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

Skip to comments.

Jet 'exploded into pieces' (Witnesses "Saw Explosion On One Side of Plane Before Crash")
BBC & CNN ^ | November 12, 2001 | BBC & CNN News Staffs

Posted on 11/12/2001 9:06:00 AM PST by t-shirt

Jet 'exploded into pieces'

Monday, 12 November, 2001

BBC Residents watched as firefighters battled the blaze

Eyewitnesses have spoken of their horror at seeing an Airbus A300 crash into a residential area of New York. Witnesses reported seeing a fire or explosion on one side of the aircraft as an engine fell off.

The plane then crashed into the Rockaway area of Queens.

I saw the flames and the smoke and I just thought, 'Oh no, not again'

Milena Owens, who lives yards from the crash site, said she was putting up Thanksgiving decorations on her window when she saw the plane fly far too low.

"I heard the explosion and I looked out the window and saw the flames and the smoke and I just thought, 'Oh no, not again'."

"The whole house shook," said Gus Cholakis, who lives 100 yards from the spot where some of the wreckage came to rest.

Resident's prayers

"I looked out the window, the first thing I saw was a huge fireball right outside."

Mr Cholakis, 38, said he had known 13 of those lost when the World Trade Center collapsed.

This neighbourhood has been through enough

Gus Cholakis

He admitted he was praying he had not lost more friends, adding: "This neighbourhood has been through enough."

John Maroney, 47, said the engine plummeted onto a Texaco petrol station near his house, and pieces of plane were only a few hundred yards away.

"That's probably what shook us up from our beds. The whole house jumped.

'Climbing position'

"We were all out there with fire extinguishers and hoses, but we couldn't do much."

Ethan Moses said he had seen the plane climbing in the sky after take-off.

It was travelling to the left slightly and then it just nose dived straight down

Ethan Moses , "It was in a climbing position and when I looked up I saw fire on the left side of the engine," he told CNN.

The wing appeared to separate from the rest of the plane, which veered to the left and then plunged into a nose dive, he said.

"It was travelling to the left slightly and then it just nose dived straight down," Mr Moses said, adding that fire spread on the ground, moving from house to house within seconds.

Phyllis Paul said she heard the plane's engine drone louder as it descended.

Falling metal

"It was very, very loud. Because of what happened on 11 September, it gave me a chill," she told CNN.

"It was getting louder and louder and I looked out the window. I saw a piece of metal falling from the sky."

The wings were going backwards and forwards like it was trying to balance itself
Phyllis Paul

Beverly Browne, from Brooklyn, said she saw white smoke coming from the plane before it crashed.

"The wings were going backwards and forwards like it was trying to balance itself. There was white smoke coming out of it.

"It just couldn't seem to stabilise itself. The next thing I knew it had crashed."

? David Solero was driving over a bridge by Rockaway when he saw fire on the left hand side of the plane.

He told CNN: "We looked up and saw the fire coming from the left hand side - it could have been an explosion."

Plane 'veered'

Other witnesses told reporters that the fire or explosion was on the right hand side of the plane.

Mr Solero added: "It could have been the engine was on fire.

I was scared it was going to veer towards us and hit us - we stopped dead in our tracks

David Solero, "It flew right over us, started to veer to the left then it veered back right.

"I was scared it was going to veer towards us and hit us - we stopped dead in our tracks.

"We saw something fly off the plane."

One woman fled her home, fearing she could be killed.

Concorde-like sound

She told CNN: "It was a huge, loud sound. It seemed so loud that I was like ducking almost.

"I just heard - it sounded like Concorde flying too low and then it just hit.

Eyewitness
-- "It blew up into a huge fireball and I jumped out the second floor of my house." "It hit the house behind me and I think it exploded into pieces."

"I went over the deck in the front of my house because the back was so hot."

"We were just in shock and we had to evacuate two streets away. It was so horrible." "There is a lot of terror here. Everybody is in shock."

"I was very, very lucky."

