NTSB Briefing, NTSB claiming .3 to .8 g wake encounter caused crash?!?!?!

CNN | 11/15/2001 | me

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

This is Bull $h!t!!!

The NTSB is LYING like rugs!!!

NTSB dude just claimed that .3 to .8 g's encountered during the wake encounter caused the Airbus to break up in flight...

Even a male reported asked "is this even possible".

"Isn't this normal bumping encountered when flying?"

Even the media don't believe them!!!!!

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

What the hell is going on?

Anyone else watch the NTSB briefing?

[Blade]

Simple. An old fashioned cover-up.

[samuel_adams_us]

What do you expect from a bunch of losers who work for the federal government? We all know they are full of crap, we just don't have a concerted effort with cash out there to show the truth. What we need is someone like 60 minutes to take this by the horns and prove their are lying. Then we might get the truth!

[OwenKellogg]

>>> NTSB dude just claimed that .3 to .8 g's encountered during the wake encounter caused the Airbus to break up in flight... <<<

NTSB dude is nuts.

[11B3]

In other words, it was a bomb. Why didn't they just say: "Isolated incident....Nothing to see here......"

[Darth Reagan]

Not being a Physicist or Aeronautical Engineer, I hesitate to substitute my judgment for the NTSB.

[japaneseghost]

Hey, look, we know the gov. is going to lie about it.

This is actually a good compromise, because if they blamed Airbus when it was actually terrorism, trust me, the French CEO of Airbus would have a sh**fit.

[nevergore]

Don't set your expectations so high, we're at war! The truth would be too damaging to the economy, the country and the world......

Nothing to see here, go buy some clothes, a dishwasher or a car.....

NeverGore

[ChemistCat]

If there was something very wrong with the vertical stabilizer, sure a .3g wake turbulence could have caused the crash. So could just being in the air for three minutes. That thing came off CLEANLY. That is not something that would have happened if it had been properly bolted down.

[samuel_adams_us]

Wouldn't you think turning the plane at 450mph would be about the same amount of force on the tail section if not more? Do we have an engineer out here who knows this answer?

[Blueflag]

Can't watch it at work. But I can tell you that in spirited street driving you regularly achieve .3 - .5 Gs.

If what you reported is true (sorry) then this is pure poppycock. I don't know what the A300 is rated to, but I bet it is easily +5 and -3 G's.

Hogwash and balderdash (to be polite)

[aomagrat]

[KQQL]

So is W as bad as Bubba? looks like another cover up.

[samuel_adams_us]

Someone want to notify the press? I sure do!

[11B3]

Being a pilot, I can't see how any aircraft that wasn't SEVERELY overloaded would not stand up to at least 3 full g's - as is the requirement for Normal category aircraft. (But I think it's higher.)

[NC Conservative]

Does anyone have the B.S. meter? Cause I smell something foul.

[hankbrown]

Did this theory come from a review of the flight data recorder? If not, where is the flight data recorder information?

[grimalkin]

Oh, come on NTSB!! I'm getting tired of all this manure.

[gdani]

NTSB dude just claimed that .3 to .8 g's encountered during the wake encounter caused the Airbus to break up in flight...

Maybe he was just confused with ValuJet