Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NTSB Mum on Whether Flt. 587 Shows Midair Explosion
NewsMax ^ | 2/21/02 | Limbacher

Posted on 02/21/2002 9:19:00 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection

The National Transportation Safety Board doesn't expect to release a controversial videotape showing the Nov. 12 crash of American Airlines Flight 587 until at least this summer, an agency spokesman said Thursday, while declining to rule out the possibility that the recording corroborates eyewitness accounts that a midair explosion caused the crash.

In an exclusive interview with NewsMax.com, NTSB spokesman Ted Lopatkiewicz revealed that he'd personally viewed the critical video evidence, explaining, "I have seen it, yes."

He disputed a Jan. 27 report by Time Magazine claiming that the tape showed the doomed Airbus 300 as only "a tiny speck in the sky."

"When I eventually saw it myself," Lopatkiewicz said, "well - I wouldn't describe that as a speck. I mean, it's a lar - it's larger - although it's very hard to see. It's very grainy, very poor quality."

The second-by-second video was shot from a battery of traffic surveillance cameras stationed along Marine Parkway, a location approximately seven miles from JFK Airport, where Flt. 587 took off before crashing moments later.

The NTSB's Lopatkiewicz said Time also erred when, citing anonymous sources, it reported that the agency had recently obtained a second video that was shot from a much closer angle.

"No, there's just the one tape," he told NewsMax. "It just has several different cameras being used. The Time report was wrong. It's the same tape we got the very first week of the accident."

The NTSB spokesman said the tape shows the takeoff and crash of Flt. 587 from three different angles - two from toll booths on Marine Parkway and a third from an adjacent parking lot. The tape's sequence rotates from camera to camera, he explained.

But when asked directly whether the crucial videotape confirms what dozens of eyewitnesses say they saw - a midair fireball explosion near the juncture of the plane's wing and fuselage - Lopatkiewicz said he'd rather wait for the tape's release.

"I don't want to comment on that because I'd rather (have) everybody make his or her own assessment when they see it," he told NewsMax. "And it will be made public when we open the docket."

As to when that might be, the NTSB spokesman said:

"Were working on that. It's something that will be made part of our public docket when that docket is opened....I'm guessing - a wild guess - sometime this summer."

Lopatkiewicz explained that the JFK-Tower audiotapes of Flt. 587's crash made public yesterday were under the jurisdiction of the FAA, and that's why they were released before the videotape.

"Under our procedure once we are satisfied that we have a true transcript then we give the (audio)tape back to the FAA and then they release it under their procedures."

On the recording a pilot identified in FAA transcripts only as "Unknown" reports that he sees "an aircraft crashing," an observation apparently made while Flt. 587 was still in descent. Six seconds later the same pilot says the plane "just crashed."

"Affirm a fireball," the unidentified pilot adds five seconds later.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

1 posted on 02/21/2002 9:19:00 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
You know that if the video gets released and doesn't show an explosion -- the tinfoilers will say it is because it was doctored in a massive coverup to save the airline industry.
2 posted on 02/21/2002 9:29:46 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: jlogajan
If there is nothing to hide, then why not release it today? How could the public seeing what's on this tape in any way interfere with their investigation? Are they afraid that it would taint the accounts of witnesses that they want to interview? No, they have made it clear that they have no further interest in what anyone saw that day. They are acting like there is something to hide.
4 posted on 02/21/2002 9:46:51 AM PST by Orangedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
you've got it wrong, the tinfoilers are the crowd who believes that the eye witnesses were lying. The eye witnesses said the plane blew up in mid-air from an explosion in the fuselage. Two engines separated from the plane and fell separately. These things were not caused by air turbulence, only tinfoilers believe that story.
5 posted on 02/21/2002 9:50:36 AM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Jones
I think you're a bit confused on what inside and outside the tinfoil mean. You seem to have it backwards.
6 posted on 02/21/2002 10:10:59 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Red Jones
These things were not caused by air turbulence

If there was nothing to hide, the tape would be playing right now on Fox, MSNBC, etc.

You are right. Wake turbulence does not cause explosions in commercial jte's fuselage. I know I'm going out on a limb here, but I think that a few ounces of C4 in the hollowed out sole of a shoe might, just might be able to produce such an event. Especially if the passenger wearing said device was sitting near the center of the plane where the main fuel tank is. I'm pretty sure that is where the "shoe-bomber" who was caught several weeks ago was sitting. Think about it (with or without the tin-foil hat), Why didn't he lock himself in the restroom and set off the bomb, where no one could have stopped him? Could it be that the restroom on most jets are not located close enough to the fuel tanks to guarantee the destruction of the plane? Planes can land safely if even a large hole is blasted away from the fuselage (remember the Aloha airlines incident several years ago), but they don't fly very well when several thousand pounds of jet fuel is ignited all at once.

7 posted on 02/21/2002 10:12:04 AM PST by Orangedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
I just think if it was turbulence which was the "news" yesterday we would have heard a bunch more from the CVR. We would have heard, "Tower, we have hit major turb. We are having trouble maintaining altitude. Losing control" or something along those lines. At least that is how my mind thinks.

