Accident Theories Falling Like Dominos

Me | 11/14/2001

[Smogger]

This back and forth heckling is really becoming humerous. I personally think that the odds are that this was an intentional act, but anyone who wants to think differently is certainly entitled to

It is rather amusing isn't it. Some people bristle at the mere suggestion that the government might be off base with their investigation. Then they accuse anyone that suggests such of being a conspiracy wacko. I can think of plenty of reasons other than a conspiracy the government might be beating the wrong bush.

[John H K]

Well, the thing is, planes generally don't crash much from any cause.

You're totally correct that people would be far more scared if this was caused by turbulence....and that goes for the people in Queens, too....they have thousands of planes overhead every week..if it was Bin Laden, they can think about specific government efforts to eliminate him, look for a concrete solution in the future..if it's turbulence...it's always going to be something that can happen.

And when planes crash due to non-terrorist causes, it's usually due to a rare combination of events/failures often combined with some pilot error, too. That's why crashes or so rare...you need a rare combo of maintenance/inspection failures, or precise weather conditions, or a sequence of unusual pilot errors, or all three in combination.

But, this gives every conspiracy loon fodder for almost any crash....when the cause isn't terrorism, it's still usually a rare and unusual combo of events that makes people suspicious.

[Bryan24]

I agree. That is unless the airplane had a catastrophic metal failure. Or a service tech forgot to tighten the bolts or some other similar occurence.

But you are correct. Normally, aircraft can with stand TREMENDOUS loading on the control surfaces.

[AlGone2001]

My point precisely. They are just average people who do their jobs. Some of them are incompetent, some of them have their own agendas.

What could a lower-level person have at stake by disclosing the whole truth? Please....

I dodn't think that the accident investigators have enough at stake to need a reason to lie to us.

[Smogger]

I dodn't think that the accident investigators have enough at stake to need a reason to lie to us.

Where exactly did I state that government officials were lying to us?

[tessalu]

They might as well tell the truth about this one, for I am sure that the truth would fly better than a lie.

[John H K]

It is rather amusing isn't it. Some people bristle at the mere suggestion that the government might be off base with their investigation. Then they accuse anyone that suggests such of being a conspiracy wacko. I can think of plenty of reasons other than a conspiracy the government might be beating the wrong bush.

It's the conspiracy whackos that are amusing, actually....if there's no information, that's bad and a government coverup. If possible theories ARE discussed (if it isn't your pet theory) then THAT's bad and a government coverup. THEN people start making sarcastic remarks about the government investigating something as obviously ridiculous as "wake turbulence" and how that's a sign of a cover-up even though it's the only specific thing mentioned by the pilot on the cockpit voice recorder.

No government or NTSB spokesman has ruled out terrorism or sabotage. They've stated there's no evidence of either, which is absolutely TRUE by any possible standard, at the moment.

It's a little unclear exactly what people want...the NTSB chair standing at a podium crying saying that it probably was terrorism even though there's no specific evidence of that and we're shutting down the entire US air system forever? It's clear there's nothing else they can do to satisfy people..they can't say nothing, and they can't discuss various theories they're looking at, because both gets them accused of a cover-up by the loonies.

[EggsAckley]

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.

Wait a minute. First you don't like people calling it a conspiracy, and now you WANT them to use the word conspiracy? Which is it?

I'm not calling anything a conspiracy. I just happen to think that it MAY have been an act of terrorism. Yeah, I'm impatient, can't wait to find out, all that, but does that mean I don't have a right to my opinion?

[lawdude]

"A pathetic attempt to conceal an act of sabotage."

I have not heard ONE official deny any possible scenario. They have all stated that they don't have all the facts yet. The FDR is damaged and will have to be analysed at the manufacturer.

Of course the "tin hatters" will not believe anything! Therein lies the problem. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Oh, just what would anyone (NTSB, President, FBI, etc) gain by CONCEALING AN (OBVIOUS) ACT OF SABOTAGE? IMHO, the opposite is more likely. That is to blame saabotage to take AIRBUS and the airlines off the hook.