------------------------------------------------


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aaflight587; anthraxscarelist; flight587; talibanlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-246 next last
To: t-shirt
We must pray for America!

You could not be more right. That is our first and most effective defense. (Not to undermine the other ways of defense.)

41 posted on 11/12/2001 9:46:41 AM PST by germanshepherd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: t-shirt
Mayor just announced taht part or entire wing has been found in the bay, which would be in a location prior to the ground impact.
42 posted on 11/12/2001 9:48:37 AM PST by woollyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: John H K
Um, speak for yourself. Conspiracist nitwits think 800 was brought down by a missle.

35 posted on 11/12/01 10:40 AM Pacific by John H K [

What the hell does it have to do with Conspiratorialists?

THe eyewitnesses say they saw a a missile take flight 800 down!

So hundreds of witness and dozens video tapes were wrong and the government line and the CIA cartoon were right?

Do you really believe that crap?

Are you living in LA-La Land??? LOL!

43 posted on 11/12/2001 9:48:55 AM PST by t-shirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: woollyone
Mayor just announced taht part or entire wing has been found in the bay, which would be in a location prior to the ground impact.

42 posted on 11/12/01 10:48 AM Pacific by woollyone

Which proves it was taken down by a bomb, missile or sometype of explosion.

44 posted on 11/12/2001 9:50:40 AM PST by t-shirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: usconservative
I saw that same thread. Zordas, who seems to have some expert info, said that engine had a terrible safety record. I've asked him to be specific. Will post here if I get a reply.
45 posted on 11/12/2001 9:51:57 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: t-shirt
Very sad!!
(This is not about drugs & oil, it's about tolerance in the full sense of the word!)
46 posted on 11/12/2001 9:53:59 AM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
I'm glad sombody got the irony and humor there!
47 posted on 11/12/2001 9:54:03 AM PST by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Junior
No. I'm saying that one should never take eyewitnesses accounts at face value -- they are notoriously unreliable.

39 posted on 11/12/01 10:44 AM Pacific by Junior

Then why do courts consider eyewitness accounts the most reliable and strongest evidence in criminal cases?

LOL! Do you make this stuff up?
If your twisted arguments were true rapist, robbers, and murderers and other violent criminals would rarely ever be convicted.

48 posted on 11/12/2001 9:55:55 AM PST by t-shirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Spirit Of Truth
I remember reading that on FR too. I believe the authorities were contacted at that time. It was something that was going to happen the next day, a Saturday if I remember correctly.
49 posted on 11/12/2001 10:01:35 AM PST by b4its2late
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: usconservative
see Mechanical Trouble Reported Before Take-Off. Post #8.
50 posted on 11/12/2001 10:05:25 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: t-shirt; Trident/Delta
This prophetic article appeared a few years ago.
It's worth reading again.

The Stinger Threat to Commerical Aviation

It's the air industry's "dirty little secret"--more than 500 travelers and crew members on non-military flights have been killed in recent years as aerial ambushers use "Stinger"-type missiles with deadly accuracy. The number of deaths from "man-portable surface to air missiles," deadly devices given the mnemonic MANPADS, appears to exceed the deaths from hijackings during the same years.

There is very little that is presently being done to prevent terrorists from downing dozens, or even hundreds of civilian planes. While travelers are financing tens of millions of dollars in airline anti-hijacking programs around the world, the airlines themselves are just crossing their fingers and whistling through the graveyard when it comes to MANPADS. They're not doing anything about the problem and they're not telling travelers about it either.

More than two dozen documented attacks against non-military aviation have killed more than 500 people in the last 15 years. The attacks have taken place on four continents--North America, Europe, Asia and Africa.

In October of 1998 rebel fighters shot down a passenger jet with 40 people on board in eastern Congo. A missile strike on the rear engine of the Boeing jet caused the plane to crash shortly after take-off from Kindu airport. The plane, carrying women and children refugees, crashed into a densely forested area just outside of Kindu, about 620 miles east of the capital, Kinshasa. Spokesmen for the rebel force preparing to attack Kindu acknowledged downing the plane but said it was carrying 40 government soldiers to the city.

