Yeah.
Posted on 08/27/2004 2:01:17 PM PDT by Cincinna
November 2001 plane crash (A A flight 587) Queens, NY was AL QAIDA operation
Stewart Bell National Post ( CANADA)
August 27, 2004
A captured al-Qaeda operative has told Canadian intelligence investigators that a Montreal man who trained in Afghanistan alongside the 9/11 hijackers was responsible for the crash of an American Airlines flight in New York three years ago.
Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents were told during five days of interviews with the source that Abderraouf Jdey, a Canadian citizen also known as Farouk the Tunisian, had downed the plane with explosives on Nov. 12, 2001.
The source claimed Jdey had used his Canadian passport to board Flight 587 and "conducted a suicide mission" with a small bomb similar to the one used by convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid, a "Top Secret" Canadian government report says.
But officials said it was unlikely Jdey was actually involved in the crash, which killed 265 people and is considered accidental. The fact that al-Qaeda attributed the crash to Jdey, however, suggests they were expecting him to attack a plane.
"We have seen no evidence of anything other than an accident here," said Ted Lopatkiewicz, spokesman for the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. "There has been no evidence found, from what I can tell -- at least that's been relayed to us -- that there was any criminality involved here. It appears, at least the evidence we have, is that a vertical fin came off, not that there was any kind of event in the cabin."
Jdey, 39, came to Canada from Tunisia in 1991 and became a citizen in 1995. Shortly after getting his Canadian passport, he left for Afghanistan and trained with some of the Sept. 11 hijackers, according to the 9/11 commission in the United States.
He recorded a "martyrdom" video, but was dropped from the 9/11 mission after returning to Canada in the summer of 2001. The planner of the World Trade Center attack, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, claims Jdey was recruited for a "second wave" of suicide attacks.
The FBI issued an alert seeking Jdey's whereabouts in 2002. John Ashcroft, the U.S. Attorney-General, told a news conference in May that Jdey was one of seven al-Qaeda associates "sought in connection with the possible terrorist threats in the United States."
The information on Jdey's alleged role in the plane crash is contained in a memo on captured Canadian al-Qaeda operative Mohammed Mansour Jabarah. The Canadian government memo was written in May, 2002, and was based on information provided by a "source of unknown reliability."
Jabarah is a 22-year-old from St. Catharines who allegedly joined al-Qaeda and convinced Osama bin Laden to give him a terror assignment. He was tasked with overseeing a suicide-bombing operation in Southeast Asia, but was caught and has since pleaded guilty in the United States.
The report, which was sent to the Philippine National Police intelligence directorate, recounts what Jabarah said he was told about the U.S. plane crash by Abu Abdelrahman, a Saudi al-Qaeda member who was working for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
"In discussions, Abu Abdelrahman mentioned AL QAIDA was responsible for the assassination of Massoud, the Northern Alliance leader," the report says. "According to the source, Abu Abdelrahman added that the 12 November 2001 plane crash (btb American Airlines flight 587) in Queens, New York was not an accident as reported in the press but was actually an AL QAIDA operation.
"Abu Abdelrahman informed Jabarah that Farouk the Tunisian conducted a suicide mission on the aeroplane using a shoe bomb of the type used by Richard Reid .... 'Farouk the Tunisian' was identified from newspaper photographs as being identical to Abderraouf Jdey, a Canadian citizen who had resided in Montreal."
Jabarah was initially suspect of the claim about Jdey, but he later believed it after he saw the same information on a "mujahedin Web site," the report says.
Al Queda has a rep for doing its homework and I cannot believe that they expended effort to kill 300 Dominicans flying home. Anyone who does the slightest research will know the AA 527 is the Santo Domingo shuttle. When I taught in Woodside Queens I had Dominican kids who took that flight as often as I went to Jones Beach.The only thing American about 527 (no dis intended to my Domincan American fellow citizens) for al Queda's purposes was the name of the airline. I do believe that a captive said this, but these guys would confess to the Lindbergh Kidnapping if it would add to our confusion.
Its possible to do but it would require knowing the registry of the plane you're flying and then having to search through all NTSB reports looking for any incident with that aircraft.
However, plenty of aircraft that have suffered serious damaged have been repaired and flown safely for years and some are still in service. The United Airlines 747-122 that lost its cargo door, part of its fuselage and cabin as well as 9 passengers was repaired and flew safely until being sold for scrap. It flew on with United for several more years until the 747-100's were retired due to age and until very recently flew for a cargo airline.
