NO SIGNS OF ENGINE FAILURE!

FOX News

[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.

[MindBender26]

When the horizontal stabilizer left, all three hydraulic systems went; hence, only the engines were left for aircraft control.

Actually not. Since the UAL DC-10 incident with loss of control due to hydro loss due to engine fan fracture, systemshave been isolated. AB300 is completely fly-by-wire, so worst case redundancy is required for certification as part 121 A/C

[6ppc]

but last month a crew "from the factory" (airbus) came to the hangar to add -10,000 rivets to the vertical stabelizer of one aircraft.-this on an aircraft less than 2 years old.

Assuming 1/8 inch diameter per rivet, that's over 3900 square inches of rivets (and I think those rivets are larger than that). Sounds a bit much to me. Nontheless metal fatigue in the vertical stabilizer is a possibility but I still don't understand how losing the vertical stabilizer would cause the engines to separate before impact.

[VRWC For Truth]

You STILL and will always be a Tinfoil Hat kook. ROFL

[Criminal Number 18F]

Hi eno_

You didn't list "bomb"

My thoughts on that -- traditionally bombs have been set with either timers or pressure devices so as to blow over the sea and leave little evidence. However, we are dealing with some imaginative terrorists there. And when I posted I did not know that the plane is said to have been security held (I bet the security hold turns out to be some lady's nail scissor having put the wind up the wretched losers at the checkpoints, and nothing germane -- but that is just a hunch). If a bomb was on a timer, a security hold could have made it blow up earlier than expected. Further, it is possible that these goons wanted to blow it in the New York area. They could even have used a command detonated bomb.

If there is any evidence of a bomb, there will be no hiding that fact from the public as the NTSB will have to chop the investigation back to FBI. and you forgot to take uncontained engine failure off the list of possibles.

I thought sabotage was last on the list, and bomb was #1, due to the witness who said she saw a bright flash.

Eyewitness statements, especially to the media, are not too trustworthy. A bright flash could have been anything, even the bright sun off the polished fuselage and wings.

Now that it appears certain the fash was NOT caused by the engine blowing up... ?

Even if the engine fails, it doesn't usually blow up -- it just scatters parts and pieces of parts. It looks more like a puff of dust than an explosion... unless of course it causes a real explosion. The witnesses seem to differ on whether the plane was burning before it hit.

But then why did the vertical stabilizer come off so cleanly?

Everything fails at its weakest point, right? It may be that the fasteners or the bracketry are the weakest point. It's common to find parts of planes that look almost undisturbed until you look a little closer, too.

More on witnesses. Like I said I was in NYC with the radio on a talk station. My host changed to a news station when we heard of the crash. In the course of twenty minutes we were told:

1. A small single engine plane crashed in Rockaway
2. No, a small twin engine plane, landing at JFK, crashed there.
3. It was a midair between two small planes landing at JFK.
4. Uh, no, it was an airliner, American Airlines, flight unknown, type unknown, landing.
5. It was an AA 767. OK, American Airlines, flight unknown, B-767, landing.
6. No, it was taking off. Whew. That is, American Airlines, flight unknown, B-767, taking off.
7. No, it was an Airbus. American Airlines, flight unknown, A-300, taking off.
8. It was bound for Santo Domingo. American Airlines, flight number unknown, to the Dominican Republic, A-300, taking off.
9. It was Flight 767. Ah! American Airlines, flight 767, to the Dominican Republic, A-300, taking off. (by this time we had MSNBC on and they were also calling it Flight 767).
10. No... it was Flight 587!

So... that's how reliable early witness reports are! That whole process took about an hour and a half, and when you think about it, was not too inordinately long to get accurate information. One wishes they hadn't put out inaccurate information first, but you can't have everything.

The same is true of the investigation. At first all you get is a few pointers. After a while more and more pieces of the puzzle fall into place and a picture starts to emerge. Sometimes this happens quickly (the Concorde invcestigation pointed at the tires and then at debris in days) and sometimes it takes much longer (it took years and two accidents to get onto the trail of 737 rudder actuators as a problem).

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[the rifleman]

That was a well written post as to what the NTSB does during an accident investigation. Having been a private pilot for many years I was very grateful that Clinton was never able to put the FAA in charge of avation crash investigation like he wanted too. I guess he felt he had to do this because of soo many of his friends passing on by way of aircraft accidents. If in the end the NTSB is unable to conclusivly determine the cause of the crash, I'm with everyone here, we blame it on the Taliban.

[aruanan]

Yeah, like the earlier report which stated that the cockpit voice recorder showed that there was nothing out of the ordinary (in the context of the emergency itself) and concluded that the cause of the crash was accidental. Call that reasoning, cause I don't.

