You mean, it would have looked like this?
The fact is, the pictures show something a lot different from what you're describing. The bolts are in all cases still there. The pieces of the tail fin appear to have broken off at the attach point:
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 ...
It's about time we realized the islamofascist threat has been active, insidious and successful for years.
This is like the rooster taking credit for the sun coming up.
Yah, well, I dated Sandra Bullock in college. Togather, we invented the internet!
Yes, that is the most telling point of all.
This seems to be a primary SCairbus failure mode.
And some of us BROKE aircraft for a living, KAMAN AEROSPACE 1982-1991; 1993-1994
And from the pictures I saw of the sheared bolts and mounting area, NO WAY did that tail FATIGUE off, it SNAPPED off
If that was a fatigue failure, AIRBUS would have been GROUNDED worldwide to be inspected...only it didn't, did it?
Composite material that is fatigued will appear to be normal with no stress, however, it does not have elasticity, when it is stressed, it stays opened, it shaters, it shards.
The pictures they showed of the fuselage section showed either the bolts sheared off or snapped off (same thing really), but NO FATIGUE failure, no sharding, no shredded composite material.
If the tail section fatigued off, the area where the bolt went through would have remained with the bolt, those bolts are most likely 3/4 hard, and that is about 250,000 Lb shear force failure for EACH bolt, and that tail had I think 8 bolts securing it.
NONE had the portion of the tail that actually held the bolt to the tail, it only had the portion of the fuselage where the bolt went through.
That means all sections of the tail that had a bolt through it failed at the same time! Something that would not happen during a fatigue failure that would go unnoticed for a couple years after a supposed hard landing.
One or two sections of the tail that had a bolt through it would have remained attached to the fuselage while the rest would have been ripped away in the failure. Those parts that were strongest would have to fail suddenly, SNAP off, not shard, or splinter like a fatigue failure.
NONE showed a splintered, sharded, sharp edged composite material failure, and that means this was catastrophic, not fatigue.
Also, I didn't see any bolts attached, either, and that tells me the bolts sheared off, not the tail mountings!
Is that stress or load? 250ksi seems right.
Also, didn't the AA aircraft fail at the lugs..not the bolt? I don't remeber.
Bottom line though, I agree with you, this looks like a simple overstress.
Not "at the same time," so much as "after the first one broke." It would be a cascading effect -- the first one breaks, and sets up a rotational oscillation that begins to weaken and break the others. A few good twists and I can see them all popping, in a matter of a few seconds.
Don't forget: Georgie Steponallofus let it slip on some tv program about "the bombing of TWA 800".
He wasn't the only one either, there was one other "insider" who said something similar, but the name of that one escapes me now.
The mounting points are composite. The pictures show that the composite basically snapped.
The AD didn't go out until almost 2 YEARS later: http://www.faa.gov/apa/pr/pr.cfm?id=473
Yet the center tank was blamed almost immediately after the July 1996 "accident".
Timeliness is imperitive to maintaining any level of credibility. Not only that, but the inspection was on a convenience basis, not one in which the fleet was grounded until plane by plane they each passed inspection.
Again, timeliness is imperitive to maintaining any level of credibility. They needed to cover their tails on this one. The CIA claim that the plane did a "zoom-climb" is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE, and therefore puts everything else, including the center tank as the source of the explosion as BS.
You mean, it would have looked like this?
The fact is, the pictures show something a lot different from what you're describing. The bolts are in all cases still there. The pieces of the tail fin appear to have broken off at the attach point:
Thanks r9etb,
Race, does this look like composite fatigue? I have no idea, I deal with sheet metal.
Vertical Stab attachment from AA587
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/AA587_01.jpg
Composite glass and Graphite materials are sometimes, most tiems, stronger in tension than steel of any kind, too, that might explain the sheer forces that took off the bolts.
I think I was wrong on the shear numbers, 25,000 pounds shear sound more like it, not 250,000 lb
Which reminds me, didn't ground inspections of other SCaribus after AA587 show cracking at this joint?
My turn at the tin foil hat, but just because the FAA or airliners don't ground a machine, doesn't mean their isn't a known problem. IMO, Airbus needs to be grounded.
No, thats catstrophic, look at the straight lines
Plus, the burn marks, the blackness, if that happened over time, there would be no heat marks on the composite, the black stuff.
It might also not be a glass layout,but a poured composite, that would break like what you see here, but the black edges tell me that was a LOT of heat, if that happened over time, there would be no heat marks on the edges.
As for it being "catastrophic," I would agree -- especially because it supports my failure scenario....
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.
