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 data most likely can be salvaged. Indeed, there are already reports of the manufacturer having retrieved some data from it.
There are two ways of retrieving data from a flight data recorder: (1) connect it to a computer using a suitable interfact and read out the data, or (2) remove the media from it and use suitable equipment to read the media directly.
While the first option is certainly more convenient when it's practical, that isn't always the case. While the data storage media in the box are well protected, some parts of the box which are needed to read out the data (including things like connectors!) cannot be so effectively protected.
What matters with a black box is not that the data be retrievable by someone with a laptop and a proper cable. What matters is that the data be stored and be recoverable. Even if the technician has to remove the flash chips from their carrier boards and install them in new undamaged ones that really isn't much of a problem.
Keep up the personal insults. Im still waiting for something original.
How many threads can you recycle the same comments on ?
Unless the government hired some people to re-create the CVR tape, that seems unlikely. While there's no way wake turbulence could have caused the crash unless something else was very wrong with the plane, the published descriptions of the CVR cockpit imply that the pilot and copilot, when they first noticed something wrong, believed it to be a result of wake turbulence.
It seems very unlikely to me that the effects of a luggage bomb could be mistaken for wake turbulence. While it would be possible that a very small but well-placed bomb installed by a saboteur might be so mistaken, a luggage bomb would have to be large enough to be heard in order to have much likelihood of bringing down a plane.
I have no problem believing the plane was sabotaged. It seems far more likely, however, that such sabotage would have been committed by the ground crew than by a passenger.
Not 30 seconds but 127 seconds."
Every news organization seems to be reporting a different number on this. sheesh. How hard can it be to listen to the tower tape with a watch in hand?
An aviation expert said Wednesday that an in-flight bomb explosion could explain why Flight 587's vertical stabilizer sheared off intact and fell into New York City's Jamaica Bay, a half mile from where the rest of the plane crashed in the Belle Harbor section of Rockaway.
"That tail coming off is very puzzling," the expert, speaking on condition of anonymity, told New York's Newsday.
"There are only a handful of ways it can come off," he explained, saying that there was either a structural problem with the tail, or something else broke away from the plane and sheared it off, "or a bomb."
Beginning Monday afternoon, when investigators said that catastrophic engine failure likely brought Flight 587 down, NTSB officials have repeatedly insisted there was "no evidence" that Flight 587's crash was anything but an accident.
But the tail section became the focus of new scrutiny late Tuesday when investigators said an inspection of the Airbus-300's two engines showed no evidence of engine failure or burnout.
"When they pulled the tail section from the water, I have to say that was quite a shock," said former Transportation Department Inspector General Mary Schiavo late Tuesday in an interview with Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."
The tail fin was pulled from the water showing no damage except for the smooth seam where it had previously been attached to the Airbus-300's fuselage.
"The tail section, to me, points to even greater problems and other problems for this aircraft," said Schiavo, who had been a leading proponent of the catastrophic engine failure theory only a day before. (See Schiavo: Mechanical Failure Likely Caused Crash.)
"When you think back to other accidents of this magnitude, if indeed this is an in-flight structural breakup of this aircraft, you don't have just a problem with the engine," Schiavo said. "You have a major problem with the airframe on this plane because the pilot trying to save the plane should not have torn the plane apart."
"I think terrorism is a possibly," the former DOT official said.
In accounts that have apparently been dismissed by NTSB investigators, witness after witness described seeing a midair explosion.
"I saw an enormous flash where the wing meets the plane," eyewitness Jackie Powers told WABC Radio Monday morning. "I don't know if it was fire or an explosion. It appeared that debris fell from the left side [of the plane]."
Another eyewitness who called into the radio station said, "The right wing seemed to catch fire and explode. The wing was on fire with a trail of smoke behind it."
"I saw the plane going across Jamaica Bay," a third witness told WABC. "It was trying to ascend and then it just exploded."
"The combination of a rattle back in the airplane [as heard on the plane's cockpit voice recorder] and the fact of an in-flight breakup indicates there was some sort of event which occurred that caused the breakup," said John Hansman, professor of aeronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an interview with Newsday.
