, Queens.
"Photographs you've already shown tonigt (indicate) the vertical stabilizer of the aircraft with the American Airlines insignia right on it (fell into) Jamaica Bay long before the engine falls off in Queens," he told Scott.
Grose said that if the vertical stabilizer detached from Flt. 587 over Jamaica Bay, which the plane traversed before plummeting to the ground in Rockaway, it suggested that catastrophic engine failure alone may not have caused the crash.
"No, I don't think that's the situation at all," he told FNC.
"The engine that came free, which apparently was the number 1 left engine, and crashed on land - that was well after the vertical stabilizer was detached from the aircraft and that tells me that somehow..... that the airplane was progressively disintegrating, not just losing an engine and then diving into the ground."
"Earlier today I thought it was simply the loss of an engine that caused this," Grose told FNC. "But I'm not convinced now.... I am becoming more skeptical."
TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aaflight587; flight587
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-219 next last
To: concerned about politics
Witnesses saw the missile that day.Witnesses saw a streak of fire which they concluded was a missile -- but the airplane itself broke in two, was on fire and began a climb.
Most importantly, the airframe damage was consistent with a heaving explosion as per fuel air, and not a shattering explosion as per high brisance missile explosive.
The NTSB made the most logical call.
41
posted on
11/12/2001 8:15:27 PM PST
by
jlogajan
To: Keith
My husband sat on a plane with a pilot who said that the hull of flight 800 was pushed in, rather than outward, indicating something propelled into it to create the explosion. Something, like a small missile.
I haven't believed anything since they discredited what people already knew about 800.
42
posted on
11/12/2001 8:15:43 PM PST
by
MHT
To: ChicagoRepublican
Now if this wasn't from newsmax.com I would believe it. I saw him say it live on fox News. Newsmax is simply reporting it. They quote him, in fact.
43
posted on
11/12/2001 8:16:56 PM PST
by
copycat
To: arkady_renko
On another thread someone was saying that the rudder was left on the runway. Does anyone know if that is in fact true? If it is, this whole scenario changes, imo.
44
posted on
11/12/2001 8:18:03 PM PST
by
MistyCA
To: MHT
There is no point in even bringing up flight 800 on here, its like the Kennedy asassination, you either believe the government or you dont. Its just going to be a mystery forever.
45
posted on
11/12/2001 8:19:32 PM PST
by
Husker24
To: onyx
Sabatoge, maybe. I want to know the backgrounds of all persons who worked on the engine Nov. 11., specifically their country(s) of origin.My thoughts exactly.
46
posted on
11/12/2001 8:20:29 PM PST
by
GUIDO
To: mystomachisturning
If the rudder was left on the runway, we would know about it by now. There would be no way to cover that up.
47
posted on
11/12/2001 8:20:36 PM PST
by
Husker24
To: Rome2000
My fear is that we are going to find out that there was a major maintenance SNAFU that cause the accident. That the maintenance problem was caused by overworked mechanics spending so much time on security (like bomb checks) that they dropped the ball, big time. Either they were tired and put a part in backwards, or they did not have time to check a part before it failed.
To: arkady_renko
Take a look at your picture. Look at the front portion of the bottom of the stabilizer. It looks to me that it is a part that would be imbedded in the aircraft with some sort of strap or something (looks like metal strap with holes in it). This simply does not look like something that was pulled lose. It is too neat, so to speak.
49
posted on
11/12/2001 8:21:58 PM PST
by
MistyCA
To: Husker24
Lets go alittle further... After the plane loses the engine, it would pitch & yaw slightly causing the tail fin to break off at the seam also undo stress under right wing would snap the wing off at the remaining engine, there by causing engine seperation, which would explain why both engines were away from the rest of the plane...
To: Rome2000
You said a mouthful!
To: concerned about politics
So many things could have happened. Could it be that something was fired at the plane? Could it be that there was a certian type of explosives on the plane that weren't detected? Could it be sabatoge from a ground crew memeber?
I really didn't believe this was terrorism at first. However, I am beginning to have serious doubts. The crash is a very sad event. The thought of terrorism is something I don't want to think about.
We need to kick some people out of this country now if this was terrorist related. Well, maybe we need to kick them out regardless of this situation?
52
posted on
11/12/2001 8:24:11 PM PST
by
boycott
To: Husker24
Dr. Vernon Grose, a physicist and former board member of the NTSB also attended the press conference. He had been called on by CNN to do six hours of live coverage two years ago on the night of the crash. Gross was subsequently hired as a consultant and has given over 170 appearances on CNN and nearly every other network, all supporting the official version of the crash. Grose also took part in Vice President Gore's White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security in 1997, and the past two years he has discounted the missile theory surrounding the downing of Flight 800. According to Roger Aronoff with Accuracy in Media, Dr. Grose spoke up following the news conference saying he felt betrayed. He thinks the NTSB and FBI have been lying and covering up. He has supported the NTSB's theory for the past two years but now says, "I'm not doing that anymore. I'm convinced there is a serious problem with this investigation."
Grose told the Conservative News Service, "It disturbed me to see photographic evidence of impinging -- bent in, not bent out -- skin of the aircraft forward of the center fuel tank. That is sufficiently primary evidence that should not be explained away." In describing the debris recovered from around the area in which the fuel tanks are thought to have exploded Grose says, "The wreckage that they've assembled is imploded, rather than exploded at that point."
53
posted on
11/12/2001 8:24:21 PM PST
by
Rome2000
To: maxamillion
You have an interesting theory, but i would like to think that these planes are a little more sturdy than that, they travel at 300-500 mph and encounter a lot of turbulance sometimes I wouldnt think that they would fly apart so easy.
54
posted on
11/12/2001 8:26:06 PM PST
by
Husker24
To: mystomachisturning
I hadn't heard that. That picture just seems the strangest thing. I've pulled the door off of a car at 1/2 mph and caused more sheet metal damage.
To: Husker24
I absolutely agree with you. I don't fly often because I don't like it. However, on the occasions I have flown it always bothers me to look out on the wings or whatever and see the rivets twirling around in their holes. There is simply no question that planes withstand an incredible amount of jostling around under normal conditions. Metal fatigue is always a factor to think about, and I could see the rudder being broken away because of some sort of metal fatigue, but I can't imagine it leading to the entire series of events that would finally cause an engine to drop off. I still think there was some sort of sabotage.
56
posted on
11/12/2001 8:32:24 PM PST
by
MistyCA
To: maxamillion
The stabilizer broke off before the engine fell off. You said that the plane pitched to the right when the engine fell off causing the stabilizer to fall off.
57
posted on
11/12/2001 8:32:38 PM PST
by
Husker24
To: arkady_renko
Where are the jagged, connecting pieces that should be evident? It looks like it was barely fastened to the body. The top of the fin is bent over, but thats about all. I don't think the eye witness accounts verify the plane rotating to the side that hard.
To: boycott
I really didn't believe this was terrorism at first. However, I am beginning to have serious doubts. The crash is a very sad event. The thought of terrorism is something I don't want to think about. That is what's funny. People are actually hoping that this was just shoody maintenance or a design flaw.
"Whew! Isn't that a relief. The plane just blew up on its own! Now I can get back to flying again."
Yeah right!
59
posted on
11/12/2001 8:33:21 PM PST
by
Smogger
To: arkady_renko
exactly.....I agree completely. It simply does not look to me that it was ripped away from the plane.
60
posted on
11/12/2001 8:33:58 PM PST
by
MistyCA
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-219 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