The key is making sure the repair is done correctly and that all the damage has been fixed. It is almost always hidden damage that will later come back to bite.
The actual headline from the article (linked) was "Montreal man downed U.S. Plane, CSIS told." Subheadline was: "'Farouk the Tunisian' involved, al-Qaeda say, but officials insist crash was accidental"
The poster took some artistic liberties, methinks.
And it was done over queens... where most of the firemen came from. Coincidence? The government would have you believe so.
Um... da ya think that taking it down over New York City might be an incentive?
Well... it was jet wash from that plane two miles ahead. Riiiiight.
So explain how it fell off.
Remember the Electra? Beautiful plane. Wings broke off, though. Those planes were pulled from service.
hardly. the hardpoint was cracked due to improper installation of the engine, specifically forbidden in the manuals. not at all like 587.
OK. Let me try again. It has two vertical tails which perform the same role. But I was wrong about that being the reason for the crash. It was a problem with the elevons which resulted in part of the left wing falling off. Which also "just doesn't happen".
I just responded on that. they cracked the hardpoint by improper installation as was forbidden. none of the other engines failed and had the DC-10 had a method to keep the slats from retracting under hydralic loss (like the L-1011 as I'm told) they might have survived.
All similar vertical stablizers on that type (A-320 ??)in the world were inspected immediatly.
The problem with composite construction is that you cannot determine without destroying the part whether it is structurally sound, or not. X-rays don't work. Accustics only work if there is an existing measurement of the part at a previous time (and you're assuming that the part was good to begin with).
Composites can be flawed because of contamination during construction. Bad mix of epoxy. Improper temperature during layup. Almost anything.
I know this because I'm building a composite airplane in my garage now. They're typically designed two times stronger than desired, just in case you screw up.
But there's no guarantees.
The vertical stablizer fell off that airplane at the 4 attach points. No explosive residue, or damage on those bolts was seen (pictures of the attach points were in the paper, at the wreck site, the next day). No physical "sawing" or other damage was on them. Just a garden variety composite delamination.
Without its vertical, the airplane spun around sideways in the air, fliped up its wings, overstressed the engine pods, which fell off, and then the wings themselves failed.
If you can tell me how an Al-Qaeda operative could make that accident sequence happen, let me know.
I really don't like flying on A-320s, or any Airbus equipment. And I really wish Boeing would stick with aluminum.
btw a friend was at the airport and actually worked in the O'Hare tower in 1979. Got there 5 minutes after the crash.
IIRC the pylon was to be attached and then the engine ... not as a unit ... I don't know if a walkaround would have detected it, but the engine didn't just shake off, neither did the starboard engine ... the pylon / mount failed.
no indication of same on 587 that I've heard.
That is thing that happened with AA-191. Damaged caused by improper maintenance weakened a part of the engine pylon and the stress of repetitive takeoffs finally caused the pylon and engine to separate from the aircraft.
sure, the Brits had the problem with the Comet where the fuselage cracked near a window. that still doesn't explain 587, as this is not a widely reported problem of that model.
Previous damage meets vortex turbulence. When one of the smallest external parts of a plane gets hit by turbulence hard enough to move the plane (which the blackbox recorded as 1G of horizontal shift) then you've got a potential for disaster, when that part was previously damaged your potential for disaster just went up by quite a bit. The wrong airframe was in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is the case whenever a plane crashes do to equipment failure.
I agree.
But, I don't rule out the plane was brought down by an AQ sympathizer.
Exactly. They maintenance people attached it as one unit instead of pylon first and then engine. The damage however was inside the pylon and could only be seen if the engine was removed from the aircraft.
I just responded on that. they cracked the hardpoint by improper installation as was forbidden. none of the other engines failed and had the DC-10 had a method to keep the slats from retracting under hydralic loss (like the L-1011 as I'm told) they might have survived.
They probably would have made it if they had actually know what the problem was. They followed standard procedure an engine failure, not the engine falling off and the slats retracting. They should have applied full power to engines 2 & 3 as well as reduced their rate of climb. Simulations have shown they could have made it back to O'Hare safely.
I'll be back in a bit. The real world is calling for a few minutes.
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.