Patali: Pilot of AA flight dumped fuel prior to crash, in (likely) response to mechanical failures

Gov. Pataki | 11/12/01 | WABC Radio

[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.

[alethia]

First -- this is horrible. My heart and prayers to the families of the passengers and the crew. And to America.

"Of course, I suppose if a terrorist was onboard, and was going to kill the pilot if he spoke on the comm, but the pilot could release the fuel secretly, it would make sense. "

Remember what made the three aircraft that struck the two WTC towers and the Pentagon so deadly -- a full fuel payload. Dumping the fuel would have been a very courageous act indeed if "something" was going on. This what would have happened to that neighborhood.

Sorry guys -- I'm becoming quite cynical after the anthrax shenanigans -- that the anthrax was coincidental, that the first guy caught it from a deer in NC...blah, blah, blah...

What is the statistical probability of this happening? How long has it been since a plane went down in a heavily populated area -- besides 9/11-- accidentally? Then add in the statistical odds that this would happen in NYC after the events of 9/11. I'm not buying it.

[Map Kernow]

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?

Bet they wanted to, but all the durn big buildings there in NY got in the way, partner.

P.S. They not only wanted to bring the towers down but they did.

C'mon, partner, tell me you was just funnin' with that post?

[Not Fooled]

The object in question is more if that was the intent, and if they knew that. Personally I think whoever is responsible got more of a result than they ever expected.

How is the structure weaker at the top? The only explanation I can think of is the asbestos issue, which I don't know to be true or not. Would there be extra support columns in the lower portions that did not extend to the higher leves?

[ScholarWarrior]

I have no ability to authoritatively comment on your hypothesis that a piece of debris killed 261 people.
It would just seem to me as a layman that the Concorde would be much more sensitive than an Airbus.
Unless the French/Europeans are simply totally incompetent in their structural design.

I would vote bomb again. Remember this is JFK.

[Not Fooled]

Actually, I was hoping to get answers.

[ScholarWarrior]

Absolutely lighter and less rigid as you go up.
It has to be, otherwise it does not sway, and therefore could not withstand the wind shear.
Think pine tree.

[Crimson]

Sorry I couldn't get back to you right away. Had to run an errand. The A-300 flight manual, Chapter 8, Section 12 (Fuel System), Page 1 (General/Description) says there is no provision for fuel jettison. That would be due to the fact that the maximum landing gross weight of the aircraft is the same as the maximum takeoff gross weight, thereby not requiring the pilots to reduce the aircraft gross weight before landing. This is not from the American Airlines flight manual; however, I'm reasonably confident the systems are exactly the same between different carriers operating the A-300-600.

[alethia]

"Unfortunately, until the recorders are played back, we can't be certain, as to details."

Do you think we'll get the real details if this was a deliberate act of sabotage? Just asking what Freepers think.

I think that all facts need to be gathered first. I think that this incident, whether proven to be accidental or not, will spell a huge pull back in plane travel for the holidays. My instinct would be to be totally honest with the public -- after a complete AND SPEEDY investigation -- whatever the cause is. I felt pretty discounted with the anthrax spin. But then, I don't think the spin was directed at me. It was pablum for the media addicted public and probably worked somewhat in staying some panic.

I do think that Bush and his staff are aware that there are certain members of American society that can't/won't be hoodwinked. I truly don't think that HE thinks they're fooling those "certain" members.

[Not Fooled]

By the way, if you look at pictures of where the towers were hit and the NYC skyline, it seems very possible to hit lower.

[CindyDawg]

Our government has no one to blame but themselves. With the anthrax spin what do they expect? Maybe it was an accident but I'm always suspious of people that jump in with "what happened" without even investigating.

[jlogajan]

The government has stated that this is all just a terrible accident

They have said no such thing as of yet. This just proves you conspiracy nuts are liars as well.

[alethia]

Being part of the debris didn't seem to bother the hijacking terrorists on 9/11. Could have been a "lucky" shot that allowed with plane to get into the air. Otherwise -- do you really think the sniper would have cared?

[alethia]

CindyDawg -- the very fact that everyone has jumped into the fray -- stating that this was a horrible accident, etc., without the benefit of investigation, sets my warning bells off. I also don't think that the Administration really thinks everyone buys this. Who are they appealing to?

[CindyDawg]

I know. I just muted Fox. BO seems determined to convince us that this was an accident. As I mentioned above, maybe it was but the media seems really determined to push this theory. Why?

[TheRealLobo]

I understand this, the point I was making was that if the REAL pilot aboard this aircraft, was the one ASSIGNED to this flight, (and he turns out to be a flag waving American), then the idea that HE intentionally flew this plane into the ground can be discounted. If the pilot ASSIGNED to this flight shows up stuffed in a trunk somewhere, and wasn't flying the plane, THEN the evidence that a uniform was stolen can be taken into account.

[TheRealLobo]

You said:"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."

You are ignoring the part about WHAT PART OF THE ENGINE BEING HIT WOULD CAUSE IT TO TAKE FOUR MINUTES TO FAIL?

You keep repeating the idea that the engine would be destroyed if shot by a .50 caliber firearm. I will grant you that. BUT if you shoot the engine (as in your scenario) as it is coming towards you in a takeoff, you will likely not survive the impact of the crippled aircraft hurtling into your sniper position at several hundred miles per hour.

Please, if you want to argue the point any more, contact an engineer and ask him what part of the engine needs to be hit to cause a 4 minute delay in the catastrophic destruction of an aircraft engine.

Also, FWIW, a timer on this aircraft, let's say of 60 minutes or so, would have put the plane about an hour out of JFK had it departed on time. As it was I think I heard that it had a delay of about 56 minutes or so (Now these are just numbers I heard, I haven't verified them). Let's see...60 minute timer minus 56 minute delay equals....OHMYGOSH!!!! FOUR MINUTES!!! I'm also suprised that you think they (the bad guys) wouldn't use a timer. They really don't CARE when or where the aircraft crashes, just so long as it crashes. Have you spent any time checking with the aircraft bombers to see what their methods and motives are?