Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Flight 587 Video Shows 'Puff of Smoke' in Sky
Newsmax ^ | November 17, 2001 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Posted on 11/17/2001 10:58:21 AM PST by MeekOneGOP

Saturday, Nov. 17, 2001 11:39 a.m. EST

Flight 587 Video Shows 'Puff of Smoke' in Sky

A second-by-second videotape of the final moments of doomed American Airlines Flight 587 shows a puff of smoke in the sky seconds after it crashed outside New York's JFK Airport Monday, lending credence to eyewitnesses who say the jetliner exploded before slamming into a Rockaway, N.Y., neighborhood.

Though Flight 587 probers have not released the key videotape, shot from a Metropolitan Transportation Authority highway surveillance camera, reporters from New York's Daily News were allowed to view it Friday.

"The tape ... shows a white outline of the jetliner against a clear sky in fairly steep decline," the News reported in Saturday editions. "Seconds later, the outline disappears and the video shows a blurry, white, undefined patch as the plane apparently breaks apart."

Visible in one of the final frames of the sequential videotape is "a puff of white smoke in the sky."

The images of Flight 587's final moments are said to be "very unclear." FBI and NTSB investigators hope to learn more through video enhancement techniques.

On Friday, MTA spokesman Tom Kelly told NewsMax.com that the FBI had turned the videotape over to the NTSB, but apparently both agencies now have copies and continue to analyze them.

Enhancement of the Flight 587 video could confirm the accounts of eyewitnesses like Jackie Powers, who, minutes after the crash, told both ABC News and WABC Radio in New York that she saw "an enormous flash" near the wing on the A-300 Airbus before it dropped from the sky.

"I don't know if it was fire or an explosion," she said. "It appeared that debris fell from the left side [of the plane]. It just plummeted. It had no momentum whatsoever. It just plummeted."

Dozens of other witnesses told various media outlets they saw the jet either explode or catch fire before it crashed.

An explosion would be a problem for NTSB officials, who spent the better part of the last few days trying to sell the idea that the plane's vertical stabilizer snapped off, causing the in-flight breakup, because of "wake turbulence" from a Japan Airlines 747 that had taken off from JFK two minutes earlier.

Independent aviation experts have generally scoffed at the NTSB theory.

"[747 wake turbulence] is not strong enough to be able to break off a tail or to compromise any sort of a normal airplane," said ABC News aviation analyst John Nance on Friday.

"They could turn a little airplane upside down. But especially an A-300, which is a jumbo jet - no way in the world should that ever have any potentially disastrous impact on the aircraft or the tail," he explained.

On Wednesday, an unnamed aviation expert quoted in New York's Newsday said one likely explanation for Flight 587's breakup was a bomb exploding on board. (See: Aviation Expert: Bomb One Likely Cause of Flight 587 Crash.)

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
TWA 800
War on Terrorism


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: flight587
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 321-330 next last
To: MeeknMing
For my money; this incident is similiar to the Japan Airways 747 crash in the mid-eighties...with the JAL flight, the rear pressure bulkhead ruptured, and the cabin pressurized air filled the vertical stablizer with immense volumes of high pressure cabin air, which in turn "poped" the vertical stablizer completely off the air frame....in this case I suggest that a small bomb placed in the rear of the aircraft could have achieved the same results.....
81 posted on 11/17/2001 12:12:20 PM PST by thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve
You're going to have to work on your attitude if you want to hang around here. May I suggest bitter aggresion?

I tried that once - all I ended up with was a crappy song I wrote called "Let's invade Berkely"... I decided that Bitter Aggression was not my forte'... ;0)

82 posted on 11/17/2001 12:13:14 PM PST by Chad Fairbanks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

Comment #83 Removed by Moderator

To: nicmarlo
An explosion is a problem to the NTSB and the airlines, because it shows that even the enhanced security measures put in place after 9-11 do not gurantee safety. If it is shown that it was an explosion and a terrorist act, then the airline industry is in serious trouble.
84 posted on 11/17/2001 12:16:35 PM PST by The Sons of Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve
Has there been a prognosis on the light data recorder?

Yes, the manufacturer was able to fix the circuits which read the data. The NTSB has the data, but the FDR data cuts off well before the CVR recordings. Of course that in itself tells you there was trama to the tail area. If only some of the data cut off early, you'd guess that signal/data cables from some areas were damaged, but others were still functioning. If it all cuts off, the damage must be close to the FDR, or even to the FDR itself. They, NTSB have said the data shows a .3 g lateral accelleration, first to one side then to the other, which could be consistent with several different scenarios.

