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.

[goodnesswins]

"...apparently the A-300 was only 30 seconds behind the larger plane. The pilots specifically mentioned it."

I heard (or read) that they they were 2 min, 7 seconds behind another plane...

[AlGone2001]

Be honest...

Do you think everyone is out to get you?

[Bryan24]

A 747 cannot produce enough "wake turbulence" to rip the tail off an airplane. Toss it out of control? Possibly.

If a wing "failed" on the plane and flew back and hit the tail, I could see the tail getting ripped off. But most of the witnesses don't describe the plane that way.

I'll go WAAAAAAY out on a limb here. Bad bolts were used to fasten the tail and engines onto the plane. When the tail failed, the pilots firewalled the throttles. The plane began flying sideways (no tail) and the engnes bolts failed.

[nicmarlo]

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; then it became a possible "intentional incident"

Minor correction. The media called it "pilot error" until the second plane hit the tower.

[Interesting Times]

It wasn't "clear air turbulence." The theory is "wake turbulence" from a 747; apparently the A-300 was only 30 seconds behind the larger plane.

Source, please. Everything I have read indicates they were at least 2 minutes back, as required.

The pilots specifically mentioned it.

Well, yes, but if you're an airline pilot and the plane is suddenly shaking like hell, you probably think of turbulence first instead of, say, the tail coming off...

[zog]

--how would the loose bolts in the tail first cause a fire over in the front of the engines at the wing? According to eyewitness testimony so far, that's what happened first, a boom, then a fire at the wing, wing falls off, tail falls off. Engines go cruising off on their own sometime in the middle there.

And here's my big embarassing question, where are the eyewtiness statements from the military pilots in the helicopter and the fighter jet?

[Solson]

The info you posted is also what I assumed. But some articles point to one of the wings being found in the bay.

[exmarine]

If this wasn't so tragic, it would be hilarious. These people will do cartwheels in order to come up with some plausible accident theory.

Question: Why haven't I seen even one person suggest that maybe, JUST MAYBE, there was a bomb in a suitcase on board? Inquiring minds want to know. We already know that only a FRACTION of the checked luggage is scanned! Duh. Could this be a plausible reason for the crash?

Silly me. I should be putting my BLIND TRUST in the F.B.I. (Federal Bungling Investigators).

[calebcar]

I don't have the expertise to have an opinion. Intuitively I'd suspect sabatage until proven otherwise. I have a knowledgable pilot friend who says sabatage. There seems a curious rush to judgement. Given the high stakes involved what reason would the gov't have to cover up. Not causing fear in the populous doesnt seem enough motive vs the loss of credibility if proven wrong. I don't get it. Any ideas?

[motor_racer]

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.

[BluH2o]

One problem with your theory. Both engines were found in close proximity to the main crash site.
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.

[Smogger]

You might feel good blaming bin Laden; I want to know what really caused it.

I fail to see what harm of blaming Bin Laden would be. Espescially why we are determine the exact cause. We could redouble are airport security efforts and our efforts to hunt him down and kill him. In addition we will make an object lesson out of him. And the lesson is this: Once you declare that you are an enemy of the United States you better hope that no inexplicable evils befall the US or you will be blamed and retaliation inflicted.

And if we find out it was an accident then we can take steps accordingly.

[leprechaun9]

If a ground mechanic loosened some of the engine mounting bolts (with a wrench of course, since he couldn't get a gun or an explosive past the vast security measures!), then where would that lead all the theorists and "experts"?

[goodnesswins]

"We already know that only a FRACTION of the checked luggage is scanned! Duh."

WHICH is WHY we DECIDED NOT to fly to Phoenix this Holiday season.....It's those bags that I'm most worried about. Ir the Nat'l Guard were going through everyone's bags, then locking them up with that plastic lock stuff, I'd reconsider.

[Smogger]

Be honest... Do you think everyone is out to get you?

baaaa baaaa.. Be honest are you a sheep?

Did you anywhere in my post find me referring to a conspiracy? Can't people just be inept or biased anymore?

[Bryan24]

Don't get too married to a bomb just yet.

Unless they were looking at the plane BEFORE the initiating event, they would never see the explosion. Sound travels at a set rate. At 21 degrees C (70°F), you should get 344 meters per second, or 1129 ft per second. If they heard, then looked, they were at least 1 second late. They were liekly more than 1100 feet fronm the plane when the incident started.

There are any number of mechanical failures that can result in fire around an engine. The basic question on this accident is "What can cause the tail and both engines to detach from the aircraft?"

[dawn53]

A little off topic, but I'd still like an answer to this question, if anybody knows:

Why in a low altitude crash would the flight data recorder be damaged to the point that data could not be salvaged?

I thought these things were made to survive a crash at normal flying altitudes.

[Dog]

This is the height of the holiday travel season is why they are trying to tell us this is an accident..

[dawn53]

We already know that only a FRACTION of the checked luggage is scanned.

2% to be exact.

[Stevieboy]

Well, if in the end it turns out to be turbulence it'll bring new emotions to us all when the pilot coomes on the intercom claiming: 'it's only turbulence'.