Accident Theories Falling Like Dominos

Me | 11/14/2001

[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.

[nicmarlo]

like the first case of anthrax was an "isolated incident"!! when will our government learn that we are smarter than the average bear?

It's called "critical thinking" skills, which most intelligent people have acquired. And how about that saying: "trust, but verify." You can "trust" the government all you want, but a smart person verifies everything before believing (blindly). Any behavioral psychologist would say someone who insists they're right by repeating themselves weakens their credibility and becomes more suspect as to the voracity of what they are saying. The Bible even says: let your yes be yes and your no be no. (Don't go on defending, adding, etc., it takes away from the strength of conviction.)

And if there's no conviction, and not enough evidence to point to a simple yes or no, then, gee, isn't it okay to say: "I don't know yet, but I'm working real hard to find out the truth." Seems to me that is genuine, sincere, and most truthful (thereby leading to less suspicion and speculation by the listener).

[exmarine]

How could they know there was no bomb signature 30 minutes after the crash? That is when they started calling it an accident.

Furthermore, why is it that they called TWA#800 an accident when ALL OF THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO A MISSILE? Scores of witnesses saw a streak of light zigzag up from the horizon and strike #800. One of them was an army major helo pilot. The FBI ignored his testimony as well as the testimony of all the others. They invented their own piece of crap story that no one believes except the biased media and the gullible. Laughably, in order to explain away the upward streak of light, they said that after the nose of #800 fell off, the plane CLIMBED for 1000 feet (this explains the upward streak of light)! Anyone with any knowledge of the airplane or physics KNOWS that this is impossible.

If they covered up that time, why should I ever believe them again? This investigation already has a bad smell.

[zog]

--not married to the bomb theory yet, actually all the theories so far have flaws in them that tend to make me reject them partially. So far I am unfortunately leaning towards a catastrophic failure in communications, and the unfortunate general order out there to shoot down airliners that have been hijacked. going by what info is out there to look at, none of the theories, including that one, have enough data behind them, but I am suspicious that no statement has been rleased regardings the military pilots "observations". "don't ask-don't tell". have heard none of the tv talking heads ask where their statements are either, which is suspicious occurrence number 2 in that area.

Obviously I hope I am wrong on that one.

[Cachelot]

Tick Tick Tick

Yep.

[nicmarlo]

Also unfortunate, however, is that in general, there is a lack of common sense and crticial thinking skills amongst the American Populace. The percentage of people with the skills will cause the majority to look at us as a fringe element or "tin-foil crazies."

I am often laughed at, scoffed, or ridiculed for disbelieving or being skeptical about what those in authority or positions of power claim to be true, merely because they say it is. When anything controversial is reported (i.e., the 587 plane crash), most people believe whatever they're told by the media (and the media and government know this). Until I hear a logical, rational explanation, backed up by evidence, I reserve the right to not believe everything we're told. Evidence persuades intelligent people because it backs up statements made or positions taken.

Statements made without evidence to support it are just opinions. But others opinions are just opinions, which I feel free to ignore. My opinions are based on materials I have read, experts I have listened to that cite specific studies which are available for inspection, scientific truths, which, by their nature, are objective truths (as opposed to junk science), and the like.

It's a shame so many sheeple are willing to accept and believe someone's opinion simply because they look cute, wear the right clothes, or have a nice voice. On the other hand, if the sheeple question the pretty people/talking heads, they may have to use their brains and think for themselves.

[dobbyman]

"As for myself, I am highly suspicious when I am told, over and over and over and over, "it's just an accident, folks"

Not to mention that this one in a million freak accident just happened to occur at JFK airport, in the NYC area - the NYC area and the Wash DC region being the two prime regions under terrorist attack. It could have occured at any of hundreds of airports in the world, but no it was just an innocent freak accident in the NYC area. Right like I would believe that. If it smells like fire than it is fire.

Dobbyman

[dobbyman]

And it occured at precisely the time of the strongest terrorist alerts from our intelligence agencies

[nicmarlo]

Don't forget, it was an American Airlines flight (like 9/11), occurred at 9:17 a.m. (second plane that hit WTC was at, uh, 9:15 a.m.), the day our nation celebrated Veteran's day, was full of fuel, 0h, but these are just coincidences. Uh huh.

[AlGone2001]

It is obvious you work for NTSB or another transportation safety agency and I am sorry if I have offended you.

Yeah, right. And it's obvious that you are Ms. Cleo. You have the same accuracy so far.

I work for a Fortune 500 company in the telecommunications industry.