Posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:54 PM PST by Smogger
I disagree. I believe that they have knowingly misstated facts to mislead the public. For example, it was circulated in the media that the plane dumped fuel in the bay. This was purported as fact until a few pilots and sleuths noted that dumping fuel is not an option. I just dont buy the gubmints Bull Spit.
I can't believe you asked me that...
You just call them accident theories.
There is truth to this. I have a friend who has travel plans over Thanksgiving. He is a police officer, btw. (Not an hysterical woman, as I keep hearing from certain individuals). He told me IF it's a terrorist incident, he will not fly; however, if it were a mechanical error, he will stick will his present travel arrangements and fly.
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.
That sounds to me as though you are accusing them of a conspiracy. If you didn't think it was a conspiracy, why didn't you simply state that "Government officials including the NTSB have told us 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.
Here you sound as though you believe that the government is purposefully flying the aricraft, even though they know there is a problem.
How else can I read you?
Is that not what they are?
Apparently you have not had the opportunity to work with government officials on a day to day basis. These people have their own agendas which are often very differnt from the public's agenda and they aint all the brightest. Maybe that is why some of them don't work in the public sector.
Another minor correction: The CNN news bimbo kept sticking to her "navigation equipment error" theory for several minutes AFTER the second plane struck.
Maybe they are incompetent. Maybe they have their own agendas. Those things hardly qualify as a "conspiracy". I never stated that I believed that they were deliberately lying to us. Or deliberately covering things up.
"NEW YORK (CNN) -- Investigators looking at whether turbulence from the takeoff of another airplane contributed to the crash of Flight 587 now say the American Airlines jet was closer to the leading jet than first believed, CNN learned Wednesday.
A senior federal transportation official said investigators believe the American Airbus A300 was only about 90 seconds behind a Japan Airlines 747, a much shorter time span than originally reported.
I find it endlessly amusing that people are offended/suspicious that the NTSB is even LOOKING AT something (wake turbulence) that just happens to be the ONLY thing specifically mentioned by the pilot in the last seconds of the planes' flight.
Should be private sector
If you don't like government officials, that's one thing. Those who do the investigations are not exactly officials. They are average people like us, who do a professional job. You don't think that an appointed government official transcribes flight data recorders, do you?
Incidenttally, I was a federal employee for 4-years after leaving the US Air Force. All of the high-level government employess that I met did their jobs with honor. Apparantly, you need to ask me what I know about government employees before you jump to conclusions. What do you think?
Oh, yeah....I heard that one, too.
Thanks for proving my point. You did a great job supporting my point. Thanks. I'll flag you when I need more confirmation!
Se,, you just accused them of having a conspiracy to advance their own agendas.
Sometimes, less is more.
What I DON'T understand is the hysteria that ensues from the "accident" prone folks here. Believe what you want, but the bickering is silly.
The find the idea that turbulence caused the crash scarier than terrorism. I recently have made several trips to Reno, NV which (according to residents) is the second most turbulent airport in the country. Last time I flew there the plane I was on (an Airbus A-300) experienced turbulence that was so rough that even air traveling vetrans were made sick. It was a real white knuckler. The crew seemed to find it routine, however, and the pilot barely commented on it after the plane was safely on the ground. I would guess that turbulence is not generally something that cause planes to come apart in mid-air.
My point precisely. They are just average people who do their jobs. Some of them are incompetent, some of them have their own agendas. As do private sector employees. I would suggest to you, however, that it is much more difficult for a public sector employee to be fired from a government job for incompetence or or due to poor job performance than it is for a private sector employee to be terminated for the same reasons.
Horse manure. They have listed several possibilities and pointed out that there is as yet no evidence of a deliberate act.
That's a far cry from "making every effort to convince" the public of a particular hypothesis.
Furthermore, most of what you list can be laid at the feet of JOURNALISTS, not "the government". An official mentions a possibility, and then the journalists run with it and make it a front page story.
So far they have floated several accident theories that have been proven false.
...but not nearly as many as the "IT WAS SABOTAGE!!!" contingent has been floating, and then proven false. For just one example, the "sniper shooting bullets into the engine intakes of jets as they leave the runway" theory. Sorry, the engines were intact, thanks for playing.
If anything is "falling like dominos" here, it's the wild conspiracy theories.
If they really believe that it is a problem with the Airbus one wonders why they don't ground that plane.
For exactly the same reason that they don't recall all Ford Explorers when one of them crashes due to a mechanical failure.
Inquiry May Focus on Engine Explosion, Experts say GE models have had problems in the past
What part of "may" are you having trouble with? This isn't "trying to convince the public" of anything, it's a simple statement of one of the possibilities that has to be looked into.
Investigators Find Signs Birdstrike May Have Caused Crash of Flight 587
"May" again. See above.
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
Yup, they sure were. That's why we do investigations, son. And you'll note that the Evil Lying Government (tm) happens to have been the ones who released the information about the lack of engine failure. How does that fit into your "they're trying to snow us" hypothesis?
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.
No, it was supposed to help us figure out what happened. A pilot might dump fuel even if the plane had been bombed or otherwise sabotaged, did you not think of that? Only in your own conspiratorial mind does a simple announcement of a fuel dump equate to "supposed to show that it was an accident".
Furthermore, that report was based on an eyewitness who thought he saw fuel dumping from the aircraft. Uh oh, maybe those eyewitnesses aren't as reliable as the conspiracists would like us to believe when they find one that reports seeing something that looks like support for a bomb, eh?
Finally, today we have: Records: Plane Suffered Turbulence
I am sure this theory will be debunked soon if not already.
*WHAT* "theory"? Did you actually read that article? It simply reported the past incident history for that plane. Such examinations are always done after crashes just in case any clues might be found there. There was a speculative passage about "maybe past severe turbulence weakened the structure", but it hardly rose to level of a "theory", much less your hand-waving claim that the government is "making every effort to convince the public" it wasn't sabotage.
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.
The people responsible for "taking additional precautions" *are* doing just that. Airport security has been bumped up another few notches, etc.
But that's an entirely separate issue from whether the *investigators* should jump to any premature conclusions, or rule anything out yet.
What I'm having a tough time with is people who imply that there is a conspiacy going on, but don't want to go all the way by admitting it.
If anyone here thinks that our government is conspiring against us, have the guts to say it. Don't deny it from one side of your mouth, while you say that some government employees have their own aganda out of the other. Just say it. Why is that asking too much?
I'm just looking for a little honesty here.
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.