[Magician]

Let's add the obvious one: a bomb in the baggage hold placed against the wing spar. This would cause the sequence of events recorded by the closest witness to the accident, a man in a boat in the bay right under he plane as it disintegrated, who saw:

1. Explosion at the wing root.

2. Wing falls off.

3. Departing wing shears off the tail.

At least two other witnesses also saw items 1 and 2 above.

What bothers me is the apparent silence of the gevernment about what may have caused what at least three witnesses describe: explosion at the wing root followed by the wing falling off.

[Restorer]

1. Explosion at the wing root.

2. Wing falls off.

3. Departing wing shears off the tail.

Just one problem. Both wings were found not far from the fuselage and engines. The tail was apparently the first part of the plane to fall off, since it detached while the plane was still over water. The close distance of the other components to each other indicates an almost simultaneous disintegration.

Not to mention that the undamaged tail shows no indication whatever of a blow severe enough to knock it off.

I have no idea what the cause of this crash was, but the physical evidence tends to indicate the eyewitness was mistaken about the sequence of events. Who are you going to believe, him or your own eyes?

Now if we're going to get into conspiracy theories about coverups about where the wings were found, then it's time to get out the foil.

[Pharmboy]

Aww come on...don't you know a spark in the fuel tank when you see one??

[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.

[supercat]

Let's add the obvious one: a bomb in the baggage hold placed against the wing spar.

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.