Posted on 11/17/2001 10:58:21 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
Why would this be a problem,? Thought they were just trying to find out the truth. Since when is truth a problem? Oh, I know, when it conflicts with propaganda.
The fact that eyewitnesses saw either explosion or fire is not being brought forward by anyone in the mainstream press as a counter to the "wake turbulance" theory.
Was this so that the public would fly over the holidays, though? Support the airline industry, etc.?
That goes along with a question I have had all along, to which I have not heard anything from the media or government: Were there any Arabs who were hired as maintenance workers and worked on this plane? Did this person/people, come under the "grandfather" clause that existed (may still exist) and not have to go through security screening because he was hired prior to a certain year (I think it was 1997, not sure). If this is a possibility, then sabotage is also a possibility, either that day, the day before, or a month before.
IMHO, the explosion ocuured first. It threw the plane VIOLENTLY sideways or even caude the plane to turn sideways against the wind. The resultant forces caused the composite tail section to give way.
Without a rudder or vert stabiliser, the engines became free to thrust in any direction as the plane twisted in another, causing both engines to shear from their mounts.
The question is, what is the nature of the explosive which caused the initial "sharp turn to the left."
The tail fell off as a result of wake turbulance and fatigue, then the engines broke off as a result of a flat spin.
No bomb, no missle, no Martians, no sabatage.
They are not going to ground all similar aircraft for mechanical inspections if they know it was not caused by mechanical failure. If they call for a major grounding, then I'll be convinced it was mechanical.
Mechanical failure of what, though? Simply because there may have been some kind of mechanical failure does not rule out intentional mechanical failure.
Personally, I don't think anyone has yet proved anything of any importance, whether the theory is mechanical failure, structural failure, sabotage, bomb, whatever.
Bumping for the conspiracy theory. LOL! Really I'm serious. I don't think this was an accident.You aren't alone. There are a LOT of folks on FR and the general public that are skeptical regarding the reports coming out of the government. That would include me. I'm patient and will wait and see what the "investigations" reveal. The government needs to make sure that TRUTH takes the wheel and "pampering the baby" is not done. The government can hurt us worse by thinking they are doing the right thing by giving us false information with the thought of not causing a general panic. (Or, even worse yet, just a flat-out coverup!). "XXX" as it goes on the game show "Family Feud". Wrong answer!
I'm hoping that Bush will insert his bully pulpit into this and make SURE the wrong thing doesn't happen here regarding this tragedy. . .
Thanks for your input!
But I thought I read yesterday that they were going to be either grounding all Airbuses or checking them all before they could fly.
Perhaps you'd like to explain just WHY the pictures in your link are PROOF?
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.