Accident Theories Falling Like Dominos

Me | 11/14/2001

[Smogger]

Since the morning of the crash of flight 587. Government officials including the NTSB have made every effort to convince the public that the plane crash was the result of an accident and not a deliberate act. So far they have floated several accident theories that have been proven false. If they really believe that it is a problem with the Airbus one wonders why they don't ground that plane.

At anyrate for those of you keeping score we have:

Inquiry May Focus on Engine Explosion, Experts say GE models have had problems in the past

Investigators Find Signs Birdstrike May Have Caused Crash of Flight 587

Both of these theories are apparenlty debunked by the fact that BOTH engines fell off and by:

NTSB: Jet's Engines Show No Internal Failure

Then you have the fuel dumping: (sounds like stream drinking)

Pataki: Pilot of AA flight dumped fuel prior to crash, in (likely) response to mechanical failures

This was supposed to show that it was an accident. However, it was refuted several times in the thread with FREEpers even referring to the chapter ang page of the manual which idicates that it is not possible to dump fuel on this type of plane.

Finally, today we have:

Records: Plane Suffered Turbulence

I am sure this theory will be debunked soon if not already. The question I have is what harm would be done by assuming that it WAS a deliberate act (and then taking additional precautions) and then if you find out later that it was not then so be it.

[michaelje]

A pathetic attempt to conceal an act of sabotage.

Even with all the heighted security, anything is possible.

I hope the LEO's continue to treat air passengers like 5 year olds on planes and in airport terminals. Its certainly helping the cause.

[balrog666]

Thought this thread would interest you.

[nicmarlo]

You know you're going to get flamed now for not going along the the "govment" propaganda accident reports; or, if you're not flamed for that, you'll get flamed for "jumping to conclusions" that it wasn't an accident and be labeled the head of the tin-foil brigade.

[Magician]

Let's add the obvious one: a bomb in the baggage hold placed against the wing spar. This would cause the sequence of events recorded by the closest witness to the accident, a man in a boat in the bay right under he plane as it disintegrated, who saw:

1. Explosion at the wing root.

2. Wing falls off.

3. Departing wing shears off the tail.

At least two other witnesses also saw items 1 and 2 above.

What bothers me is the apparent silence of the gevernment about what may have caused what at least three witnesses describe: explosion at the wing root followed by the wing falling off.

[Bryan24]

If "clear air turbulence" riped the tail off of this plane, then every A300 in the world should be immediately grounded.

My best GUESS so far, from the information available, is that a maintenance mistake left several bolts out of the tail assembly. As the plane picked up speed, load increased on the tail. When the plane hit the previously mentioned wake turbulence, the tail assembly failed due to lack of strength, i.e. improper re-assembly of the tail to the aircraft.

[nicmarlo]

As for myself, I am highly suspicious when I am told, over and over and over and over, "it's just an accident, folks....er, well, uh, we believe it's just an accident because, uh, nothing to prove it wasn't......yet."

[Smogger]

A pathetic attempt to conceal an act of sabotage.

I don't think anyone is trying to conceal anything. I think maybe that their HOPE that it WAS an accident if clouding their judgment.

I say we blame it on Osama until proven otherwise.

[jlogajan]

Government officials including the NTSB have made every effort to convince the public that the plane crash was the result of an accident and not a deliberate act.

Bull. They've said nothing is ruled out but that there was no evidence it was either and accident or a deliberate act as of yet.

[Smogger]

...from the information available, is that a maintenance mistake left several bolts out of the tail assembly

Hell! That is scarier then terrorism. What would they being doing taking bolts out of the tail assembly? I doubt that that is part of routine maintenance.

[Solson]

Related thread with the technical details....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/570902/posts

[sinkspur]

If "clear air turbulence" riped the tail off of this plane, then every A300 in the world should be immediately grounded.

It wasn't "clear air turbulence." The theory is "wake turbulence" from a 747; apparently the A-300 was only 30 seconds behind the larger plane. The pilots specifically mentioned it.

I hadn't heard the missing bolts explanation, but a briefing from NTSB is about to begin, so let's see if they mention it.

[Rippin]

Right, we don't know yet. But the fact that they say its not X because it is Y, it is not Y either, so it is not X because it is Z, no its not Z either, it is not X because it is A etc. is just not compelling to the average foil head like myself.

We foilers have a protected disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and therefore the Gubmint must give us reasonable accommodations. IN this case, the reasonable accommodation is tell the truth. TO wit...

"We don't know at this time."

Of course the reason they don't want to do thatis that you and I are making holiday travel plans today and if it was terror we will stay home in larger numbers than if it was an accident. They'd rather err on the side of assuming an accident until proven otherwise because of the economic impact on the airlines.

Rippin

[Restorer]

1. Explosion at the wing root.

2. Wing falls off.

3. Departing wing shears off the tail.

Just one problem. Both wings were found not far from the fuselage and engines. The tail was apparently the first part of the plane to fall off, since it detached while the plane was still over water. The close distance of the other components to each other indicates an almost simultaneous disintegration.

Not to mention that the undamaged tail shows no indication whatever of a blow severe enough to knock it off.

I have no idea what the cause of this crash was, but the physical evidence tends to indicate the eyewitness was mistaken about the sequence of events. Who are you going to believe, him or your own eyes?

Now if we're going to get into conspiracy theories about coverups about where the wings were found, then it's time to get out the foil.

[cinFLA]

It wasn't "clear air turbulence." The theory is "wake turbulence" from a 747; apparently the A-300 was only 30 seconds behind the larger plane.

Not 30 seconds but 127 seconds.

[sinkspur]

I say we blame it on Osama until proven otherwise.

What if it's pilot error or maintenance negligence?

You might feel good blaming bin Laden; I want to know what really caused it.

Conspiracy pinheads are less believeable than the government in this case.

[Pharmboy]

Aww come on...don't you know a spark in the fuel tank when you see one??

[Smogger]

Bull. They've said nothing is ruled out but that there was no evidence it was either and accident or a deliberate act as of yet.

Bull yourself. The Governor of NY is a government offical. NTSB officials are government officials. The governor was who brought up the fuel dumping speculation. The Wall Street journal quotes "investigators" (presumably NTSB investigators) in its report that BIRDS were responsible. The NTSB has REPEATEDLY stated that ALL indications were that it was an accident.

"Exactly WHAT indications are these?" One might ask.

[nicmarlo]

Here's a transcription of one of the eyewitnesses:

Account of Kenneth Brown

[marquis]

I still vividly remember the media calling the first WTC crash on Sept 11th "an accident" until we witnessed on live TV the 2nd aircraft; then it became a possible "intentional incident" and then "an apparent act of terrorism". It is getting harder to hide the truth from us now that we are all watching so closely.