Posted on 12/03/2001 7:24:22 AM PST by Carol Roberts
Monday Dec. 3, 2001; 11:07 a.m. EST
Flt. 587 Eyewitnesses Insist Explosion Came Before Tail Broke Off
Two eyewitness to the Nov. 12 crash of American Airlines Flight 587 said over the weekend that investigators for the National Transportation Safety Board are wrong to focus on potential structural defects as the cause of the disaster - insisting instead that the plane's tail came off over New York's Jamaica Bay only after it exploded in a fireball.
"It was after the explosion," eyewitness Tom Lynch, a retired firefighter, told the New York Post. "I'm telling you, the tail was there until the second explosion."
"No tail fell off, not before the explosion. I swear to that," Lynch told the paper's Steve Dunleavy.
The eyewitness said there was absolutely no doubt about what he saw.
"I had my head up taking in that beautiful, clear day and was staring straight at the plane. It made a bank turn and suddenly there was an explosion, orange and black, on the right-hand side of the fuselage. It was a small explosion, about half the size of a car."
He continued:
"The plane kept on going straight for about two or three seconds as if nothing had happened, then ‘vwoof' - the second, big explosion on the right wing, orange and black. It was only then that the plane fell apart. It was after the explosion and I'm telling you, the tail was there until the second explosion."
Lynch, who lives near the Belle Harbor, N.Y. crash site, said he knew thirteen others who also saw the explosion and/or fire.
One, retired police lieutenant Jim Conrad, told Dunleavy:
"I saw exactly what Tom saw. I was near a stop light at the Marine Parkway Bridge. First, the small explosion. The plane kept on going, tail intact, then the big explosion and the plane nose-dived. The first thing I said was: ‘The bastards did it again.'"
Lynch said he's tried to contact the FBI and the NTSB but they weren't interested in his story. Ditto Sens. Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and his congressional representative Anthony Weiner, who also gave him the brush off.
"I got no response from anyone," he said.
Last week NewsMax.com asked New York State's newly appointed public security czar James Kallstrom why a traffic surveillance video that reportedly captured Flt. 587's mid-air break up has not been publicly released.
"I have not seen the tape. I heard some mention of it. But I've not seen the tape and I really have no knowledge of it," Kallstrom said.
"Why it hasn't been released, I suspect, is because the investigation is ongoing. But I don't know the answer to that."
Eyewitnesses are the least credible of all witnesses.
I suppost that's why Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, et al were blown off by the politico's and media elite...
Okay Mr. Sarcasm. Can you explain why one witness saw the wing slap off the tail, yet there is not any evidence of impact damage on the tail. How can that eyewitness account be credible when it is so obviously contradictory to the wreckage evidence???
If so how would you explain this in layman's terms, if possible.
I don't know, I'm so confused, I can't tell sh*t from shineola. It's getting harder and harder to keep reality in check, especially when you're living in a fantasy world.
I can tell you this. That plane came down because of one thing, and one thing only. GRAVITY!
Ha, nice twist. I said there is no evidence of a bomb. Some of us wait for evidence before jumping to conclusions. Apparently others assume it was a bomb until someone can prove it wasn't (which they never can because of the vast conspiracy to cover up the bombing.)
Precisely. We only know what they've told us is on those recorders. I don't think we've heard the whole story, and I also don't think we will.
If there were 1000 eyewitnesses to a thing, and you couldn't find a couple dozen to swear to contradictory, inconsistent with the physical evidence occurences, that would be strong evidence of a cover-up...
My view is the eyewitnesses are evidence of what happened. Whether a bomb or fire I don't know. But it seems the explosions and fire started, at least from the eyewitness account before the plane broke up.
Could they be wrong. Possibly.
My view is the eyewitnesses are evidence of what happened. Whether a bomb or fire I don't know. But it seems the explosions and fire started, at least from the eyewitness account before the plane broke up.
Could they be wrong. Possibly.
The tail was found in the bay near Beach 105th Street. One of the engines was found on Beach 129th Street, the other close by. The plane passed over the 105th Street area before crashing a mile +/- beyond. Thus, the tail came off first.
They have the voice recorder which tends to pick up sounds like explosions and they heard none before the flight data recorder started picking up drastic rudder wings.....No evidence of a bomb.
Maybe an explosion caused by some sort of bomb caused the shuttering? That would explain the orange fireball seen by the witnesses. I personally know some of these witnesses and they are truthful people.
I never bought the wind turblence story. I'd love to see the tapes taken from the bridge. Why haven't they been released?
Unless one accepts the comical premise that the NTSB conpsiracy machine is SO EFFICIENT AND FAST they were able to cut the vertical stab off another A300, drop it in Jamaica Bay in broad daylight without being seen (or, heck, PRE-POSITION it in Jamaica Bay the night before the crash) and HIDE the REAL vertical stab that was knocked off the airplane...
It is blatantly obvious that NOTHING hit that vertical stab. And that eyewitness is completely wrong.
One problem with people pointing out that eyewitness testimony isn't very reliable is that people who worship (selected) eyewitness testimony make it sound like if you question witnesses you are saying those witnesses are liars or insane.
This is not the case. It is entirely possible for educated, responsible, sane, reliable people to witness something and have their description of the event, and memory of the event, be completely WRONG, despite their claims that they are 100% certain of what they saw. They'll even easily pass lie-detector tests...because they aren't lying. They are totally confident that their completely incorrect memory of the event is correct.
Again, if you haven't seen one of the standard college psych class demonstrations where a short film of a car accident is shown, and then the students are asked about the accident afterwards..you really should. The students get the number of cars involved wrong, the color of the cars wrong, what car hit what other car first wrong, etc.
There also was a demonstration that was shown on one of the weekly newsmagazines a couple years ago...can't remember which one...could have been Nightline. It was a law school class and someone came in, confronted the professor, stole a purse or something, and ran out (it was a setup)
Most of the students got the physical description of the thief totally wrong, what he was wearing totally wrong, what was said totally wrong, etc.
I recall there being quite a few eyewitnesses who didn't report seeing an explosion but of course the foil-hatters have forgotten about them.
To keep the masses calm and flying. An act of nature vs. an act of terrorism.
They are focusing on weakness/fatigue of the vertical stabilizer composites. That the plane simply had a structural failure doesn't exactly reassure people who are afraid of flying, does it?
The group that did the WTC bombing in 93 didn't step forward, nor the US Cole bombing, nor the bombing of our military in Saudi Arabia. Hamas likes to take credit, but Ben Lade's network is usually quiet about their successes.
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.