Posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:54 PM PST by Smogger
Since the morning of the crash of flight 587. Government officials including the NTSB have made every effort to convince the public that the plane crash was the result of an accident and not a deliberate act. So far they have floated several accident theories that have been proven false. If they really believe that it is a problem with the Airbus one wonders why they don't ground that plane.
At anyrate for those of you keeping score we have:
Inquiry May Focus on Engine Explosion, Experts say GE models have had problems in the past
Investigators Find Signs Birdstrike May Have Caused Crash of Flight 587
Both of these theories are apparenlty debunked by the fact that BOTH engines fell off and by:
NTSB: Jet's Engines Show No Internal Failure
Then you have the fuel dumping: (sounds like stream drinking)
Pataki: Pilot of AA flight dumped fuel prior to crash, in (likely) response to mechanical failures
This was supposed to show that it was an accident. However, it was refuted several times in the thread with FREEpers even referring to the chapter ang page of the manual which idicates that it is not possible to dump fuel on this type of plane.
Finally, today we have:
Records: Plane Suffered Turbulence
I am sure this theory will be debunked soon if not already. The question I have is what harm would be done by assuming that it WAS a deliberate act (and then taking additional precautions) and then if you find out later that it was not then so be it.
I think you are correct.
Oh brother.. You again? You can't read or what? As I have stated several times I don't believe there is some vast conspiracy to cover up a bomb or act of sabotage. What I DO believe is that the people in charge may be incompetent, or their judgement clouded by their own agendas.
I am sorry that you feel that it is appropriate to make personal attacks on myself and others by calling us "gutless." I has know idea you were sooo sensitive about this topic. It is obvious you work for NTSB or another transportation safety agency and I am sorry if I have offended you.
Have a nice evening.
Thank you! I am so tired of the mindless hysteria surrounding pure speculation and lack of facts, we see on these issues.
The sad fact is the Sept 11 attacks have turned some people into a bunch of ultra-suspicious paranoid screaming babies. It's pathetic.
-----
>>"This failure to deliver a verdict before bedtime is taken as further proof of negative government intervention." <<
I agree totally. This is silly, of course. We shouldn't expect a verdict that soon.
Equally troublesome to me, however, was the assertion I heard from almost all major media quarters and government spokesmen the instant after the crash occurred.
I watched on TV while the plane was still crackling in flames, minutes after the crash, too hot even to touch with oven mitts. The mantra immediately began, "There is no evidence to suggest..."
They had not even found the flight data recorder or the voice recorder, and couldn't come within feet of the plane because of the intense heat. Of COURSE there is no evidence! Nor is there evidence to support that this was *not* a terrorist attack. Why not say, rather, “The cause of this is not known at this time”? This insults my intelligence.
Maybe this was done to "avoid a national panic." If that is the case, it is quite “brotherly” of them to decide what information we "can and can't handle." However, I am not three years old.
Not advancing any crackpot theories here, but my rationale forces me to make a not-so-giant-leap in logic to believe there is a high likelihood , while not conclusive, that this was a terrorist action, given the circumstances we find ourselves in.
Right....softer bolts were smuggled into the production line precisely hoping the tail would fall off this aircraft...and the terrorists have been watching it for the 15-20 years since it was manufactured waiting for it to actually happen. That sounds reasonable to me. LOL
Certainly you would not apply that perjorative term to just ANYONE who exercises critical thinking, would you?
But as for foreign terrorists, they can blow up airplanes, and the government will do its darnedest not to implicate the terrorists.
Hell, CNN kept calling it another airplane accident for 1/2 hour after the second strike!
The Airbus has a shaky record regarding the design of the vertical stabilizer. It is suspected that it fell off due to an engine malfunction (accidental reverse thrust or something similar) causing the vertical stabilizer to shear off under an unusual side-load.
If you know anything in the least about flight and engineering, you would know that once the vertical stabilizer is gone, the aircraft is prone to positive static instability. The aircraft begins to gyrate on it's vertical axis. (hence, witnesses described the wings moving forward and backward rapidly) At full power, the engines would have aggrivated that instability.
In that condition, it would easily cause both engine struts to fail as well as dislodge the wing structure.
Only where it is warranted.
What's an LEO?
foreverfree
I read that report also. It seems that the composite and alloy metal structure of the Airbus is prone to terminal fatigue similar to the 737. After so many flexes and years of regular movement it may become weak in non-critical areas. (like above the attach points)
For those of the tinfoil commando ranks, $h!t happens!
I dunno about twa 800. I have never really delved into the theories surrounding it. I know a lot of people have researched it and come to conclusions that differ from the governments. I have no opinion on twa 800 though.
I read today that the rudder was found in Jamaica Bay. I don't recall if it was on AP or Reuters. I'll try to find that, though.
foreverfree
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.