Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Accident Theories Falling Like Dominos
Me | 11/14/2001

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Front Page News; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-172 next last
To: Bryan24
Or softer bolts were used to hold it on by either accident or on purpose...
101 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:29 PM PST by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BluH2o
Re #31

I think you are correct.

102 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:45 PM PST by Magician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AlGone2001
I never said that you don't have a right to your opinion, either. I only said that you and Smogger should have the guts to openly tell us that you think that our government is lying to us. Don't talk around it. I guess my patience is being tried to, but jumping to conclusions does not make me more right.

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.

103 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:47 PM PST by Smogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Bull. They've said nothing is ruled out but that there was no evidence it was either and accident or a deliberate act as of yet.

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.

104 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:47 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Smogger
My oft-posted blabbings:

-----

>>"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.

105 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:48 PM PST by SerpentDove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DB
Or softer bolts were used to hold it on by either accident or on purpose...

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

106 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:49 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: DB
The stabilizer did not shear the bolts off. The bolts remain to this minute attached to the fuselage.
107 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:49 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
>>The sad fact is the Sept 11 attacks have turned some people into a bunch of ultra-suspicious paranoid screaming babies. It's pathetic.<<

Certainly you would not apply that perjorative term to just ANYONE who exercises critical thinking, would you?

108 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:49 PM PST by SerpentDove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Smogger
It's remarkable how the government is so suspicious of average Americans. If an anonymous tipster accuses you of child abuse, your child is immediately confiscated. Any dippy female can accuse her supervisor of sexual harrassment, and the burden of proof is on him. Your child brings aspirin or a nail clipper to school, and she's suspended.

But as for foreign terrorists, they can blow up airplanes, and the government will do its darnedest not to implicate the terrorists.

109 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:52 PM PST by JoeSchem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marquis
"I still vividly remember the media calling the first WTC crash on Sept 11th "an accident" until we witnessed on live TV the 2nd aircraft;"

Hell, CNN kept calling it another airplane accident for 1/2 hour after the second strike!

110 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:54 PM PST by lawdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
bull. They have been flagrant is saying there is no evidence this was a terrorist act and forgetting to say the part about there is no evidence for an accident.
111 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:54 PM PST by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Scruffdog
Tell that to the family of a pilot who crossed a '47's path in a 206 cessna, the wings, and vertical stabilizer came off clean.

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.

112 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:54 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: SerpentDove
Certainly you would not apply that perjorative term to just ANYONE who exercises critical thinking, would you?

Only where it is warranted.

113 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:54 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: michaelje
I hope the LEO's

What's an LEO?

foreverfree

114 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:55 PM PST by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
The stabilizer did not shear the bolts off. It broke above them

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!

115 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:57 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: foreverfree
LEO= law enforcement officer
116 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:57 PM PST by michaelje
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Smogger
Just like there was no conspiracy to cover up twa 800, right ?
117 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:57 PM PST by michaelje
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: michaelje
Just like there was no conspiracy to cover up twa 800, right ?

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.

118 posted on 11/16/2001 1:13:06 PM PST by Smogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: BluH2o
If the wing sheared off as a result of an explosion and took the vertical stabilizer and rudder with it ... both would have been found in Jamaica Bay. Only the tail section was found ... and it was basically intact.

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.

119 posted on 11/16/2001 1:13:10 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: michaelje
Thank you.

foreverfree

120 posted on 11/16/2001 1:13:12 PM PST by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-172 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson