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.

[Snowy]

Next you're going to tell me it was because they didn't have CHEESE.

You had better come up with a cheddar line than that! ;-)

[TheBigB]

MAN I wish I could do that! :) I'm not smart enuff. ;)

[Sid Rich]

I was unaware Pataki was with the NTSB.

[agave]

Huh? The plane was in the air for barely two minutes. Does this mean that they knew they were in trouble during the takeoff roll?

[colorado tanker]

Third possibility: human error/stupidity in not reconnecting or properly connecting a part during maintenance. It's a long shot, but sometimes Murphy's law takes over. Fourth possibility: structural failure due to manufacturing defect. I agree your first two are the most likely.

[phasma proeliator]

"Fatigue effects could explain this accident, too."

So the tail, AND both engine attachment points experienced fatigue failure simultaneously? - I don't think so...

[abraxas_sandiego]

but mysteriously we did not have the same data from the downing of twa flt. 800...or did we???

[Capt_Hank]

Multiply x 1.15, you have mph.

[Capt_Hank]

Multiply x 1.15, you have mph.

[Cagey]

Here ya go.

Velocity Convertor

[LTCJ]

I wish they'd use mph.

If it were up to the press they'd use knots per hour.

[rit]

I am not sure if the tail came off first, or second, or third. It is lighter, so presumably could have come off at roughly the same time. It seems to me that the plane may have been nosediving at the time the engines separated, in order for the engines to fall within 2 blocks of the wreckage. Thus, one would immediately discount the early bird-brain theory causing the engines to separate while ascending.

[classygreeneyedblonde]

I like yours to

[John H K]

I thought for tinfoilers it was impossible for the NTSB to give the truth about anything?

[AAABEST]

You seem to have some understanding of the mechanical aspect of this.

What is your theory as to why the tail landed in the bay before the engines fell off?

[dawn53]

Anybody else just see that banner on FoxNews that said the plane had been delayed in NYC before take off because of security matters.

What does that mean????

[be-baw]

would then have both separated at the same time, within seconds of each other

If you assume they were heading in a horizontal direction at 250 knots, that there are 12 city blocks in a mile, and that there was neglible difference in wind effect on the two engines, then the second engine separated 2 seconds after the first.

[NixNatAVanG InDaBurgh]

> "air frame rattle."

At first they said the plane had hit some wake turbulence. The airframe rattle would occur if that happened. It would be akin to the shuddering of water and other pipes during an earthquake.
In this case, though, it seems it was not turbulence they hit, but that they WERE hit by something that caused the plane to shudder and then completely lose its tail...cleanly.
If this was an accident, the sun will not rise tomorrow.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Commentary Here on a Different Explanation

[classygreeneyedblonde]

See we girls know