[Dan Day]

This back and forth heckling is really becoming humerous. I personally think that the odds are that this was an intentional act, but anyone who wants to think differently is certainly entitled to.

I have no problem with people who lean in another direction either. But you're in error if you think that's the motivation for the "heckling" on these threads.

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 only "hysteria" I've seen has been coming from the "IT WAS SABOTAGE, THE GOVERNMENT'S GOING TO COVER IT UP, AND YOU SHEEPLE ARE BUYING IT!!" folks.

The "accident prone folks" are just rolling their eyes and saying, "oh, come *on*...."

I have absolutely nothing against the people who are leaning towards sabotage. I *do* have something against the wild-eyed folks who insist that it has to be sabotage, period, only an idiot would fail to agree with them, and that "everybody knows" that coverup conspiracies are the order of the day for plane crashes.

Even your own post which starts this thread edges into that territory, postulating government efforts to mislead in service to some nefarious agenda, and your thread title has the tone of, "mwuahaha, accident theories are dropping like flies, it's only a matter of time before The Truth(tm) comes out!"

Give me a break.

[StriperSniper]

My best GUESS so far, from the information available, is that a maintenance mistake left several bolts out of the tail assembly.

Mary Sciavo(sp?) former inspector general for the NTSB was on Sean Hannity today and said that the bolts were still attached where the tail wasn't. I don't know her source of that info.

[EggsAckley]

Even your own post which starts this thread edges into that territory, postulating government efforts to mislead in service to some nefarious agenda, and your thread title has the tone of, "mwuahaha, accident theories are dropping like flies, it's only a matter of time before The Truth(tm) comes out!"

HUH?
I didn't post anything until five minutes ago. Apparently you have me confused with some other conspiracy kook.
Give ME a break.

[Solson]

Sure. The wing can flutter given its natural lift characteristics. It's like dropping a feather and a brick. In ideal, theoretical situation, both fall at the same rate. Add friction, wind, etc. and the brick lands first and typically directly below, or close to where it was dropped. The feather floats.

[discostu]

The problem comes in because the tail fell off. In most planes (haven't seen indication that the A-300 is an exception) the FDR is in the tail. It's in the tail because that's usually the last part involved in an accident (if you review crash photos you'll see that frequently the tail assembly is just sitting there mostly whole) so it impacts with less energy and takes less damage. In this one, with the tail apparently falling off first, with the FDR still plugged into all the systems and getting yanked out, God knows what kind of electrical and impact forces the thing took, certainly more than in most crashes, then it splashed in water and any exposed electronics got wet. The problem with playing the law of averages is that somethings break the law.

[ken5050]

Does the A300 have an APU in the tail? If it exploded..due to sabotage or whatever...it could account for the tail coming off....

[Smogger]

It's the conspiracy whackos that are amusing, actually....if there's no information, that's bad and a government coverup. If possible theories ARE discussed (if it isn't your pet theory) then THAT's bad and a government coverup. THEN people start making sarcastic remarks about the government investigating something as obviously ridiculous as "wake turbulence" and how that's a sign of a cover-up even though it's the only specific thing mentioned by the pilot on the cockpit voice recorder.

I for one have never stated that it was a "coverup" or a "conspiracy". What I have stated is that a number of accident theories initially put forth by the government have lost steam. I have also stated that the goverment in my opinion has made every efforst to assure the public that "all indications" are that it was an accident. Unfortunately, near as I can tell they DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION from which to conclude IT WAS AN ACCIDENT.

Now in my opinion, since they don't have any evidence to the showing either it was an accident or that it was a deliberate act, they ought to ASSUME it WAS a DELIBERATE ACT out of an abundance of caution until THEY CAN BE SURE it wasn't.

That were certainly be the prudent thing to do. BUT NOOOO!! They insist upon telling people that it is SAFE to fly when BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION they do not know that it is.

[Melinator]

Interesting. First it was 2m 20s, then 1m 30s, now a mere 30s. I wonder if it is part of a deliberate plan to keep changing the available evidence so that people simply give up trying to figure it out and rely instead upon the govt.