"We still have no idea as to exactly what that was."
Every other day the government is sounding the terrorist alert alarm. But now they are in a grand conspiracy to keep the "sheeple" in the dark as to not hurt air travel. Give me a break will yah! Huh?
Try this out: Aircraft do have in-flight structural failures. It has happened many, many times. A 747 lost it's vertical stabilizer a few years back (over Japan I think, but am not sure) and eventually crashed.
On the Airbus the vertical stabilizer apparently came off by itself as the first event. That's why it was essentially the only thing to land in the water. It wasn't damaged in a way that would indicate that it was knocked off by a wing. No wing pieces were in the water.
Without the vertical stabilizer, the aircraft yawed violently. Then engines where under high power at the time, and the violent yawing motion causes the engine mount structures to fail because of the tremendous gyroscopic loads (caused by the rapidly rotating engine fan, compressor and turbines) and aerodynamic side load forces.
As the plane begins to tumble and spin, additional structural failures happen (wings, etc.) because of aerodynamic and inertial loads. And the aircraft goes in nearly vertically, leaving a fairly compact trail of debris along the flight path.
When large structures like that fail catastrophically and instantly, it sounds like an explosion. If there were not flames involved when the engines departed, or wings broke, it would be very unusual. It's very easy to misinterpret as an explosion.
Does this mean what I think: if vertical is y, the wings are moving on the x-z plane, like a cat was shaking it by its tail?
As a military pilot, Meyer has twenty-five years experience with aircraft and he sees many fatal flaws in the NTSB, FBI and CIA's official scenario. "Let's focus on the aircraft accident and a rational determination as to what caused it", he said, "and the [probabilities of an] explosion of a fuel cell with slosh quantities of Jet A. It is an extraordinarily safe fuel. And all this talk about wires [causing a spark to ignite the fuel tank]--there are no wires in the center fuel tank. The electric [fuel pump] motors and the wires are on the outside of the fuel tank. They are bolted to the outside wall of the tank, the rotating shaft of the pump penetrates a gland seal into the fuel tank, the impeller and the housing are inside, but there are no wires in the fuel tank.
"So then, the NTSB comes out and says 'there was an arc in the wiring.' We're talking about a 12-volt system here, measured in milliamps, and they say 'an arc between two 12-volt wires'. There are no wires! Tell me that the NTSB doesn't know that?
Could an overheated air conditioner be the cause of the aircraft explosion? Major Meyer unequivocally says "no". "The circuit breakers are set at 130 degrees Fahrenheit [temperature at JFK airport was in the 70's]. People came to me who fly the 747 and said 'if an overheated air conditioner could set off the center fuel tank, I wouldn't be talking to you. Because I've set on the tarmac at Riyad [Saudi Arabia] in 130 degree ambient temperature, popping those circuit breakers back on and keeping those air conditioners running so that I wouldn't fry in the cockpit while I was waiting for take-off clearance, with an empty center fuel tank! I am one of five-hundred pilots who have done that since the 747 came out, and none of them have ever exploded.' It doesn't happen. The [NTSB] stories are scientifically impossible."
You'd think the data would be intact, at least.
Didn't you notice? They DID leave. Body and soul. Sorry, but there is little to no humor in this for me, except perhaps, your neighbor's Chihuahua might join Billy Crystal and Henry Kissinger in the new NYC ad campaign. It would be smashing, (no pun intended,) unless Taco Bell has first nibs.
The theory regarding that flight always sounded fishy to me, not because I immediately jumped to any conclusions(quite to the contrary, I assumed it was an accident)but because it didn't make any sense from everything else I had heard.
For those who scream "tin foil" at those of us who SUSPECT that something might be amiss, are we conspiracy nuts because we don't buy the "loner, domestic extremist" argument for the anthrax letters?
like the first case of anthrax was an "isolated incident"!! when will our government learn that we are smarter than the average bear?
But, of course, Skywalk. Even after they begin to think we might be right, they will NEVER admit it. Now it seems our downed flight had the *flutters." Canna wait to see what blows by next.
BTW, the link to the entire website the above quote was taken from is on my profile page at the very bottom.
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.