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.
The 27-foot tail fin and the rudder have been pulled out of Jamaica Bay and taken to a nearby collection center for study. Investigators said Wednesday that the tail fin showed no sign of damage from external impact; the rudder was in pieces.
How do you know?
Right......there was no conspiracy.
I saw films of the wreckage in it's investigative assembly.
I also dealt first hand with the faulty wiring issue. The manufacturer did not test the long-term performance of the insulation or it's effects of chaffing in the airframe.
The conclusions were not only factual but they were logical.....Which is way more than I can say about your Tin-Hat Eeevill-Gubbermint Konspeerasee theerie!
Egypt Air
9/11 Flight 93
Etc...etc...etc...
Same agencies, same tactics.
I enjoy not only bootlicking freepers, but also those who resort to personal attacks when all else fails.
Could be that the forces that hitthe plane when the tail fell off triggered the shear or whatever it is, but that's still going to be an amazing coincidence. Could also be (WAG stuff here) that it's a pilot controlled system (seems safest) and the pilot thought they were going to hit the water (given where they were a controlled crash landing probably would have been on water, assuming they couldn't manage to turn the plane around). There's a lot of possibilities, that's what the NTSB is good at, they know how to look at the bolts and figure out why they aren't attached anymore. Every method of seperation leaves tell tail signs and can be detected by looking for those signs, even rotten metal can be figured out if you recover some of the metal (or if you recover none, that would tell you something right there).
Hope I spread more smarts than BS. Like I said I'm a generalist at heart, I know a little bit about a lot of stuff, my strength is being able to make what I know apply across fields. And I watch a lot of Discovery Channel on the holidays, they usually have stuff about crash investigation during the "drunk driving" holidays. Stay safe.
To what end? Look it could be terrorism and just as a doctor that suspects cancer rules out other less terrible diseases before giving the patient the bad news the NTSB is slowly ruling out other causes before declaring this a terrorist act. The fact is that there may be no way to honestly declare this an accident OR terrorist act. Then what do we do? I know that some believe that the Feds are somehow "pushing" this as an accident to save the airlines but that is just not rational. People will either fly or they won't fly and the sad fact is that the Airline industry and American Airlines in particular may not survive either way. If the Government wants to "spin" this in any direction they are capable of doing it just by falsifying investigation results so the fact that they are actually ruling out many of the obvious accidental causes as they gather the evidence seems to indicate a good faith effort to find the truth.
Area 51 has your alien flying saucer warmed-up and ready. Don't forget your secret decoder ring either.
Of course you are sure to take along plenty of Reynolds Wrap!
Why don't you can the "bootlicking" stuff.
The only one licking them will be you! (Cambodia 70-71)
Why dont you just have another bong hit before you go to bed.
Here are a few ideas I posted in another thread... I don't believe there is a coverup, but the following is why I think that the last thing the goverment wants is for this to be an act of terrorism:
It's certainly understandable that the govt. and the airlines don't want to jump to the conclusion that this was a terrorist act. First of all, there's no evidence yet that points that way, and it would be irresponsible to say it was likely a terrorist act if the facts don't support that. Secondly, it would be a tremendous embarrassment and PR disaster for the govt. and the airlines if it were to be ruled an act of terrorism -- they would have a lot to answer for if such a thing could happen after the supposed improvements in security. Third, the economic impact on the airlines would be horrendous if people lose faith (any more than they already have) in the ability of the airlines to secure the aircraft against acts of terrorism.
Looks like the original Freepers have your number.....
Freepers might want to look into something called "Liquid Metal Embrittlement" agent. It can be put into a felt tip pen, and when applied it changes the metal structure, making it brittle, weak, and likely to fail from normal operating loads. Potentially a dangerous sabotage weapon. Search the net and you can find articles, including one published in The Futurist in 1989 (sorry I don't have a link) specifically on the subject of terrorism.
From http://www.wfs.org/cetron89.htm
Reprinted from THE FUTURIST, July-August 1989
The Growing Threat of Terrorism
By Marvin J. Cetron
Chemical and biological weapons. Chemical weapons range from old-fashioned poison in the water and nerve gas to a new Liquid Metal Embrittlement agent (LME). Applied with a felt-tip type pen, LME is a clear, invisible substance that changes the chemical structure of a metal so that it is no longer resilient and flexible. The result: The metal can fracture under stress. Trucks, airplanes, or bridges would be vulnerable to catastrophic failure without advance warning...
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.