So, how do you explain the hole in the bottom center of this photo? The aircraft's skin is bent upwards and outwards, from the inside. And what about that smokey residue downwind of the hole? 
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."
Any comments on my last several posts?
Al-crapa does not warn or take credit for their acts of violence. I read that once on FR.
Straight from Komrad Krintong's play book ...
BTW, still waiting for the "It's old news, and it's time to move on adage.
The Lying government propaganda machine doesn't care what they saw if it goes against their agenda.
And one aspect of their agenda seems to be not showing this plan being taking down by sabotage, a bomb or whatever---just an accident.
So, how do you explain the hole in the bottom center of this photo? The aircraft's skin is bent upwards and outwards, from the inside. And what about that smokey residue downwind of the hole?
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
AND, they will not admit that government explanations just might NOT be lies. It easier to believe your pre-conceived notion (read-hysteria) than to think about reality!
I don't know what that piece is and thus have no theory as to the scorching etc. Nor am I trying to debunk the terrorist did it theory. In fact, I would rather it be a terrorist incident for several reasons rather than some sort of mechanical failure.
Not only do I see no evidence of explosion wrt the tail but cannot understand how it could have come off like that without an explosion.
Then I'm sure you won't mind explaining how TWO eyewitnesses seeing TWO separate explosions fits with the "structural failure" model the NTSB is currently hawking, and how that (NTSB's) pre-conceived notion can be conclusively labeled "reality."
These witnesses are being dismissed out of hand, with the intellectually dishonest assertion that "eye-witness testimony is inherently unreliable". Given that the U.S. Government commonly prosecutes and convicts accused criminals "beyond a reasonable doubt" on the basis of nothing more than eye-witness testimony, it lies foul in their mouths now to treat such evidence as worthless when it suits their needs.
Why have we heard nothing about the wings? Did the engines simply shear off at their mounts from torque, or did they shear on a particular tangent? Or were they blown off? If these eyewitnesses are so unreliable, let's hear some evidence to contradict what they are saying. So far, I've heard nothing from any Authority to address these critical questions and proofs. Instead we are treated to a 7 day mantra of "there is no evidence of terrorism, please go about your business as if nothing has happened", speculation about migratory birds, vortexes which have never before ripped planes apart, and then dead silence. That makes me think we are being "information managed" (AKA lied to)
I am NOT in the explaining business. I defer to qualified air crash examiners who will piece together factual and scientifically derived evidence. Following the COMPLETION of the investigation, they will put out a report. Then I will look at that and make my, perhaps contrary, conclusion.
I am relatively convinced that the true story of flight 800 has yet to be told and may never be. CLINTOON administration. Same pattern as Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Ok. City.
Different players here and more likely to be truthful.
As a footnote, think about 800. Do you really think as many as 700 EYE WITNESSES saw it go down. Now think about it. The plane was 10-15 miles off shore. It was nighttime and dark. How many people do you think would normally be gazing at the sky, seeing a small flashing light (the plane was not distinguishable under the conditions) and have their eyes fixed on it at exactly the moment it blew? HMMMM. I doubt if 700 critically examine a launch from Cape Canaveral now days.
Just my HO's!
I'm sure that concerns them greatly...
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.