Skip to comments.
NO SIGNS OF ENGINE FAILURE!
FOX News
Posted on 11/13/2001 1:05:28 PM PST by X-Servative
At the NTSB press conference, they just stated that both engines appear to be intact and that there are no signs of engine failure, according to George Black, NTSB Boardmember.
TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: flight587
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 641-647 next last
To: Preech1
Sounds like we've gone from suspecting "Fowl play" to suspecting foul play... groan...
21
posted on
11/13/2001 1:10:48 PM PST
by
Snardius
To: X-Servative
Depends on what their definition of "Engine Failure" is.
22
posted on
11/13/2001 1:10:52 PM PST
by
CJinVA
To: classygreeneyedblonde
there you go with those fonts again... ;)
To: dormee
...the pilots knew they were in trouble minutes before the plane crashed. Minutes??? They only took off 4 minutes before they crashed.
24
posted on
11/13/2001 1:10:56 PM PST
by
pgkdan
To: is_is
They talked about vibration noises. If a missile hit, wouldn't there be a impact noise or sensation.
25
posted on
11/13/2001 1:11:02 PM PST
by
dawn53
To: classygreeneyedblonde
They are saying the voice recorder has the pilots stating there was an "air frame rattle." Somebody clue me in to what this is.
To: classygreeneyedblonde
by Abdul?
27
posted on
11/13/2001 1:12:05 PM PST
by
lugsoul
To: right_to_defend
OK folks. Now we are making progress. The next question is:
If the plane was ascending at 250+ knots, then following laws of trajectory, at which point did the engines actually separate from the plane? Remember, both fell within 2 blocks of the crash site. Given their close proximity, would then have both separated at the same time, within seconds of each other, ...etc?
28
posted on
11/13/2001 1:12:08 PM PST
by
rit
To: pgkdan
Yep, and the AP said the pilots knew "within 2 minutes" of the crash that they were in trouble.
29
posted on
11/13/2001 1:12:10 PM PST
by
dormee
To: X-Servative
If this is correct, then it's down to a fuel tank problem (do these planes even have a center fuel tank?) or terrorism. I can't think of any other possibilities, other than a seagull biting off the tail as mentioned above.
30
posted on
11/13/2001 1:12:39 PM PST
by
Dog Gone
To: Jennifer in Florida
Nothing on Drudge yet...
To: Preech1
You are hereby nominated for the most clever play on words award of the year ;-):
Sounds like we've gone from suspecting "Fowl play" to suspecting foul play...
Good one!
32
posted on
11/13/2001 1:13:07 PM PST
by
Aliska
Comment #33 Removed by Moderator
To: Jennifer in Florida
Airframe rattle....very simnlar to having a out of balance wheel and driving with your door ajar.....makes a rattling vibration throughout the car....
34
posted on
11/13/2001 1:13:18 PM PST
by
is_is
To: X-Servative
So the engines didn't fail, and there were no birds ingested in the engines .... this could only mean one thing! Birds with tools!!! But is that possible? Nah!!
35
posted on
11/13/2001 1:13:31 PM PST
by
AgThorn
To: X-Servative
So, where are all of the "wait and see, you conspiracy kooks" people from this mornings long thread?
Hmmmm, it'll be interesting to see if any of them show up here.
To: classygreeneyedblonde
I Can't Stand It I Know You Planned It
I'm Gonna Set It Straight, This Watergate
I Can't Stand Rocking When I'm In Here
Because Your Crystal Ball Ain't So Crystal Clear
So While You Sit Back and Wonder Why
I Got This F***ing Thorn In My Side
Oh My, It's A Mirage
I'm Tellin' Y'all It's Sabotage
To: Dog Gone
I would think along the lines of, sabatoge before take-off, on-board explosives or just a good ole SAM.
38
posted on
11/13/2001 1:14:33 PM PST
by
Cool Guy
To: mdittmar
Planes dont fall apart in mid-air..
hmmmmm!
39
posted on
11/13/2001 1:14:51 PM PST
by
Dog
To: X-Servative
Right now, to me, it is extremely mysterious. I find the evidence perplexing," says Bernard Loeb, the retired chief aviation investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board
However, it's unheard of that two engines would break loose at or about the same time. Jet and engine manufacturers go to great lengths to ensure that catastrophic engine failures cannot cause a crash.
Similarly, jets are designed with so much strength that even when the wings or tail fins are damaged, they almost never break loose before crashing, investigators say.
It doesn't sound like the typical thing," says Kevin Darcy, the former lead accident investigator at Boeing who is now an aviation consultant.
Whenever engines break off a jet, investigators focus on possible failures within the engine. The CF6 engines on American's A300 fleet have recently drawn the attention of safety regulators
In fact, one engine specialist who asked not to be identified, said modern, high-power engines like the CF6 have failed so rarely in flight that investigators have little idea what would happen to a jet if one came apart.
Investigators also say it seems unlikely that failures violent enough to shake each engine loose from the aircraft could strike both at about the same time.
Though federal officials went out of their way to say no evidence suggested sabotage, officials say privately that they cannot rule it out. It is possible, safety experts say, that a bomb or a missile downed the jet. In the past, terrorists have attempted to shoot down jets using small handheld missiles. Loeb says an explosion at the rear of the jet could have caused the tail section to break free.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 641-647 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