There was a dispute over the plane's direction. The airline said it was hit minutes after takeoff, while rebels said they fired as the plane made its landing approach.

The rebels apparently used a SA-7, a Russian-made anti-aircraft missile with a launcher that looks like a bazooka.

In June of 1996 security officials confiscated some surface-to-air missiles missiles--this time in Colombia--as they were preparing to blow that nation's president out of the sky. In March of 1997 there were reports that Iranian-backed Palestinian groups had acquired a supply of the missiles. Military analysts said they were threatening to reduce Israel's edge in fighting there by sweeping fighter-bombers from the sky. But the reality is that they could also be used, with more deadly effectiveness, against commercial aircraft from Bombay to Boston, Belfast to Buenos Aires.

Air travel anywhere in the world--even in the United States-- is in danger from attacks by terrorists or people acting at the behest of rogue regimes. If the traveling public understood the potential danger, it's safe to say that airlines around the world lose so much business that many would go broke within six months. This is the travel industry's dirty little secret--and it is indeed a shameful one.

The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA), which is supposed to be the traveling public's guard dog, seems to have been guarding the airlines and their dirty little secret. The fact is they don't have an answer.The best semi-public information has come, surprisingly, from a State Department document on security practices.

The document, Terrorist Tactics and Security Practices, was released in February 1994 by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. The document, prepared by the bureau's Office of Intelligence and Threat Analysis, is perhaps the best explanation of the problem made public.

According to the diplomatically-couched wording of the State Department report "there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that the threat to civil aircraft emanating from terrorist groups, rebel militias and even criminal enterprises possessing MANPADS is an increasing possibility."

"MANPADS were widely proliferated during the 1970s and 1980s. Now, after 20 years of reported instances of SAMs in the hands of rebel militias, narco-criminals, and terrorist groups, the potential for increased SAM threats to civil aircraft has become a serious reality. Recent terrorism events such as the World Trade Center bombing, and those that were prevented, underscore the fact that fanatical elements were not deterred by the potential implications of mass casualties that could occur if a man-portable SAM were used against a commercial airliner."

According to the State Department security report "another worldwide trend having implications for the safe passage of civil airliners is the growing instance of ethnic, religious, and civil unrest. Although the risk of a world war as at least temporarily passed, the ethnic and regional conflicts found in the four corners of the world indicate that perhaps our situation is more unstable than at any time in recent history. With this instability has come the risk of terrorism in new and more dangerous forms. Hundreds of MANPADs have fallen into the hands of ethnic militias that are battling against established governments."

The situation is actually worse than the report suggests. We know these weapons have made their way into the hands of narco-terrorists in drug producing regions around the world, from Colombia to Burma. Drug lords world-wide already have the technology in their arsenals--and there is every reason to point those missiles at U.S.-owned aircraft. We know that in January of 1990 CBS News authoritatively reported that Colombian narco-terrorists had acquired SA-7 heat-seeking anti-aircraft missiles and that they planned a shoot-down attempt against President Bush's plane at the February 15 drug summit in Colombia. As a result there were special security measures in place to thwart such an attack. About a month later the Colombian government said that 10 shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles were uncovered when agents raided a location in Bogota used as a hideout by drug cartels. Two men were arrested in the raid. And the threat, as it turned out, was proved to be real. In mid-1992 Thai border officers seized a Russian-made SAM-7 missile and arrested three men who were apparently taking them to Burmese drug warlord Khun Sa. Khun Sa, the region's drug kingpin who is under indictment by American authorities, isn't known as a great fan of America. And even at that time he was believed to have at least five SAM-7s. More missiles were seized in the fall of 1994 as they were being smuggled into Burma. These were apparently purchased from military people with access to them in Cambodia.

If it were true that what you don't know won't hurt you, the world would be pretty well off with regard to these mini-SAMs. That's how little we know. But the old saw isn't true at all and our abysmal lack of knowledge may well prove deadly to hundreds--or even more--of commercial airline passengers.

