Posted on 06/03/2004 4:19:13 AM PDT by NetValue
28 May 2004 - Al Qaeda lists successes since 9/11 on Global Islamic Media; Includes 2001 downing of American Airlines flight 587 that went down over Queens
In a stunning revelation to the Global Islamic Media Group this morning, Al Qaeda has revealed that they were responsible for the downing of American Airlines flight 587 over Queens in November 2001.
The article, published this morning on Global Islamic Media's Yahoogroup, lists the successes that Al Qaeda has achieved since the attack on America in September 2001. Al Qaeda has previously claimed credit for all of the other attacks on the list. The cause of the AA flight 587 crash is still listed by the FAA as accidental, with no indications of terrorism.
The following list itemizes the attacks that they are claiming:
Downing of the American Airlines plane over the Queens district of New York (City) on the 26th day of Shaban in the (Islamic) year 1422, equivalent to November 12th, 2001, killing 265 passengers as well as residents of that district. Bali nightclub attack in Indonesia that killed more than 200. Attack on Djerba, Tunisia Jewish temple, killing 20 German Jews. Attack at Faylakah in Kuwait. Attack on the French tanker Limburgh in Yemen. Attacks on Mombasa in Kenya against Jewish tourists, who were attacked in the their hotel, and the unsuccessful attack on the El Al airline with two missiles. Attack on the Marriott Hotel in the Indonesian capital Attacks in eastern of Riyadh, on residential districts where Americans and other westerners live Electrical power blockouts in the northern portions of America and the southern areas of Canada Electrical power blackouts in Great Britain. Attacks in Istanbul against the Jewish synagogues. Attachs in Istanbul battles against the British bank and the British consulate, in which the British consul was killed. Battle of Badr Riyadh in the residential complex Attack on the United Nations building in Baghdad in which Sirgo Des Milo, Kofi Annan's envoy, was killed Attacks in Nasserya against the Italian forces Attacks in Casablanca Attempted assassination of a dangerous ally of America, Pervez Musharraf Attacks in Madrid against three trains, killing 200 and injuring more than 1500 injured,
(Excerpt) Read more at homelandsecurityus.com ...
No, thats a thermoset, not a thermoplastic!
That would not melt!
I learn something new every day. So the only mechanism for "softening" the frayed edges would be abrasion.
there is a liquid known as a plasticizer, Armor-All is a plasticizer, you can rub it in the material and make it softer, it adds water between the bonds of the plastic.
Few oils will do that, it has to be a special stuff.
Some solvents work with some plastics or composites, but most composites repel that stuff and make good containers!
But, those composites are bonded with an epoxy, if the solvent will kill the epoxy, you can break up the composite, just not likely.
Shhhhh, don't say that. Can't let facts get in the way of conspiracy theories.
The Witness Group has received 349 accounts from eyewitnesses, either through direct interviews or through written statements. An initial summary of those statements follows:
· 52% specifically reported seeing a fire while the plane was in the air, with the fuselage being the most often cited location (22%). Other areas cited as a fire location were the left engine, the right engine or an unspecified engine, and the left wing, the right wing or an unspecified wing.
Well, if two are good, how about 349, many of whom say the same thing as these two, but many who (will swear on a stack of Bibles that what they saw actually happened) saw something different?
Check out #124.
Then ask your government why the entire fleet of Airbus aircraft wasn't grounded.
"52% specifically reported seeing a fire while the plane was in the air, with the fuselage being the most often cited location (22%). Other areas cited as a fire location were the left engine, the right engine or an unspecified engine, and the left wing, the right wing or an unspecified wing.
· 8% specifically reported seeing an explosion.
· 20% specifically reported seeing no fire at all.
· 22% reported observing smoke; 20% reported no smoke.
· 18% reported observing the airplane in a right turn; another 18% reported observing the airplane in a left turn. · 13% observed the airplane "wobbling," dipping" or in "side to side" motion.
· 74% observed the airplane descend.
· 57% reported seeing "something" separate from the airplane; 13% reported observing the right wing, left wing or an undefined wing separate; 9% specifically reported observing no parts separate."
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
As typical of data, the idiot who reported this data either didn't ask enough questions, oversimplifed the results, asked poor quality questions, or didn't examine the capability and observability of each witness.
For instance, the 20% of witnesses who didn't see fire can be perfectly true and not nullify the other 80% who did, and IN FACT actually bolster the 80% who did see the fire. Can you tell me why?
And the apparent discrepancy of the plane turning either right or left is also valid, can you tell me why?
The data does not necessarily nullify the observations. You do not need 100% from all witnesses, however an 80% reporting of fire needs some immediate attention to the witness quality and a hell of a lot more detail such as location on the plane and location of the witness, when did the witness begin their observation, why did they notice the fire, details of the fire plume, do they wear corrective lenses, what were they thinking while they were making observations, why did they remember this detail, etc.
80% reporting seeing fire is a very strong sign, in fact for witness testimony it is as good as 100% in most cases, and the retired firefighter's testimony is one of the best I have ever read, not only for the incredibly detailed observations, backed by his training to see details, but also because he included WHY he was looking up and the plane even before the explosion.
You forgot about the Mujahadeen pretzel that President Bush chocked on!LOL!
"Check out #124."
check out my post above.
We already knew that...if an Al Qaeda Muslim worked in airplane maintenance, he could have loosened bolts on the tail. This was speculated about at the time here on FR. Probably exactly what they did.
I tend to discount conspiracy theories, but a couple of years ago I sat in on a meeting regarding TWA 800. One gentleman stood up and said, "I am a retired 747 captain, and there are 34 additional retired and active 747 captains in this room. Each of us are united in our belief that an exploding center fuel tank did not bring down TWA 800.
Personally, I never believed it, not for a minute.
Many investigators and most courts would disagree with that.
Sadly sinkspur, some people are convinced that every plane crash is an act of terrorism and nothing on Earth is going to change their mind.
Exactly...I have always stated my theory was the plane blew up because of a shoe bomber. If Richard Reid was not stopped...and the plane he was on blew up...do you think for a second anyone would have come forth from our government and said it was terrorism?
Hell no...they would never have known because it would have blown up over an ocean.
Total cover up going on.
Actually, courts do.
Eyewitness testimony ALONE rarely convicts anybody of anything.
That would happen to be Clarke (Richard?). They had some guy on "coast-to-coast" talking about his book with conspiracy theories, etc. Clarke was quoted after 9/11 in listing Flight 800 under terrorism.
From the show (and I believe Clarke's own book), everone was thinking it was a missle from the beginning. Clarke was at the site soon after with all the debris and some technician said something about the "explosion". Clarke said "you think it was a bomb?" Clarke thinking (knowing???) it was a missle. The technician said no - the explosion from the fuel tank. At a later meeting Clarke was asked if the FAA believed this theory, and Clarke said "not yet, but they will".
Sorry if it's Clark instead of Clarke (but I still prefer the "e", makes it seem more French).
Should be "Actually, courts don't."
Their homepage is whatreallyhappened.com.
LOL, now ALONE is added. Hehehe....
Want a tip? Investigators love witnesses!
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.