Flight 587 Video Shows 'Puff of Smoke' in Sky

Newsmax ^ | November 17, 2001 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[MeekOneGOP]

Saturday, Nov. 17, 2001 11:39 a.m. EST

Flight 587 Video Shows 'Puff of Smoke' in Sky

A second-by-second videotape of the final moments of doomed American Airlines Flight 587 shows a puff of smoke in the sky seconds after it crashed outside New York's JFK Airport Monday, lending credence to eyewitnesses who say the jetliner exploded before slamming into a Rockaway, N.Y., neighborhood.

Though Flight 587 probers have not released the key videotape, shot from a Metropolitan Transportation Authority highway surveillance camera, reporters from New York's Daily News were allowed to view it Friday.

"The tape ... shows a white outline of the jetliner against a clear sky in fairly steep decline," the News reported in Saturday editions. "Seconds later, the outline disappears and the video shows a blurry, white, undefined patch as the plane apparently breaks apart."

Visible in one of the final frames of the sequential videotape is "a puff of white smoke in the sky."

The images of Flight 587's final moments are said to be "very unclear." FBI and NTSB investigators hope to learn more through video enhancement techniques.

On Friday, MTA spokesman Tom Kelly told NewsMax.com that the FBI had turned the videotape over to the NTSB, but apparently both agencies now have copies and continue to analyze them.

Enhancement of the Flight 587 video could confirm the accounts of eyewitnesses like Jackie Powers, who, minutes after the crash, told both ABC News and WABC Radio in New York that she saw "an enormous flash" near the wing on the A-300 Airbus before it dropped from the sky.

"I don't know if it was fire or an explosion," she said. "It appeared that debris fell from the left side [of the plane]. It just plummeted. It had no momentum whatsoever. It just plummeted."

Dozens of other witnesses told various media outlets they saw the jet either explode or catch fire before it crashed.

An explosion would be a problem for NTSB officials, who spent the better part of the last few days trying to sell the idea that the plane's vertical stabilizer snapped off, causing the in-flight breakup, because of "wake turbulence" from a Japan Airlines 747 that had taken off from JFK two minutes earlier.

Independent aviation experts have generally scoffed at the NTSB theory.

"[747 wake turbulence] is not strong enough to be able to break off a tail or to compromise any sort of a normal airplane," said ABC News aviation analyst John Nance on Friday.

"They could turn a little airplane upside down. But especially an A-300, which is a jumbo jet - no way in the world should that ever have any potentially disastrous impact on the aircraft or the tail," he explained.

On Wednesday, an unnamed aviation expert quoted in New York's Newsday said one likely explanation for Flight 587's breakup was a bomb exploding on board. (See: Aviation Expert: Bomb One Likely Cause of Flight 587 Crash.)

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
TWA 800
War on Terrorism

[MeekOneGOP]

Now the question: Since when do bombs make a rattling noise? They usually just go KA-BOOM!

Yes, they sure do. I'll repost my reply from post #15:

---

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!

---

Thanks, friend! ;-)

[Ben Bolt]

LOL ! Sometimes you just have to look just a 'lil bit deeper my friend . You could just ignore this topic , but you knew that . My hat is off to you though , having liberal friends must frustrate the living hell out of you . It would me !

[nicmarlo]

Calculate the odds. JFK is the source of unexplained EgyptAir crash -- pilot who took over the cockpit and aimed the plane into the ground -- we now can assume this Egyptian man was al-queda. JFK is the source of SwissAir flight blown out of the sky without explanation over Nova Scotia. JFK is the source of TWA 800. JFK is the source of 587.

O'Reilly mentioned this on his program this past week. He was interviewing a JFK airport official, I believe. O'Reilly said he found it more than unusual that, although planes do crash, have mishaps, etc., JFK seems to be the airport with, statistically, greater likeliness of crashes, even though it is not the busiest airport in the U.S.

[usconservative]

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.

Well, that would *not* include me on this particular "incident."

While I'm still in the camp that TWA 800 was brought down by a missle (I've never believed the fuel tank theory, since the 747's have the *greatest* safety and performance record of all planes) I look at each incident individually:

• We have a rattling noise reported by the pilot and heard on the cockpit voice recorder.

• We have no "suspicious" reports at all on the cockpit voice recorder (no passengers acting up, etc..)

• We have a plane that has a lousy safety record

• We have a specific A300 that was caught in severe turbulence 7 years ago and *may* have suffered structural damage that has gone undetected up to this tragedy

• We have an airline industry that's cutting staff and corners in order to maintain profitability. Why is no one questioning whether or not proper maintenance and routine checks have been performed on this, and *all* planes since 9-11?

  Not everything is a conspiracy. We must look at each situation on its own merits. That's all I'm trying to do here. And from what I see, this doesn't add up to a terrorist act.

  Those who question every "mark" on every piece of the airplane only feed on their own conspiracy theories, IMO.

  Those who say something like this hasn't happened before, have forgotten all about the MD80 fiasco with Alaska Airlines and the corkscrew failures they experienced in the tail section.

  We also have a history of counterfeit parts in the Airline Industry that the FAA has a hard time keeping up with. John Stossel of ABC News did a great story on this topic a few years ago, in which he demonstrated how counterfeit wing bolts would simply "snap" during testing, where the real bolts required by the FAA didn't.

  Think about it folks. It all adds up.

[ValerieUSA]

JFK was also the destination of the plane that blew up over Lockerbie.

[ValerieUSA]

It wouldn't take a big bomb going Ka-Boom to break apart the rudder. Just something big enough to make a rattling noise that could be heard in the cockpit could handle that strategic job. Sabotage. When does a gust of wind make a rattling noise and disintegrate a plane? Never, unless it is windshear in a thunderstorm cell bringing down the whole plane.

[Rokke]

"Believe it or not. Use your own search engine if it means that much to you. Do your own work!"

That is the standard mantra of conspiracy nuts everywhere. Make an unsupportable statement and then insist someone else prove it isn't true. The fact remains, you said hundreds of witnesses saw a missile take down TWA 800. You cannot support that statement (because it isn't true). Therefore, why make such a statement at all?

[MeekOneGOP]

I don't quite agree regarding President Bush. But here, friend - have a beer on ME!:

Now, while you soaking that up, check out my post #15, friend! ;-)

[Rokke]

I appreciate the link. Actually, CMDR Donaldson (bigtime TWA800 missile theory advocate) already compiled what the witnesses saw and I listed some of it in post #114. The simple fact of the matter is, that even the most ardent supporters of the missile theory, can't generate hundreds of eyewitnesses.

[Snow Bunny]

Thank you for the ping. Yes please keep me on your list, pretty please. thank you.

[Rokke]

"Why don't you FOIA the FBI? Those hundreds of AMERICANS, bub, gave sworn statements to the FBI."

I don't need to. Their statements are available for anyone to read. Try using the link in post #124. Since "our very survival" is at stake, I'd think you'd put a little more effort into research then one bogus advertisement in the Washington Times.

[terilyn]

Thank you

[FastCoyote]

One thing I think I can gather from the photos is that neither the mounting brackets, nor the pins failed. So the critical question is whether this was some kind of fatigue fracture in a composite matrix, or whether it was a sudden load (or perhaps a modal vibration failure). The force needed to break the rudder off could be guess-estimated if we knew the approximate material properties of the composite rudder panel attachment points (probably close to steel) and their approximate dimensions. Another way to get an estimate, is by noting that the attachment points themselves did not fail (and if we assume a safety factor of say 3?). So, Freepers, figure out the dimensions of the rudder attachment points, and we ought to be able to figure out how large a force blew that thing off.

By the way, knowing the "G's" a rudder was subjected to is not the same as knowing the force it was subjected to. While G's have meaning in respect to a wing with a known load of passengers. it doesn't make a lot of sense for a rudder without knowing the design load of the rudder.

[FastCoyote]

I pointed out the JFK frequency question a few days ago, but didn't get any comments.

[Traction]

All right, here's my 2 cents worth since I work in a related industry. My boss used to design jet engine controls and kicking the evidence around with him, he is convinced that the bang and flames are from an engine compressor surge. The engine surges and causes a lost of combustion, and the engine then loads up with unburned fuel and when it fires back to live, it produces a loud bang with a lot of flame. It lasts a few milliseconds and is fairly rare these days with the digital engine controls but was common back 15 years when he was designing engine controls. Such popping normally doesn't cause any damage but some have resulted in loss of panels off the engine and can be quite violent (last year, an Alaska airplane was damaged by a compressor surge blowing the engine panels off). He did not think the wake turbulence would have caused it.

My theory is based on the rumbles the pilots heard. I believe the first rumble was a main tire exploding in the wheelwell which takes out the fuel feed lines and some hydraulics. The second rumble was a second tire going that may have been damaged by the first explosion which takes out the electrical lines and causes an explosion in the wheel well which would jibe with witness accounts of an explosion at the wing root and body. This scenario is what caused a 727 that went down in Mexico in early 70s so there is some history behind it. The fuel lines running to the engine are now gone so the plane loses thrust on one side.

In either case, one engine would have suffered a loss power so the plane yaws. The computer controls of the Hairbrush are not programmed for this emergency condition and overrode the pilot commands as he tries to correct for the loss of power. The loss of panels on or near the engine flew back while in the yaw and dislodged the tail.

I don't think any conspiracy stuff is at hand with this one unlike the TWA800. When the gray hairs of the NSTB look at the evidence, they are going to find it was either one of these two scenarios or a combination of the two.

[exnavy]

UNCLEAR?

It's a bomb,

IT"S A BOMB!

What a bunch of Keystone Cops

[Shooter 2.5]

"Just something big enough to make a rattling noise"

I think someone already mentioned it but bombs do not make rattling noises.

[nicmarlo]

I pointed out the JFK frequency question a few days ago, but didn't get any comments.

I think it's human nature. You have to hear something several times before it sinks in. And then when it does, you don't recall hearing it the first two times.

[Diddle E. Squat]

having liberal friends must frustrate the living hell out of you

Yeah, sometimes it does! But I consider myself a type of conservative "missionary", so the ones with some hope and a bit of reasonableness appear to me as opportunities, possible converts. And there are LOTS out there right now who for the first time have at least a halfway open mind(rembember, we are talking liberals, so that in itself is odds defying).

As to my position on 587, am nowhere close to deciding one way or the other(but don't call me a moderate!). I am leaning towards TWA800 being a missile(ask anyone who works for TWA), and think that David Schippers probably has something on OKC. However, any particular view on 587 was not the point of my post, but rather refusal to consider new info or facts that might force one to reevaluate their armchair speculation.