The State Department report alluded to our lack of knowledge: "(B)ecause of the very nature and characteristics of MANPADS, there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding their proliferation to and among terrorist groups, guerrilla movements and criminal elements. The real issue with regard to the potential use by a terrorist group in which groups have acquired MANPADs. The overriding concern in this regard is that the exact number and location of these systems cannot be accurately assessed due to the inherent characteristics of MANPADS--size, mobility and concealability.

"While we don't know anywhere near enough, we do know is that rebels around the world have these surface to air missiles. While not all of the guerrillas and terrorists have employed them against civilian aviation, many have.

They were used extensively in El Salvador, though not against civilian aviation. Rebels there had a collection of SAM-14s, SAM-7s and Redeye missiles. Similar missiles are known to have been used by guerrillas operating out of Costa Rica. The Sudanese People's Liberation Army in Sudan, Polisario Front guerrillas in Morocco, the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola, clans in Somalia, Abkazian rebels in Georgia, government opponents in Tunisia, and ZAPU insurgents in what is now Zimbabwe all have had access to these arms. We know that the Irish Republican Army and other groups involved in that long war are trying to get MANPADs, and in fact may already have them. The same goes for Croatian terrorists. Kashmiri secessionist groups are believed to have them.

There are clear indications the Abu Nidal organization, one of the most effective of all terrorist groups in the world today and an organization which seems to specialize in attacking planes and airports, has potential or real access to them. There have been credible reports that both Iraq and Libya are willing to turn over quantities of these missiles to any terrorist or insurgent group willing to carry out specific missions for it.

These problem areas pale when compared to the core problem--an explosive mixture of religious fundamentalism, anti-Israeli sentiment, and hundreds of unaccounted-for missiles given away by the U.S. to Afghan rebel groups.

"MANPADS were widely used against Soviet military aircraft-- and at least five civilian aircraft--in Afghanistan. Many people from Moslem countries elsewhere around the world came to Afghanistan to 'fight the infidel.' They became imbued with a religious fundamentalist spirit in their years there. Since the end of the war many have spread out across the globe to carry out attacks against more secular governments, from Cairo to Manila. Some of the suspects in the alleged terror ring that targeted the World Trade Center, as well as other landmarks and transportation targets, reportedly had links with the 'Afghans' as the insurgents of diverse nationalities are known to security agencies.

Stingers will be used against U.S. aircraft, at U.S. airports, sooner rather than later. Like the World Trade Center an airliner-- any airliner anywhere in the United States--represents a high- value, low risk target. The experience of the 'Afghans' in knocking down planes--including commercial jets--as well as their training place them among the most likely to use MANPAD technology against Western, particularly American, aircraft. These are well-trained and experienced men of war. They probably have the means--access to hundreds of 'Stinger'-type missiles are unaccounted for in the war- -as well as the motive and opportunity.

Defining a problem is only half the solution. It is clear that the problem of MANPAD access by terrorist/insurgent groups and irresponsible military officials is not one that the traveler can address. There are things that the traveler can do to minimize the danger from these devices, however. In all cases it is important to keep a level head. A number such as 530+ seems large. It looms as a tremendously large figure if you, someone you love, or even if someone you know, is counted among the casualties. It is an infinitesimally small number when considering the number of passengers flying non-military flights during the period it covers. When compared with the number of people dead in hijackings during the same period, it gives pause as to whether the economics of anti-hijacking measures pencil out, or whether those represent a "make work" project that is as benign as it is expensive. If there is no "quick fix" or guaranteed solution for the traveler, there are steps the individual can take to lessen the dangers from MANPAD attacks.....

