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.

[r9etb]

This is crap. You'd expect all of the incorrect theories to fall like dominoes regardless of what caused the crash.

The reason you're seeing them fall at all is because everybody wants them to guess in public, and they're doing it.

Now answer this: if they were really so intent on covering up a terrorist attack, would they really be telling you that this or that theory is wrong? Probably not.

In my mind the real issue here is why so many people are fervently hoping it's terrorist activity and a coverup. What little itch does it scratch?

[Thinkin' Gal]

"What can cause the tail and both engines to detach from the aircraft?"

If this was sabotage, why not have multiple causes? I mean, the same people who can coordinate simultaneous hijackings, may have used more than one method to ensure the downing of the plane. Example: a bomb in some luggage, coupled with mechanical sabotage of the tail. Heck, the same insider could get the luggage sent through. If the bomb is discovered before flight, or doesn't explode, the sabotaged tail ought to do the trick. So maybe they 'got lucky' and the tail fell off from the stress brought on by the explosion.

Who knows... might as well be creative.

[Smogger]

Now answer this: if they were really so intent on covering up a terrorist attack, would they really be telling you that this or that theory is wrong? Probably not

Tell me.. Who here has stated that the government is intent upon covering up a terrorist attack?

[exmarine]

Things disintegrate in explosions - including airplanes. The jolt of the explosion, the stresses caused on the airframe could have jarred the vertical stabilizer loose, could it not? I am not an aeronautical physicist, but it is still bizarre that they would pronounce an accident at the very outset without any evidence for it whatsoever. Quite obviously, there is plenty of motive to lie about it. I give you TWA #800 as a prime example of lies and coverup. I have studied the evidence from that one and there is very little doubt in my mind that a missile struck that plane. The official story was a freaking joke that was ridiculed by anyone with any knowledge in aeronautical physics. The precedent for lying is there, the terrorist war is here, and to try to "mold" this story from the beginning like has been done, is a TRAVESTY!

[Smogger]

This is crap. You'd expect all of the incorrect theories to fall like dominoes regardless of what caused the crash.

Very good.. The title was meant to be provocative and judging from the ire of some of the people that have posted to the thread it worked.

[r9etb]

Tell me.. Who here has stated that the government is intent upon covering up a terrorist attack?

You mean the folks on the numerous other threads who've been saying exactly that haven't showed up on this one yet? The topic very thread implies the same statement.

[Paulie]

"He told me IF it's a terrorist incident, he will not fly; however, if it were a mechanical error, he will stick will his present travel arrangements and fly."

I'm approaching my situation the same way. Whether or not I rebook my flight rests on the outcome (and credibility) of the results of the investigation.

[discostu]

Not sure. But given what we've seen of the tail it doesn't seem to have been knocked off from an explosion. There is a sizable dent on the side we've seen in the pictures (most of the back half, gotta look close because it's so much of the surface area). But it's a really wierd dent: seems focused in the verticle middle which would seem to rule out the dent being caused by impact with the water (free fall dents tend to start at corners, not along large lateral surfaces), but the distinct lack of scratches would seem to rule out it being caused by impact with plane parts. So we have a dent that doesn't look like it was caused by anything, always annoying.

If there was a tail side explosion, most likely it would be in the area just below the section we've seen (check the side by side pics, there's about 10' of tail below that blue A and the section pulled from the bay pretty much ends at the blue A), but you'd expect our bay section to be splayed on the bottom and possibly torn. Instead the bottom just looks like it got removed, you'd almost expect to see the rest of the plane under it the thing is so clean.

Like all crashes there are a lot of wierd anomalies in this one. That's typical, no theory ever matches all the evidence in something as complex as a plane crash, it can't. Right now none of the sabatoge theories are holding up any better than the mechanical failure theories (well the mysterious metal eroding liquid theory seems to be doing pretty good, except I've seen no documentation that it really exists the way some futurists (aka sci-fi authors who can't come up with characters... sorry never had much respect for that profession, according to them my car should fly, it doesn't I want an explanation) say it "does". Obviously there's corrosive acids that do all the same damage, but don't pass the undectable muster.

Basically we've got 4 probable locations for the damage to start: tail fell off, engines fell off (that's 2 places, one for each engine), "underarm" (wing coupling) fire. None of the theories (sabatoge or accident) can manage to cover all 4. Even given what we know about the massive colateral damage that happens when parts fall off a plane (DC10 in the 70s, Air Alaska not long ago) it's hard to see it snowballing to all the other damage the way this plane went down. That right there is good evidence to sabatoge, but that would also indicate a pretty severe level of overkill and terrorists usually aren't that thurough (quadruple redundancy is a NASA thing, not an Al Qaeda thing).

Subsequently it's all wide open, and the NTSB is still the best accident investigators on the planet. We should stop harrassing them and let them do their work. If they're lieing to us we're SOL, and in general it's a non-political organization (not counting the Clintoon years, everybody was political then) and do good work.

[Solson]

last post for today..but the lift characteristics of both will be somewhat similar because both are airfoils. That said, a rudder is drastically smaller in surface area than the stab and thus impacts lift and drag.

[ken5050]

Thanks forthe info..another question?..I read that the bolts that hold the engine to the wing are designed to shear off under very high forces...as in a ditching....to prevent the plane from cartwheeling when the engine nacelles hit the water...if an engine came lose,for whatever reason..could it have struck the wing with enough force, or, as it broke off from the pylon, produced enough drag forces to tear the wing off?

[discostu]

Not sure about that one. The most likely source of cart wheeling on a commercial jet is the wings, certain engine design could potentially cause it (like the DC series that hung the engies below the wing on stems) but they'd have to be low enough to hit before the body of the plane. Basically uneven (we're talking X axis looking at planes nose on) water "landing" would be the main source of that (AWACS and similar planes have the additional problem of being top heavy, one of the reasons pilots of our plane that China captured earlier in the year are taught to never ditch in water). In general I would think that it would be bad to put engines on with shearable bolts, given that engines are the primary source of torque in a plane (that and high G maneuvers which passenger jets shouldn't be doing in the first place) it seems like a dangerous proposition.

The primary cause of engines falling off in past crashes has been bad maintenance habits. Engines are taken off pretty regularly, if you take them off wrong it causes uneven wear on the attachment spot, which can cause localized failure which at flight speed spreads quickly (take a piece of paper tear it a little then hold it out your car window holding it by one side of the tear with the tear in front, same kind of thing). This is what took down the O'Hare DC10, because of how the engines were attached taking them off the right way was time consuming and many crews didn't do it the right way, the FAA issued a warning almost 18 months before the accident, didn't help.

It's technically feasable that once the tail flew off that caused the plane to go into a flat spin, this would apply lateral torque on the engine mountings which the really aren't designed to handle, this could have caused the engines to fall off. Then you've still got to explain the belly fire, which could (I suppose) have been caused by electrical surges when the FDR was yanked from the plane (those things connect to sensors all over the place, including the fuel tank). But that is an unprecedented level of collateral damage to be caused by losing the tail, all of it is technically possible but we've never seen any of that as snowball from that kind of initial damage before, much less ALL of it in one crash.

Which again pushes us in the direction of sabatoge, but man that's a lot to sabatoge. Given that each kind of damage we're talking has a minimum 50% chance of taking planes down (engine loss being the most survivable), if I were the bad guy and had that level of resources I'd do it to 4 different planes knowing at least 2 would crash, the passengers on the planes that didn't crash would be scared out of their minds, and no one would ever doubt that this was a terrorist act (no way 4 planes are having massive mechanical failure in the same day without help, just not happening). This would again result in the entire air fleet being grounded for a few days, once again doing massive damage to our economy.

If this was terrorist sabatoge then they're very powerful, but also very stupid. If this was mechanical failure sell all your stock in AA because having a plane this unsound coming 2 months after the whole fleet was grounded (good time for heavy maintenance) is unforgivable and I can't see that airline recovering from the confidence hit.

[sinkspur]

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.

Because there is absolutely no evidence of a bomb in a suitcase. There is a signature to bomb damage and none has been found.

[ken5050]

Isn't it wing to pylon to nacelle to engine?..engines are removed replaced without detaching the nacelle, right?..BTW...it was in one of today's papers about the bolts being designed to shear off for ditching.....if you look at a front view of the plane...the engines are BELOW the bottom of the fuselage ( with the LG up)..so in a ditching, the engines would hit the water first....the plane would be ripped apart...

and before I forget..thanks for all your great info.....

[AlGone2001]

Can anyone tell me what the definition of "conspiracy" is?

One has to be willing to admit that the definition is true...

By the way, do you have black helicopters hovering over your house tonight, too?

[AlGone2001]

Wait a minute. First you don't like people calling it a conspiracy, and now you WANT them to use the word conspiracy? Which is it?

You are correct when you tell me that I don't like the conspiracy angle.  I just want people to be honest and tell me that they are into the conspiracy angle.  Smogger hasn't had the guts to admit that.

I'm not calling anything a conspiracy. I just happen to think that it MAY have been an act of terrorism. Yeah, I'm impatient, can't wait to find out, all that, but does that mean I don't have a right to my opinion?

I agree that it may have been an act of terrorism.  It also may be true that our government knows that.  If I were at the highest levels of government I'd do all I could to keep it under wraps, especially if I had a very good lead on the suspects.  I'd do all that I could to conceal what I know in order to keep the perpetrators in a comfortable and lax mode of operation.

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.

[motor_racer]

BUMP

[Inyokern]