Replies

The most obvious problem with this scenario is the complete lack of eyewitness corroboration. The plan was flying in NYC and was observed by many people. No one has reported anything like this spectacular high-speed flat spin.

People aren't used to seeing planes spinning like frisbees. If what you're seeing doesn't fit into your preconception of reality, your mind does its own gymnastics to try to make sense of it all. There were eyewitnesses that said the left engine came off first, and others that said the right engine came off first. That would fit in with the author's view that the plane was spinning.... or it could also fit with the eyewitnesses not knowing what the heck they saw.

It is not quite true that a flat spin was not witnessed: Witenesses did in fact see the plane "stop" in midair. It does not have to spin all the way around.

The main weakness I see is that he starts with a good analysis: that only air load could have torn off the vert stab and engines, but he follows it to a very specific conclusion.

The main contribution of this analysis is that the plane coming apart was a symptom, not a cause. I think this is driven home by the fact that the engines, part of a wing, and the vert stab are so far apart on the plane that their coming off has to be explained by forces like air load that work on all parts of the plane at once. Worst of all, I think thrust reverser deployment would have been discovered very early in the investigation. I think it has been ruled out.