Skip to comments.
Second Video of Flight 587 Casts Doubt on Crash Probe
NewsMax.com ^
| Jan. 27, 2002
| Carl Limbacher
Posted on 01/27/2002 11:38:36 AM PST by Carl/NewsMax
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 next last
1
posted on
01/27/2002 11:38:37 AM PST
by
Carl/NewsMax
(limbacher@newsmax.com)
Comment #2 Removed by Moderator
To: Carl/NewsMax
Damn, it's starting to look like maybe the "tin foil hat" crowd might not be too far off the mark on this one. Interesting.
3
posted on
01/27/2002 11:45:51 AM PST
by
oldvike
To: Carl/NewsMax
LINKCarl:
Can you get Bob Grant or Frank from Queens to interview the police Lt and the NYC fireman mentioned in this article?
To: Carl/NewsMax
Have no doubt of this: Had there been only one plane involved on 9/11, the federal government would have concocted an elaborate account of the pilot's deep depression. Desperate to prevent panic and to protect us from our unenlightened selves, Washington will cover up anything it cannot possibly explain away. I'll settle for the truth, thank you very much...
To: oldvike
Damn, it's starting to look like maybe the "tin foil hat" crowd might not be too far off the mark on this one. Interesting. The only possible way they could be right is if the tape showed an explosion. That seems doubtful: Nov. 12, the day of the crash, was a cloudless day in New York, a fact that makes that "puff of white smoke" particularly problematic for investigators who have bent over backwards to ignore the accounts of dozens of eyewitnesses who say they saw a midair explosion and fire before the plane broke apart.
There's a pretty vast difference between a "puff of white smoke", and "midair explosion and fire," Mr. Lamebacker's efforts notwithstanding.
So if this is all NewsMax -- itself a tinfoil-leaning group -- can say, then the tinfoilers are as wrong as they usually are. Note that none of the details add up to anything that a loss of the vertical stabilizer cannot explain.
6
posted on
01/27/2002 11:57:51 AM PST
by
r9etb
To: Carl/NewsMax
Still think this might have been a shoe bomber. That was my first thought after that Reid guy tried it. It surely couldn't be the first attempt to do something like that.
7
posted on
01/27/2002 12:02:27 PM PST
by
MsLady
To: Carl/NewsMax
The NTSB is nothing but a worthless cover-up agency. I would never work for them.
In the hours and days after the crash of flight 587, the NTSB was floating every crackpot theory it could in an effort to disprove theories of terrorism. Their efforts had quite the opposite effect. It tends to kill an organization's credibility when they scream, "It wasn't terrorism, it wasn't terrorism...!" while the crash site is still burning and no data collection has even been done yet, then float every crackpot theory under the sun to "prove" it. What ever happened to the days of the NTSB not commenting on an on-going investigation? I find their actions highly questionable.
To: r9etb
Perhaps it didn't need to be a big fireball explosion to bring it down. It could have been a shoe bomb that exploded cracking the hull of the plane. I would think that would be enough to bring it down.
9
posted on
01/27/2002 12:06:50 PM PST
by
MsLady
To: r9etb
Perhaps it didn't need to be a big fireball explosion to bring it down. It could have been a shoe bomb that exploded cracking the hull of the plane. I would think that would be enough to bring it down.
10
posted on
01/27/2002 12:07:16 PM PST
by
MsLady
I hate when that happens!!!
11
posted on
01/27/2002 12:08:39 PM PST
by
MsLady
To: Carl/NewsMax
But if it was a "bomber" (shoe or otherwise) wouldn't someone (or some group) have taken credit for it ??
I know that bin Laden rarely took credit for "operations" that he was a part of, but after 9-11 that seemed to change.
I would think there would be some sort of bragging or claim of success ??
12
posted on
01/27/2002 12:08:46 PM PST
by
twyn1
To: MsLady
That's what I heard on the radio ...that they thought it was a shoe bomber.
13
posted on
01/27/2002 12:13:18 PM PST
by
Sungirl
To: twyn1
Who says that some group didn't claim responsibility, and it was hushed up? john
To: Freeper john
Who says that some group didn't claim responsibility, and it was hushed up? Maybe you're onto something there. The whole thing just stinks.
15
posted on
01/27/2002 12:23:58 PM PST
by
katnip
To: Carl/NewsMax
what, you going to believe your own lying eyes (that is, if the film is
ever released)?
i won't be convinced until the cia releases their cartoon.
where's the cartoon?
To: r9etb
"...Mr. Lamebacker's efforts notwithstanding"I can understand disagreeing with him, but is a personal insult necessary to make a point?
To: *AA Flight 587
bump
To: MsLady
Semtex or C-4 would have left chemical traces on the wreckage. It should be an easy matter to rule it out -- or confirm it.
To: Carl/NewsMax
Stall spin. PC spinning otherwise.
20
posted on
01/27/2002 1:03:32 PM PST
by
Waco
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson