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.

[Log]

Grose also said he wasn't convinced we knew the real reason why TWA 800 went down. He said it might have been the center fuel tank that exploded, but he wasn't convinced we knew why it exploded. Is he wearing a tin foil hat too?

[boris]

"If the plane was ascending at 250+ knots, then following laws of trajectory, at which point did the engines actually separate from the plane?"

An English sparrow or a Continental sparrow?

--Boris

[bettina0]

How could it have passed an inspection the day before and fallen apart a day after? To me, that says someone must have loosened a couple of nuts and bolts.

[cookcounty]

Yes. People here are understandably reacting to the "ALL SIGNS point to an accident!" drumbeat of the press, which goes UNCORRECTED by the "experts."

The NTSB goes out of its way to state that "there is no evidence that points to" foul play, when they could just as well say that "there is no evidence that points to an accident." At this juncture, you could argue either way, yet there is an obvious agenda to come to the "accident conclusion."

[ScholarWarrior]

Wow.
So, the sequence would be:
1. Wing skin at spar separates, causing vibration.
2. Wing spar snaps, left engine snaps at strut. Fuel everywhere.
3. Wing connects with side of vert stab resulting in clean hit.
4. Destabilization causes right engine to snap at strut.
5. Plane falls from sky.
OK, I'm game - Non sabotage option #1.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

awwwwwww yeah! "mikemike mike control..."

[Regulator]

Yup, you're right. The timeline is the missing element, along with empennage damage assays. If the scenario you/me proposed is correct, there will either be fatigue induced failure or, perhaps, bomb damage in evidence. Starting from that leads to the other effects, and correlates with the "evidence" so far.

The only question I would have if the initiating event was a bomb: why this plane, and not El Al or somebody else politically significant? Just for the sheer terror of it? (couldn't resist the bad joke).

[alethia]

If you'll all recall -- the Taliban is the group in Afghanistan harboring Osama Bin Laden - head of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization which has active cells of various sizes in at least 60 countries. The majority of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers were Saudis -- just like Bin Laden.

Also keep in mind that Al Qaeda is aligned with such savory terrorist groups as Hamas and Hezbollah -- so there is kind of a fraternal order of terrorists with separate yet connected groups ready to take up where the others leave off.

We'd be foolish to think that the defeat of the Taliban lightens our danger either domestically or abroad.

[John Jamieson]

Yup,"Spontaneous Macro Disassembly"

[captain11]

How many EMD SD-90MACS does it take to exert that much starting tractive effort?

22. 11 pulling each way at full rated safe power.

[Cachelot]

what is the APU ?

That must be wrong, somehow. Isn't that a quickie-mart owner?

[fourdeuce82d]

If we here keep up the pressure

brian- May I call you Brian? (brian eno?) just how much "pressure" do you think we are bringing to bear? Have *you* been calling the NTSB? Pataki? The FBI? Has anyone here?

If anything, many (not all) of the rants I see hear would ease politicos minds- they are self-evidently the work of lower middle class cranks with limited mental horsepower and education- "Planes Don't Crash Into Queens!!!" "You can't tell me one of our satellites didn't get pictures." etc.

I dunno. It's not that I believe A) the gov. never lies, or B)that it definitely, one-hundred-percent wasn't sabotage- it's just that a lot of the arguments here have the flavor of websites devoted to proving the "face" on mars is real, the moon shots were faked, etc..

A lot of fervent assertions without much to back them up.

here's a question-sarcasm off- I can imagine something that would convince me it was terrorism- e.g. the NTSB saying it was. I can imagine something that would convince me it was terrorism even if the NTSB says it wasn't, e.g. video of the terrorists performing their naughty work, a member of the investigation team showing up with a piece of fuselage with tungsten fragments in it, and a tape recording of his boss telling him to lie, etc..

In other words, I can easily imagine becoming convinced that there was indeed a coverup. Can you imagine anything that will convince you there was not? I'm not being a smart ass- I'm really curious.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

sorry, just got back from happy hour. My 446 refs your 37.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

sorry, just got back from happy hour. My 446 refs your 37.

[Yankee]

I'd like to know where you came up with that.

[SerpentDove]

Scariest article I've read on FR in a WHILE!!!!

:-s

CLICK HERE:

YIKES

[ScholarWarrior]

You da man. I owe you a finance answer(that's my background).
Ping anytime. Goodnight.

[captain11]

I'd like to know where you came up with that.

I'll bet you would.

[MistyCA]

That is exactly what I think. And the altitude was something like 2,500 feet if my memory is right. In any event, quite low.

[Revel]

"Twenty-three seconds later -- after "several comments suggesting loss of control" -- the cockpit voice recording ends, he said."

In this day and age there is no excuse for these black box devices to just stop working before the cock pit comes apart or explodes. batterys should be located within inches of these devices, and they should conitinue to function even if the rest of the plane is in complete power failure. Also with the cost of digital memory and tiny cameras there is no reason why these black box devices should not contain video and audio from several areas of the plane, both inside and outside. These simple steps would most always ensure that whatever happened to make a plane crash would be very verifiable.