[MindBender26]

re: Fly by wire. All Airbus 300 series A/C I have seen had that dinky litle side stick. That requires fly by wire. Will check on 300 and GBTY

[Ada Coddington]

Anyone seen the manifest list yet?

[Yankee]

Hey Web, don't take 'em seriously.

They're upset because you're interfering with the only excercise that some of them get: "jumping" to conclusions and being "hopping" mad.

[SerpentDove]

I have neither the time nor the inclination to go wading through past posts to produce "evidence" for you, like tis is a court of law or something. It's been happening all day today and yesterday, as many here can attest.

If it's not you, great. Nice job. You're a really, really, really nice, good person.

[gcruse]

I've always been a big fan of Ollie (not to mention Fawn Hall). But then, what do I know? I still admire Newt Gingrich. I obviously have no taste. :)

[VRWC For Truth]

Please stop posting FACTS, it confuses the Tinfoil Hat crowd.

[Rumierules]

FOX News is saying that investigators are looking at the rudder (tail, whatever). Didn't the Alaskan airliner have some kind of similar problem. But it went down pretty slowly I think.

[pgkdan]

You clinton butt kissers should walk proud.

I really hope that you're not referring to me as a clinton butt kisser. You're not, are you?

[CubicleGuy]

Birds with tools!!!

I have it on good authority that John Lithgow and William Shatner have come up with an alternate theory...

[SerpentDove]

>.It's still a sizable leap from there to deliberate sabotage.<<

I don't see how it is a *sizeable* leap to surmise there is a very strong possibility of sabotage, in light of Sept. 11 and subsequent threats of "Death to America", and "planes falling from the sky," coupled with the fact that terrorists were found to have been employed as baggage handlers at the Boston airport ON Sept. 11th (later arrested).

Can anyone explain why this is such a *great* stretch?

[NixNatAVanG InDaBurgh]

Those of us who have been serious about this haven't called anyone names for not agreeing that this is most likely sabatage, but I have seen any theory that doesn't parrot the NTSB/Pataki line being made fun of regardless of how accurate our input has been. We have taken great pains to engage their disinformation with actual information, most of which would have blown right by many Americans with little or no knowledge of this particular plane, and even the mistaken reports by journalists like the engine with the most amount of hours being the one the NTSB had pinpointed as the likely source of the crash. Look. A lot of us are trying really hard to keep up with each and every report and to post on this forum, with as much accuracy as we can, why their reports are wrong, and why some of them are definitely foolish...IF you know the plane and its capabilities.
So far, we have been ahead of even the NTSB in posting here why the original explanation they tried to float did not hold water, literally or figuratively.
Whether their explanation was from preconceptions or whether it was meant to soothe those already traumatized, the fact is, they were wrong.
Bottom line, if I see something wrong, it doesn't take a tinfoil hat to know it, and No disrespect intended to those who would rather sit back and wait for whatever explanation they finally decide is the *right* one, some of us had/have questions, and we will continue to ask them, whether you make fun of us or not. We aren't asking these questions for YOU. We are asking them for the truth.

[Sabertooth]

Thanks, I've been brought up to speed.

BTW, don't say "kph." There are some lurking who are ready to pounce on that.

[Map Kernow]

However, there are lots of folks who apparently think the government doesn't really want to work with the American people and is doing everything within its power to lie to them. I just wish they could provide some rational explanation for what would motivate those nasty fed/govs to work against the very people they live with.

You're making a straw man argument. The government (no, we are not "the government"---we are the "governed"---that's not in your civics textbook, but that's reality) does lie to us---sometimes from base motives, sometimes from a sincere belief that "it's good for the country." Pushing a "mechanical failure" explanation for Fl. 587--which after 36 hours of hearing "there is no evidence that this is anything other than a mechanical failure," I believe is exactly what the government is doing---can have a number of motivations that are arguably "for the good of the country."

For one thing, the airlines really are on the ropes. Attributing the wreck to a terrorist act would have potentially a far more detrimental impact on airline viability than a "mechanical failure" explanation, because "mechanical failure" is a "one-time" accident that sometimes happened before Sept. 11. The airline that had the wreck takes the hit in lawsuits, but it and other airlines keep flying and keep getting reservations.

A terrorist attack is more ominous. That would show that once again terrorists had breached airline security in ways we hadn't foreseen, or worse, in a way that could have been foreseen but wasn't prepared for because the airlines are too cheap and Congress is dithering over an airline security bill.

So, yes. I believe the government could be lying about the cause of the Fl. 587 crash. It may have "reasons" that seem good enough to it.