Posted on 11/16/2001 1:18:40 PM PST by Map Kernow
Just two days after the FBI said it was investigating witness accounts that American Airlines Flt. 587 exploded in midair before it broke apart over New York's Jamaica Bay on Monday, NTSB investigators are pushing the theory that air turbulence from another jetliner -- and not any explosion -- caused the crash that scattered wreckage covering a half mile wide area.
"We are consistently looking for any sign of sabotage and not finding any," said NTSB spokeswoman Marion Blakely on Wednesday. "There is no evidence of any bomb, of any sabotage, at this point."
That's not what the investigators were saying just hours after the crash, as reported in an Associated Press alert that flashed into newsrooms across the country.
"The Associated Press (is) saying the Bush administration says the FBI believes there was an explosion aboard the plane, and they are investigating its source," reported CNN's Paula Zahn around midday.
"Senior administration officials tell CNN that the FBI is trying to find out the source of that explosion on the American Airlines flight," echoed the news network's Major Garrett.
As what sounded like an official confirmation that Flt. 587 had exploded ricocheted around the world, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer denied the report, saying no administration official had made that statement -- but that the FBI would not dismiss what eyewitnesses had seen.
And what nearly every witness to Flt. 587's ascent over Jamaica Bay said they saw was an explosion and/or a fire, something not likely cause by "wind turbulence."
CNN's Zahn reported that morning, "We got five eyewitnesses to describe what they saw as an explosion coming, most of them believed from the right wing."
On WABC Radio in New York, vivid accounts of a midair explosion poured in from callers who saw Flt. 587 from both sides of Jamaica Bay.
"I saw an enormous flash where the wing meets the plane," a woman who was out walking her dog told host John Gambling. "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."
By Tuesday, some already suspected a cover-up.
"I keep hearing the authorities talk about an engine falling off the plane and (then) an explosion," eyewitness Rod McHale told the New York Post. "That's not what I heard and saw. There was an explosion and then the engine fell off.... I'm convinced it's terrorism."
Before the NTSB mounted its full court press on the air turbulence theory, ABC News aviation expert John Nance told WABC Radio's Gambling the probers were grasping at straws.
GAMBLING: The theory that this plane, Flt. 587, was going through the wash of a 747 ahead of it -- that really seems to be sort of a bogus theory.
NANCE: It really is. I think a lot of folks jumped on that last night, I think, misunderstanding the reality that these aircraft fly through severe turbulence. It could be the initiating event of something that was about to happen, but it would not be the cause itself.
Stay tuned.
I know a lot of Freepers love cover-ups. There's just a cover up bandwagon here. Lord how I dread seeing Flight 587 cover up threads on FR for the next 10 years. But I sure that's just exactly what is going to happen. YUCK!
I read this yesterday on FR, and it was substantiated by news reports... sorry, I don't recall the specifics... does anyone else hve it?
At least five witnesses saw fire or explosion. It would be very difficult for five separate people to IMAGINE they saw fire or explosion, yet the turbulance-tail shear theory DOES NOT allow for any fire or explosion.
I am thinking this plane was sabotaged in more than one way.
A combination of a wing joint explosive and the loosening of the vert stabilizer bolts seems to me to fit all available info.
It will be interesting to see if the "data" on the "repaired" FDR provide really strong support for one theory or another.
Weren't there three seconds missing off the TWA 800 recordings?
I agree. The present theory does not cover all known facts unless we again disregard the eyewitness testimony of at least five people.
The people who claim to have seen fire or explosion have no motive to lie but the Fedgov does.
Another terrorist blow to our airliners would demonstrate that for all their bluster, Fedgov cannot protect people from a clever, motivated enemy.
I'm really tired of seeing this factoid. Believe me, if it were true, we wouldn't be able to try and convict hardly anyone for commission of a crime. I understand that you believe Flt. 587 didn't go down as a result of a terrorist act, but don't overstate your case.
Cheer up! There will be at least another decades worth of "Harry Potter is leading our innocent children into satanism" threads to give some variety to Free Republic. We can switch between the two.
Which terrorist or group openly declared responsibility for crashing planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, less than a week after it happened?
Or are there a bunch of deceived witnesses who swore those buildings came down, but they're all wrong?
Sure it does. Vertical stabilizer comes off, plane goes into a high-G spin (with engines still at full power), engines break off from the lateral forces, fuel spewing from the engine attachment points goes up in flames.
I am thinking this plane was sabotaged in more than one way.
That is the biggest weakeness of the "sabotage" theory. If you could sabotage the tail, that'd be enough. Why on earth run all over the plane sabotaging everything in sight? What sort of terrorist is *that* obsessive-compulsive?
Furthermore, multiple sabotage points only vastly multiples the chances of 1) getting caught while doing it, and 2) having one of your "doctored" parts failing during taxiing or take-off, causing the take-off to be aborted and blowing the chance of having it fail in flight, where you need it to happen if you actually want the plane to crash.
It makes no sense, it's ridiculous.
A combination of a wing joint explosive and the loosening of the vert stabilizer bolts seems to me to fit all available info.
Horse manure. The bolts are still there, they held just fine. The composite tail *ripped* away from the bolts. I've seen the photographs.
Furthermore, explosives leave tell-tale damage and residues that are hard to miss. No such signs of explosives have been found.
The conspiracy theorists are in a position of having to come up with theories that are even more baroque and unbelievable than simply postulating that the tail was weak and came off from turbulence stress, and the stresses of the spinning power-dive caused other parts of the plane to break.
You're missing the point. We *knew* it was terrorism, they didn't *have* to take credit. The fear they caused was accomplished.
But it would be a waste to crash an airplane in order to strike fear of terrorism into the hearts of America, only to have people write it off as an accident, wouldn't it?
But it would be a waste to crash an airplane in order to strike fear of terrorism into the hearts of America, only to have people write it off as an accident, wouldn't it?
You mean, like in the case of TWA 800? Hundreds of people saw things streaking through the air, more than a hundred seeing it rise from the surface - and we are told that a spark that you couldn't feel on the back of your hand ignited the fuel in the center wing tank and blew the plane up, despite the fact that a burning rag could be extinguished in jet fuel simply by immersing it, it's that non-flammable.
Seriously, the official story behind TWA 800 is about as factual as a Violence Policy Center press release.
1. The engines did not self-destruct.
2. The vertical stabilizer snapped off at six tremendously strong carbon fiber composite structures at the same moment. No bolts missing.
3. The vert stab was not blown off by a bomb - it looks undamaged.
4. There was fire and/or an explosion toward the front of the plane before the tail came off, according to eyewitnesses, which is not an ideal indicator, but remarkably consistent, recorded by the media on the spot, and at least some of the witnesses sound credible.
And I think we can eliminate turbulence: The plane made a tight turn just after takeoff. The forces from the rudder on the vertical stabilizer would have been several times the maximum possible force exerted by turbulence. So if the composite attachment points were weak for some reason, the plane would never have completed that turn.
So my vote for what took parts off the plane is: an "unusual attitude." Something got the plane sideways so that air load snapped off the tail, and the engines. And that something probably had to do with whatever the eyewitnesses saw.
Eventually the cover up will experience diminishing returns because it will be slightly obvious to everyone what's going on. Of course, I hope its not terrorism.
One thrust reverser deploying in flight would do this. Although I think that would show up on the cockpit voice recorder in the form of two men simultaneously shouting, "What the Hell?"
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.