United States

Having fairly successfully predicted the type of attack, target, bomb and vehicle in the World Trade Center blast, we'll take another look into the crystal ball. It seems likely that foreign- born terrorists will target a commercial airliner landing or taking off from a U.S. airfield by the year 2000. The attack will probably be staged against a higher-value target (airliner vs. executive jet). It will likely be staged at an airport that has symbolic significance, such as New York Kennedy or La Guardia, Washington National or Dulles. Los Angeles International, Chicago O'Hare, Dallas-Ft. Worth and Atlanta's field also rank high on the list of possibilities. The attack will be mounted from a location between 1/2 and three miles from the end of the airport runway. There will be no warning of the attack, but news media will receive a call claiming the downing within 30 minutes of the attack. The aircraft will fall into urban areas, creating heavy secondary casualties. When flying in the U.S., avoid the major hubs where possible. Use smaller airports where possible.

Fly aircraft that make smaller, low-value targets insofar as this is consistent with general overall safety. (Remember that in the past many smaller airlines have not had as good a safety record.

Use teleconferencing, trains, and other forms of transportation/communication in lieu of flying.

For the rest of the artilcle, click HERE.

:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here's another interesting link:


51 posted on 11/12/2001 10:05:31 AM PST by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
Of course, everything I’ve read says the Airbus is a flying piece of crap, so it may not be terrorism at all.

American Airlines is reported to own all thirty-five Airbus planes in the U.S. If any airlines go bankrupt, hopefully it will be them for buying those socialist products.

52 posted on 11/12/2001 10:06:37 AM PST by Nephi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: t-shirt
RE:Every action the government is taking simply works to make this a police state and does nothing to stop terrorism.

Amen to that brutha!
53 posted on 11/12/2001 10:08:15 AM PST by tomakaze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: t-shirt
Thanks for the info, T.
54 posted on 11/12/2001 10:08:34 AM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: usconservative
see Airline Regulators Fret Over Breakups Of GE Jet Engines: Racing to Avert Any More Disentegrations
55 posted on 11/12/2001 10:08:35 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: usconservative
The Airbus 300 also has a rather shoddy safety record, and there have been other incidents of these types of accidents.

How do you know that the other incidents were accidents. (I have a supercharged tinfoil hat that is actually made out of titanium.)

BTW, other than food and wine, name me one product from France that is considered cutting edge or the best in the world. We know its not electronics or soap, and in my opinion Michellin tires are garbage. Given France's lack of technical innovation and prowess, why would any airline buy and Airbus in the first place?

56 posted on 11/12/2001 10:09:03 AM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
He stopped short of saying bombs or "terrorists," but that seemed to be where he was leaning.

Thanks for the tip, Saber.

57 posted on 11/12/2001 10:12:24 AM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: archy; Inspector Harry Callahan; It'salmosttolate
FOX New just reported, "So the official government line now is that there is no evidence of any terrorism in the crash of this Airbus plane".

And now FOX is only interviewing people who didn't live in the neighborhood who are saying there was no explosion and no flames, but simply parts were falling off. The Last women that FOX just interviewed who is a government worker who was on 128th street when the plane went down, yet claims she is certain that there were no flames or an explosion--in complete contradiction of all the eyewitnesses who lived in the neighborhood and the street where it crashed.

58 posted on 11/12/2001 10:13:37 AM PST by t-shirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: t-shirt
Then why do courts consider eyewitness accounts the most reliable and strongest evidence in criminal cases?

They don't, although jurors often do. Look, it's just a fact. Like it or not, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. It is the worst form of evidence. I've heard of one study that said eyewitness testimony was incorrect 89% of the time. Deal with it.

59 posted on 11/12/2001 10:16:15 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Wm Bach
>This could be the beginning of the microfracture/metal fatigue time limit on those airframes and we're going to see the Gloucester Comet fiasco all over again

You mean this Comet??

I think the A300 was built a little better than that. Or at least tested more thoroughly. Nobody knows though, we can speculate all we want.

There have been past examples of aircraft being taken out by terrorists, just like there are past examples of aircraft crashing/exploding because of design flaws. I'll admit I'm speculating too much.

60 posted on 11/12/2001 10:18:54 AM PST by texlok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-246 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