Flt. 587 Eyewitnesses Insist Explosion Came Before Tail Broke Off

Newsmax ^ | 12/3/1 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[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."

[GingisK]

I believe the flight data recorders and the wreckage evidence

Which you have personally processed and analyzed , right? Or, there is someone you know in all of those agencies who doesn't have anything to hide or coverup, right?

[John H K]

If eyewitness testimony is almost invariably unreliable, there are a lot of people rotting away in prisons who need to be released immediately.

Most of the flood of inmates released on DNA evidence the past few years were convicted based on eyewitness testimony.

And it's not ALWAYS worthless...it just needs to be used carefully; investigators need to be trained to be certain they don't contaminate witnesses, etc.

[Beach_Babe]

I recall there being quite a few eyewitnesses who didn't report seeing an explosion .

You have to remember the "lay of the land". Rockaway is a long narrow peninsula. If an explosion happened over the bay near Beach 105th Street, it wouldn't been seen by people further up the beach. Their view from the ground would be obstructed by trees and rooftops, unless, of course, they were standing right at the seawall on the bay. As the plane approached Rockaway Park and Belle Harbor any flash from an explosion would have been extinguished, explaining why the folks up that way didn't see it.

[Beach_Babe]

I recall there being quite a few eyewitnesses who didn't report seeing an explosion .

You have to remember the "lay of the land". Rockaway is a long narrow peninsula. If an explosion happened over the bay near Beach 105th Street, it wouldn't been seen by people further up the beach. Their view from the ground would be obstructed by trees and rooftops, unless, of course, they were standing right at the seawall on the bay. As the plane approached Rockaway Park and Belle Harbor any flash from an explosion would have been extinguished, which could explain why the folks up that way didn't see it.

[verity]

Feeding the 'Konspiracy Kooks'.

[ALASKA]

Where does your information come from? It is to the advantage of the government to have this crash classified as an accident. I'm not normally a conspiracy advocate, but in this case it makes sense. Who would fly knowing that this plane was taken out by terrorists?

[justshutupandtakeit]

However, there is also no evidence of an explosion on the tail section itself. I would think that if there was an explosion which blew off the tail there would be scorch marks on it. There are none.

[jlogajan]

Feeding the 'Konspiracy Kooks'.

There's money and status in conspiracy kookdom. You can write books, get published in magazines, go on speaking tours -- fleecing the flocks all the way. Many a schiester has made a name for themselves hawking a conspiracy theory. The little-brains seem to love it, though.

[Beach_Babe]

there is also no evidence of an explosion on the tail section itself.

Agreed...
All who said they saw an explosion stated it was where the wing meets the body of the plane. I have no idea why the tail then fell away in one clean piece. Wasn't a piece of wing also picked-up out of the bay, while everyting else landed on shore?

[lds23]

While eyewitness accounts are sometimes unreliable, so is the record of the government reporting inconvenient facts.

[Melinator]

Two "airframe rattles" were heard. Something imparted enough kinetic energy to that plane to make it rattle, twice. Wake turbulence you say?

Why has the NTSB studiously avoided all mention and releasing any information specific to the wings upon which eyewitnesses insist they saw explosions. They have never, to my knowledge, reported even looking at the wings.

IMHO, the truth is being deliberately kept quiet until such time as the Govt sees fit to release it, in an effort to prevent panic, protect the economy and forestall the criticism that so far, the Govt is largely unable to protect Americans from terrorist attacks...

[ag2000jon]

I don't rule out sabotage, but none of the usual Muslim wacko groups have stepped up to claim credit for this. Usually, they can't wait to thump their chests and proudly claim credit for killing innocent civilians

Nobody claimed responsibility for Sept. 11th either...Still haven't. Does that mean it didn't happen?

[Marysecretary]

As I told someone in another thread, Bob Jones of Bob Jones University had a dream or vision the night before this happened, of a man, not a muslim but perhaps a copy cat terrorist or disgruntled employee, who was fiddling with the hydraulic system. He called the FBI and told them but they weren't interested (this was BEFORE the crash). Wish they'd look into that possibility as well.

[Iwo Jima]

"If eyewitness testimony is almost invariably unreliable, there are a lot of people rotting away in prisons who need to be released immediately."

Oh! So that's why the government wouldn't call any of the many witnesses who could place Timothy McVeigh at the scene of the OKC bombing! I thought that it was because they would also identify a Middle Eastern terrorist who was with him, but now I know that it is because no one believes eyewitnesses and so if dozens of witnesses said that he was there, well that would prove that he wasn't there. I get it. [NOT!] </sarcasm

[timestax]

FBI prolly insists that all witnesses were drunk.

[hove]

"If the government thinks it was terrorists, would they make up wake turbulence? Aren't they taking a chance that it happens again, blowing their credibility?"

I think it was terrorists....and I think they think it was too. I just think they don't have many plausible expanations to choose from. Like the lame TWA-800 center fuel tank explosion...the wake turbulance explanation is just the best they could come up with. The point is, they had to come up with something. The airline industry has been hit hard, and another blow before the holidays would be devastating. As for it happening again, I think they are desperately hoping that it doesn't. I think they are willing to take this calculated risk. My problem is that I have seen our government lie to us all of my life. They are like the boy that cried wolf. Maybe all of these incidents aren't lies, coverups, or conspiracies.....but at this point in our history I would bet real money that more often than not....they are.

[copycat]

I said there is no evidence of a bomb. Some of us wait for evidence before jumping to conclusions.

Eyewitness testimony by multiple witnesses that they saw "fire" or "smoke" or an "explosion" is evidence of a bomb.

Every witness I heard the day of the crash mentioned fire or explosion. None of them said the tail fell off.

Explosions which occured "downwind" from cockpit recorders could be perceived as a rattle or vibration.

The government began stating they were treating this as an accident did so WAY TOO EARLY to have gathered relevant data. Before the tail was even retrieved.

IMHO it is YOU who cannot handle the facts in this matter.

[copycat]

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?

This account does not take into account the multiple eyewitness reports of "fire" or "smoke" or "explosion." Some seeing more than one explosion.

[Osinski]

Eyewitnesses are not credible.

Now repeat after me "Eyewitnesses are not credible." It doesn't matter if fifty different people saw the same thing...haven't you heard of mass hallucinations?