We didn't hear any of that. Nothing really from the pilots. Pilots out there...Had it been turb, what would it have sounded like? A plane basically breaking apart and completely losing control doesn't happen so quickly that the pilots don't have a chance to say anything does it?

8 posted on 02/21/2002 10:18:55 AM PST by WestPoint90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
if you actually believe that our government doesn't lie to us, and that every word coming from them is truth, then you are the tin-foil hatter.
9 posted on 02/21/2002 10:22:40 AM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WestPoint90
The last priority in an out of control situation is talking on the radio. The first priority is flying the airplane. Keying the mic does nothing for you, because the only person that can fly the plane is the guy at the controls.
10 posted on 02/21/2002 10:38:37 AM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Red Jones
I'm sure that there were no shortage of people who were called tin-foilers and similar things is they talked about the wacko conspiracy theories of the government performing tests on unknowing US citizens by intentionally exposing them to radiation without their knowledge or consent. They were probably called all kinds of things....until it was confirmed by the Department of Energy in 1995!

No, our government wouldn't lie to us, and if they did, well, it would be for our own good. [/sarcasm]

11 posted on 02/21/2002 10:40:41 AM PST by Orangedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
I notice that those NTSB bastards are also mum on whether a passenger had secretly brought a rabid llama onto the plane.
12 posted on 02/21/2002 10:42:57 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Jones
I'm not taking any chances. I'll just stay in here until they release the tape this summer. Wake me up when it's all over.THANKS.


13 posted on 02/21/2002 10:52:21 AM PST by The Turbanator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
I have a feeling that tape will be a long time coming.
14 posted on 02/21/2002 10:57:49 AM PST by codebreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
The last priority in an out of control situation is talking on the radio.

True, if I were the pilot on 587, calling the tower for help would be way down there on my list of things to do. There were a series of events that took place in the seconds before the plane impacted into that neighborhood. From what I have read about this crash, here are some of those events (these ARE NOT in any particular order of occurance):

The flight crew in the cockpit were heard on the CVR saying that they were experiencing turbulance.

The FDR recorded the rudder making several full-range motions with a veryu short period of time (seconds).

Witnesses on the ground saw an explosion on the right side of the plane, near where the wing connects to the fuselage.

The vertical stablizer seperated from the fuselage and fell into the water, where it was later recovered.

One of the engines crashes into the parking lot of a gas station.

Several other witnesses saw the plane on it's final descent, stating emphatically and with certainty, that the plane was on fire before it hit the ground.

The main points of contention seems to be (1)was there an explosion near the wing before the tail section seperated from the plane and (2) in what order did these events happen? Could the tail breaking free from the plane cause an explosion near the wing? In my opinion, it's not very likely. Could an explosion where the fuselage connects to the wing knock off one of the engines, and sever the hydrollic line controlling the vertical stablizer, causing the erratic movements recorded by the FDR? That seems more likely to me. That kind of movement may have been severe enough, when coupled with an explosion at the wing, to cause the tail section to break away from the plane.

The people who saw this happen in Queens were not likely to make up the explosion they claimed to see just to get attention because they already had all of the media attention they could ever imagine due to the large number of WTC victums that lived there. Too many things just don't add up. Add that to the NTSB refusing to release the tape that is in their posession and it starts to look like they are hiding something.

15 posted on 02/21/2002 11:14:08 AM PST by Orangedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The Turbanator
I'll just stay in here until they release the tape this summer. Wake me up when it's all over.THANKS.

This must be karma coming back onme for making fun of the "dead-aliens-are-in-hanger-18" crowd a while back! :)

16 posted on 02/21/2002 11:18:28 AM PST by Orangedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
"dead-aliens-are-in-hanger-18"

I didn't hear about this. That it I'm zipping the top shut now.

17 posted on 02/21/2002 11:26:17 AM PST by The Turbanator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
" Add that to the NTSB refusing to release the tape that is in their posession and it starts to look like they are hiding something."

Couldn't we at least wait until they publish their report until we make that conclusion. I'm not sure it is a requirement or common practice for investigating agencies of any type to release bits and pieces of their investigation before publishing their report. To my knowledge, the NTSB has yet to say what caused FLT 587 to go down. They ought to log into FreeRepublic. They would discover "proof" of all kinds of reasons why the plane crashed.

18 posted on 02/21/2002 11:26:19 AM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
They ought to log into FreeRepublic. They would discover "proof" of all kinds of reasons why the plane crashed.

I never said this was "proof." It's just that they were very quick to publicly rule out foul play/terrorism and lean toward a mechanical failure.

19 posted on 02/21/2002 11:43:37 AM PST by Orangedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection; aristeides; thinden; golitely; mancini; rdavis84; Plummz
"No, there's just the one tape," he told NewsMax. "It just has several different cameras being used. The Time report was wrong. It's the same tape we got the very first week of the accident."

They've kept it under wraps fairly well until that Time story broke the silence.

20 posted on 02/21/2002 11:44:31 AM PST by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson