Skip to comments.
Patali: Pilot of AA flight dumped fuel prior to crash, in (likely) response to mechanical failures
Gov. Pataki
| 11/12/01
| WABC Radio
Posted on 11/12/2001 12:18:32 PM PST by Steven W.
Gov. Pataki is reporting that the pilot of the ill-fated American Airlines flight dumped most of the airplane's fuel over Jamaica Bay, anticipating a crash landing and most likely indicating a trained response to onboard mechanical failures.
TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aaflight587; flight587
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 361-362 next last
Comment #261 Removed by Moderator
To: TheRealLobo
Airplane bombers very rarely use straight timers since there is too great a chance of a long delay or airplane change due to an unrelated mechanical problem.
A 50 caliber shot straight head on into the spinning turbine blades is all it would take, believe me.
Titanium turbine blade spinning at a gazillion RPM are NOT made to take 50 caliber rounds in stride.
To: Travis McGee
"Titanium turbine blade spinning at a gazillion RPM are NOT made to take 50 caliber rounds in stride."
Frozen chickens?
Comment #264 Removed by Moderator
To: Travis McGee
"I am one of the most ardent RKBA supporters on FR, but you need to point out the flaw in this hypothesis: why it could not happen." I have been fearful of this possibility for decades. Take-offs would be more vulnerable than landings. In fact, I believe it could be accomplished with a good hunting rifle.
265
posted on
11/12/2001 3:27:11 PM PST
by
blam
To: Steven W.
Watch for one of the groud crew who did the "A" check the night before. Just a huntch.
To: ScholarWarrior
I'm leaning more bomb than either sabotage or cat. engine failure. It's starting to sound to me like a re-run of the Concorde accident: tire picks up runway debris and hurls it into the wing, fracturing it and starting a fuel leak... fire ensues... piece of wing shears off and takes out the tail, per witness. End of airplane. |
To: Osinski
even if they know it is, given the huge Thanksgiving travel the airlines must have. I certainly will not be travelling by plane. Yes they were just a little too quick to say this was only an accident. Either way, I'm not flying. If a terrorist doesn't get you, a poorly maintained plane will.
268
posted on
11/12/2001 3:31:35 PM PST
by
FITZ
To: ScholarWarrior
I thought catastrophic engine failure too until I saw the tail. Looks like bomb in the tail or mechanical sabotage. Out here is Southern Cali on KFI 640 talk they have an "aviation expert" and he said the entire thing is troubling (read not possible under known scenarios). Espesically, the part about the tail rudder being left on the runway (read bomb). He said he did not now of a scenario that would do the type of damage that occurred including catastrophic engine failure.
269
posted on
11/12/2001 3:32:14 PM PST
by
Smogger
To: Basilides
Thank you...I thought I was being a bit paranoid...but will somebody please explain how an entire vertical stabilizer comes off the jet intact before impact ??? Some witnesses have said that parts of the wing came off and hit the tail. The flaps on an A300 are huge and are a possibility. This is starting to sound like a one in a million accident. The Bush Administration must have more info than we do because they reopened the airports fairly quickly, they didn't ground departing flights, and no other planes went down, which I would have expected if it was terrorism.
To: VA Advogado
Watch for one of the groud crew who did the "A" check the night before. Just a huntch. I wonder if they've accounted for all the maintenance workers especially the Muslim ones, or if there were any "new" guys working who didn't show back up to work today.
271
posted on
11/12/2001 3:33:08 PM PST
by
FITZ
To: Moonman62
The Bush Administration must have more info than we do because they reopened the airports fairly quickly, they didn't ground departing flights, and no other planes went down, which I would have expected if it was terrorism. That fact is far more reassuring than any blather from the NTSB. If the FAA grounds all airliners with the CF-6 in the next few days, I think we can conclude that this was probably mechanical failure.
Comment #273 Removed by Moderator
To: Zordas
Unless the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) blew up, I can't think of anything 'conventional' causing that rudder loss. That's it! THAT'S IT! The same thing that happened to TWA Fl. 800! Now to find that frayed wire that caused the spark that caused the APU to blow up...
Comment #275 Removed by Moderator
To: June2
"They knew where to hit the building to weaken its structure."
If the object was to bring the towers down, don't you think they would have come in even lower and tried to hit it as far down as they possibly could, so there would be more weight resting on a weakened structure below?
Knew where to hit it indeed. I don't suppose you have some testimony and/or evidence which supports this theory?
To: Clinton's a rapist
I'm sorry, I take NO comfort from the administration not closing any airports other than NY for this incident.
It is WAY too early to draw any positive assurances this is not a terrorist act.
And "indications" from NTSB have to be "mechanical" unless proven otherwise, else we have a political problem in the Middle East.
To: Stevieboy
Yes, several years ago in San Antonio, Texas the wrong type fuel was put into a small plane. The plane crashed about five miles from the airport.
To: Not Fooled
Actually there are two responses re: lower down question.
1. They tried in 1993 lower down and the US provided a good analysis of why that didn't work.
I'm sure they read it.
2. If I recall correctly, the building architect said on Sep 12 or 13 that the structure was weaker higher up because it could be.
By the way, that architect was asked by some jack**s reporter
why didn't the buildings stand up?
He answered why did they stand for as long as they did?
That singular fact probably saved 20,000 lives.
To: MoDeadTaliWhackers
Amazing....government says it, we repeat it. Sheep...bahhh "Conspiracy theorists" (formerly known on occasion as "investigative reporters," "critical thinkers," "informed citizenry," "seekers of the truth," etc.) should not be listened to on this matter. The government has stated that this is all just a terrible accident, a horrendous coincidence, a one-in-a-million-case-of-bad-luck, and however implausible, contradictory or even mendacious that position is, it is our duty as Americans to repeat it and maintain it, in order to sustain our economy, our national morale, and the people's faith in their leaders. Amen.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 361-362 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson