Replies

I agree. I have spent a lot of time on threads discussing whether or not 587 could have encountered wake turbulence, and whether it could have knocked off the vertical stabilizer.

But none of probably 250 posts can plausibly explain why an A300 managed to dissemble itself in the air, and why so many people reported fire from the right wing root.

I want it to be tragic, mechanical, structural failure. I fear it is clever terrorism.

The NTSB has ruled out mechanical failure by virtue of examining the engines. By doing this, the numerous reports of "explosion" and "fire" betray something that had to have taken place in either the wing section or the baggage compartment(s). If one can blame turbulence and shearing for the tailfin becoming so cleanly detached, that does nothing to explain the "fire" near the engines which suffered no mechanical failure? I'm assuming mechanical "failure" would include incidental engine fires.

This is going to be a battle among Airbus, GE, and American Airlines. AA wants the public to think it's an Airbus issue. Airbus wants everyone to think it's a security issue. GE just wants everyone to think it's either security or the tailfin.

I agree. I have spent a lot of time on threads discussing whether or not 587 could have encountered wake turbulence, and whether it could have knocked off the vertical stabilizer. But none of probably 250 posts can plausibly explain why an A300 managed to dissemble itself in the air, and why so many people reported fire from the right wing root.

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.

We know four things:

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.

The only thing that would happen if the A300 got caught in wake turbulance is that it would initiate something called a "Dutch Roll". The Flyboys can state more accurately what it is, batter than I can, but it is the wing tip vortex from the lead plane catches your plane and makes it roll violently left and right. It can do damage, a KC-135 got hit with this back during Desert Storm and lost two engines and a flap.

However, I do not think this happened. A Dutch roll wouldn't make a plane explode and fall apart in mid air. The A300 and other airframes are designed to withstand the stress of turbulance, even wake turb. The FACT that the explosion occured before the break-up confirms other suspicions. (Still wonder what happened to that traffic cam tape that caught the whole thing.. any clues?) I concur.. this is BS. Keep FReeping.