NTSB BIRDBRAINS STICKING HEADS IN ROCKAWAY SAND

NY Post ^ | December 2, 2001 | STEVE DUNLEAVY

[dep]

And let me say to anyone who wants to start in about the "inherent unreliability of eyewitness testimony"---just think about what might happen if you're ever a victim of a crime, and the only evidence to prosecute the perpetrator is your eyewitness testimony and that of a cop's. Puts things in a different perspective perhaps...

not especially. either way, i'd say, "prosecute the guy lying over there in the pool of blood, if he lives."

dep

[verity]

STEVE DUNLEAVY: Just another media puke!

[Map Kernow]

For the record, I'm not saying (and I've never said on any of these threads) that I'm convinced that the Flt. 587 disaster was terrorism or sabotage, nor even--shocking as it sounds---that the government is engaged in deliberate cover-up. It's just that the "explanations" for it came a little too pat, one after the other, and the eyewitness accounts were discounted a little too quickly.

Oh, yes....That and all the "tinfoil hat" rhetoric from know-nothings on threads like these.

[aristeides]

He said that, given the lack of security around the aircraft the night before the crash, it would have been very easy for a saboteur to make a few alterations on the plane.

I hadn't heard about the lack of security that night, but I can believe it. Hadn't the plane been at Logan in Boston overnight?

[RandyRep]

Steve Dunleavy is a reputable reporter, in my book (based on the Clinton scandals and other articles over the last 5 years I've seen). So this should be taken seriously.

The only way to prove or disprove this is to have non-NTSB, non-FBI, non-FAA, non-government aviation people look at the available wreckage and other evidence.

We all know that witnesses may be unreliable, and they can be lead by smart attorneys or politicians. These witnesses should give depositions under oath, as should the earlier ones who said the plane was intact before the tail came off. Not to prosecute them, but to get as much info into the public record as possible. The newspapers and TV guys like O'Reilly have to lead this, since it's obvious to most of us that the gummint is not capable of doing it.

If there were explosions on one side of the aircraft, then there should be debris on one side of the aircraft with burn/singe markings on it. There should be panels on the aircraft remains with evidence of an outward explosion, assuming that the crash and burn didn't destroy the pieces.

[JoeSchem]

Any more on that tinfoil theory that the destruction of the World Trade Center wasn't an accident?

When I was watching the coverage of the first crash on September 11, and I heard people on TV wondering if it was an accident, I couldn't believe it. Did they have any idea how improbable it was that a commercial jetliner could crash into the World Trade Center? Apparently not -- or something was at work in their minds that had nothing to do with calculating probabilities!

I mean, some people are so scared of the label 'tinfoil hat' that they go in the opposite direction, to the point of absurd complacency! It took a second crash before they finally figured it out -- yes, there are people in the world who intentionally destroy airplanes and buildings! Shocking revelation, but it's true!

The last time a vertical stabilizer fell off a commercial airliner by accident was sixteen years ago. Working back from Flight 587, the last time terrorists destroyed a commercial jetliner was two months ago.

Paranoia can be a psychosis, but it is also a survival trait. Being blind to danger can also be a psychosis. But it is never a survival trait.

We don't want to believe the mean old terrorists are still around. But I think they are.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

MK, "Who are you going to believe?? Me or your lieing eyes??" Peace and love, George.

[gonzo]

Howdy Randy! LTNS! Then again, I wander around a lot...FRegards

[eno_]

If you could even calculate the forces of gyroscopic precession of the moving parts in a jet engine, it would tell you they are insignificant compared to engine thrust. And the Airbus engine pylons are not designed to break away in case of a wheels-up landing. You need to find a very impressive force to break them, and the tail.

Look at the sum total of the BS surrounding all accident theories: first bird strike, then wake turbulence, then bad tail mounts, cheese, etc. None of it explains why the tail and two engines came off. While an explosion is the baggage could cause total loss of control, which would cause wind load on large surfaces, which would then rip them off. In other words, Occam's razor says: bomb in the baggage. Dominicans carry all kinds of random stuff when visiting home. How hard would it be to trick one into carrying a baggage bomb? All other explanations can't touch a bomb in the baggage for being able to explain everything that happened, and everything the witnesses saw.

Critically, this witness saw two explosions, which could correspond to the two "airframe rattle" events reported by the pilots on the CVR. Also explains why some witnesses saw fire on one side of the plane, and some on the other.

Also, pay attention to shills: _Jim is the same guy that shows up to defend Lon Horiuchi and every drug bust that ends up killing innocent people. Same with most of the other waketurbulencebirdstrikecheapfrenchplastictail shills. They also usually have a record of backing at least three disproven accident theories.

[_Jim]

You're a bad, bad man aren't you?

Deride a guy for asking some interesting and pertinent questions ... how low will you sink?

Does God know you do this?

[_Jim]

Speaking of 'gyroscopic precession' - I GUESS you've never ridden a motorcyle and learned the term 'counter-steer' ...

Now, go and repent ...

[eno_]

Osama said more planes would fall out of the sky, and here we are in NYC with the President standing in front of the WTC ruins and the UNGA in town, and eyewitnesses see explosions on this plane, and our first assumption is supposed to be "Accident?" GMAfB! It's like finding a decathelete's ex-wife impaled on a javelin in his front yard, and we should think she threw herself on it?

News people have this wierd psychology. I remember the Northridge earthquake, and seeing I880 collapsed. The voice over of the helicopter shot kept saying there was no evidence anyone was dead. And I'm looking at I880 flat as a pancake - no evidence my ass. If only one plane had hit the WTC, we might be debating if THAT was an accident now. People don't want to believe there are bad people who want you dead, and the government is sometimes too willing to oblige this tendency. The press of course, is just clueless. Now what explains the shills on FR?

[eno_]

So your the guy who's engine went flying out of his bike due to gyroscopic forces? Wow, can I have your autograph? Quick, run, tell Jay Leno his turbine bike can only turn in one direction!