85 posted on 11/17/2001 12:18:23 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
An explosion is a problem to the NTSB and the airlines, because it shows that even the enhanced security measures put in place after 9-11 do not gurantee safety. If it is shown that it was an explosion and a terrorist act, then the airline industry is in serious trouble.

Yes, exactly. But, I fear the greater problem: not admitting a security breach. How can security breaches be fixed if "they don't exist?"

86 posted on 11/17/2001 12:18:59 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Jimhotep
Proof of mechanical breakage. Yep, mechanical breakage most certainly was involved, and these photos prove it. Those composite structures which attached the tail fin must have broken by mechanical means, causing the tail to separate -- Thanks-
87 posted on 11/17/2001 12:20:11 PM PST by Crowcreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
Just move along, nothing to see here! Let's Roll! Go buy a car, take a trip, go to the malls!

Sorry, but I havn't seen very many of those lately, and needed my fix... ;0)

88 posted on 11/17/2001 12:20:18 PM PST by Chad Fairbanks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Your thinking is just a little bit sideways (pun intended).

If the aircraft yawed violently to the left, the VS would be 'snapped' off to the left. Also, in the event of horzontal shear, with the tail ripped off, I'm not sure what the yaw axis is, and whether 'wind' force from the side would yaw a tail-less A300 right or left. Not sure anyone knows.

89 posted on 11/17/2001 12:21:28 PM PST by Blueflag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
If it is shown that it was an explosion and a terrorist act, then the airline industry is in serious trouble.

It's actually much, much worse than that. The effects spread instantly past just the airline industry to the whole US (and world) economy.

One, just one anthrax incident at a mall would essentially end the holiday shopping season. On top of a depressed economy, the effects would be catastrophic.

90 posted on 11/17/2001 12:22:39 PM PST by Silvertip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
"Hundreds of witnesses saw that missile, "

Another lie created by conspiracy nuts. And before you say differently, why don't you provide your source for that statement and somewhere to read the witness accounts.

91 posted on 11/17/2001 12:23:19 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: thinking
SO could loss of rudder function, consistent with the airframe shaking AND the behavior of the aircraft in the air. If this incident had occurred 6 mos. ago, would you have reached the same conclusion? Look at the evidence. Sharpen Occam's razor.
92 posted on 11/17/2001 12:24:28 PM PST by Blueflag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
What really gets me is the fact that they're making those American citizens that saw the explosion look like absolute liars, and I don't care for that tactic.

Those who saw the TWA 800 get hit have never gotten over it. It's like a bullet to their brain.

So, what's the sanity of a few hundred people if it aids the economy, eh?

What if some of you folks had seen it, and nobody believed you?

93 posted on 11/17/2001 12:24:58 PM PST by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Interestingly, the newsies are not smart enough to ask the DURATTION of the lateral accelerations, which would help debunk the explosion theories and reinforce the wake theories or point to rudder/VS deflection. Facts help. The newsies should learn to ask better questions. But, these are the guys who insist on calling Daisy Cutters FAEs. Ingnorance is no longer bliss, it is career-enhancing in 'journalism.'
94 posted on 11/17/2001 12:27:28 PM PST by Blueflag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag
DURATTION = DURATION. ahem.
95 posted on 11/17/2001 12:27:57 PM PST by Blueflag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve
The engines being thrown off in a spin would result in fuel leaks which could ignite. Burning fuel sometimes smokes, especially if rubber or plasticized fittings are involved.

So there are lots of possibile explanations. I remember posts early on stating that the engines being thrown off was proof of a bomb or missile.

96 posted on 11/17/2001 12:28:35 PM PST by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Another lie created by conspiracy nuts. And before you say differently, why don't you provide your source for that statement and somewhere to read the witness accounts.

Use your search engine. Ready for an education on flight TWA 800?

97 posted on 11/17/2001 12:28:50 PM PST by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: thinking
Except that this airplane was only 3000 feet or so above sea level. Not a whole lot of pressurization going on at that altitude.
98 posted on 11/17/2001 12:28:58 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Native American Female Vet
Y'know, Ken sounds very shacking up. ;-)
99 posted on 11/17/2001 12:30:57 PM PST by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag
which would help debunk the explosion theories and reinforce the wake theories or point to rudder/VS deflection. Facts help

Or visa versa! It may do the opposite as well.

100 posted on 11/17/2001 12:31:27 PM PST by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 321-330 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson