[Smogger]

People are saying mechanical failure this and mechanical failure that. Of course it was a mechanical failure. Even if a bomb goes off on the plane the result would be a mechanical failure.

The question isn't whether or not the plane crash was the result of a mechanical failure. It obviously was. The question is was the mechanical failure the result of improper maintenance, an act of God, or deliberate sabotage.

I suspect it will take quite a while to learn the truth about this (if ever.) In the meantime I think that the safest assumption is that it was a deliberate act of sabotage.

[jlogajan]

I think that the safest assumption is ...

There is no reason to make an assumption, hence there is no "safest" assumption in this case.

[jlogajan]

I think that the safest assumption is ...

There is no reason to make an assumption, hence there is no "safest" assumption in this case.

[nicmarlo]

I suspect it will take quite a while to learn the truth about this (if ever.) In the meantime I think that the safest assumption is that it was a deliberate act of sabotage.

How long did it take to determine what happened to the Concorde last year? Didn't it take awhile before they truly learned what the problem was? I also seem to recall another plane crash (was it J.F.K., Jr.?) took them quite awhile to say it was mechanically related (or otherwise). But in this crash, everyone is saying, almost immediately, "it's mechanical." I find that more than odd.

[Steven W.]

The question isn't whether or not the plane crash was the result of a mechanical failure. It obviously was. The question is was the mechanical failure the result of improper maintenance, an act of God, or deliberate sabotage

correct

[nicmarlo]

FYI: Thought this might be of interest to you. Was posted on another site: eyewitness "Ken" transcribed

the engine was making weird sounds, so we stopped the boat and we were back by the engine and I heard a popping sound...not like a a a I cant even say it was an explosion, it was more like a pop and then like a whishing sound and then part of the wing came off.

***
That plane as soon as its tail came off it just bellied up and went straight down, so yah know people saying yah know the engine came off, but that came off after the fact. Now as far as explosion, something was happening over the bay, something made the wing shatter and took of the tail. and uh the way I seen it , it still looked like it had its engines on as it was going down.

[calvin sun]

People are saying mechanical failure this and mechanical failure that. Of course it was a mechanical failure. Even if a bomb goes off on the plane the result would be a mechanical failure. The question isn't whether or not the plane crash was the result of a mechanical failure. It obviously was. The question is was the mechanical failure the result of improper maintenance, an act of God, or deliberate sabotage.

Smogger, thank you. If I may paraphrase the line that Professor Kingsfield used in "The Paper Chase": your comment is the first intelligent comment on this subject I've seen today.

You're right: too many people are assuming that mechanical failure and terrorist activity are mutually exclusive. But, as you point out, they COULD coexist.

[WIladyconservative]

People are saying mechanical failure this and mechanical failure that. Of course it was a mechanical failure. Even if a bomb goes off on the plane the result would be a mechanical failure.

How right you are. Like saying death was caused by heart failure - that's what all death is. Your hearts stops, you die . . .