Posted on 12/17/2001 6:40:25 PM PST by classygreeneyedblonde
Didn't we have pretty clear pictures of both engines? Was a reverser deployed?
It's still damned odd though.
Didn't the plane arrive from Boston that morning?
No thanks. I'll wait for the professionals to do their work.
A "smell test" on this goofy thrust reverser theory (especially when deployment is visible) would need a case of "Stick-Ups."
Bad luck is as plausible to assume as a deployed thrust reverser.
Why are you jumping offside to assume anything?
No Ties Seen Between United A320 Tail Check Findings, Flight 587 Accident
The GE CF6-80C2 engine has pneumatic actuators to deploy and stow the thrust reversers, so a "cut" in the hydraulic line would serve only to render the brakes useless. That doesn't eliminate the thrust reversers as the cause of the crash - until you find out from the NTSB reports that the reversers were in their stowed and locked position after the crash. Nobody, except the tinfoilies, think it was the reversers.
The aviation press has raised several hypotheses, but they discount the explosions supposedly observed by witnesses on the ground. The description of the explosions seem to indicate they were near or behind the wing. A fair amount of the aft airframe survived the crash and burn, and if they had found evidence of explosions, it would have been reported. Even with an explosion - how does it cause the loss of control?
After reviewing many reports in the press, and receiving email from other aircraft engineers speculating about the cause, I continue to believe that there was a flaw in the rudder structure, which caused the rudder to not respond to pilot commands, flutter wildly in the 250 knot air stream, and eventually break off from the vertical tail. The wild flutter caused a failure of the vertical tail attachments to the fuselage, which in turn caused the tail to depart the aircraft and the airplane to spin out of control. Some reports indicate that one of the attachments had been recently repaired, which may have made the situation worse.
Virtually no one in the aircraft engineering community thinks it was air turbulence that caused the vertical tail to fail. It may have exacerbated the problem, though, by making the previously damaged rudder attachments fail.
Another A300 was grounded in Peru several weeks ago because the pilot reported poor rudder response during takeoff, and they stopped safely before liftoff. The flight recorder for this aircraft is being inspected by the FAA and NTSB.
They will eventually figure this out, but it is taking a fairly long time.
I am an aircraft engineer for a company that makes the pods (and thrust reversers) for many commercial aircraft.
Here is the link, and an excerpt.
Rick Joyner re Sabotage on AA 587
Excerpts from this article by Rick Joyner:
"Let me share with you what I know spiritually about the crash of the American Airlines flight last Monday. It was not an accident—it was sabotage. Bob Jones dreamed THE NIGHT BEFORE it happened that someone was servicing the hydraulics of a plane and put some kind of explosive liquid in it." --Rick Joyner, speaking of Bob Jones' revelation
"Yes, I did try to call the FBI, but when the agent heard that my information was based on a dream, she understandably did not want to hear anymore." - Rick Joyner
------------------
I would like to add that the FBI and other police agencies regularly consult psychics (unfortunately) but they won't listen to Christians.
Gretchen, Rick is reporting this AFTER the crash.
"Yes, I did try to call the FBI, but when the agent heard that my information was based on a dream, she understandably did not want to hear anymore." - Rick Joyner
You actually believe that the FBI should act on every "dream" that somebody who thinks he's wired into God calls in?
Ha ha ha. It is an inconvenient fact that he brushes away as a coincidence Wake turbulence is likely an irrelevant fact. This article is the most plausible explanation I have seen. Having flown for many years I just don't buy the WT explanation. Planes fly through WT every day. For a little plane flying through WT from a big plane, it can be a problem (rapid rolling motion). But for planes of similar size, it is no big deal.
Wake Turbulence Discounted
Ha ha ha. It is an inconvenient fact that he brushes away as a coincidence
Wake turbulence is likely an irrelevant fact. This article is the most plausible explanation I have seen. Having flown for many years I just don't buy the WT explanation. Planes fly through WT every day. For a little plane flying through WT from a big plane, it can be a problem (rapid rolling motion). But for planes of similar size, it is no big deal.
If you've "flown" for many years (I presume that means in planes), you know that a deployed thrust reverser would be easy to see.
Thrust reversers in both engines were reported to be in the locked position.
No, it overnighted right there in New York.
I personally have no use for spiritualistic Mumbo-Jumbo.
Hint: the reason they don't listen is not because he is a Christian.
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.