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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Do you think everyone is out to get you?
Question: Why haven't I seen even one person suggest that maybe, JUST MAYBE, there was a bomb in a suitcase on board? Inquiring minds want to know. We already know that only a FRACTION of the checked luggage is scanned! Duh. Could this be a plausible reason for the crash?
Silly me. I should be putting my BLIND TRUST in the F.B.I. (Federal Bungling Investigators).
Why in a low altitude crash would the flight data recorder be damaged to the point that data could not be salvaged?
I thought these things were made to survive a crash at normal flying altitudes.
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.
The reason you're seeing them fall at all is because everybody wants them to guess in public, and they're doing it.
Now answer this: if they were really so intent on covering up a terrorist attack, would they really be telling you that this or that theory is wrong? Probably not.
In my mind the real issue here is why so many people are fervently hoping it's terrorist activity and a coverup. What little itch does it scratch?
-----
>>"This failure to deliver a verdict before bedtime is taken as further proof of negative government intervention." <<
I agree totally. This is silly, of course. We shouldn't expect a verdict that soon.
Equally troublesome to me, however, was the assertion I heard from almost all major media quarters and government spokesmen the instant after the crash occurred.
I watched on TV while the plane was still crackling in flames, minutes after the crash, too hot even to touch with oven mitts. The mantra immediately began, "There is no evidence to suggest..."
They had not even found the flight data recorder or the voice recorder, and couldn't come within feet of the plane because of the intense heat. Of COURSE there is no evidence! Nor is there evidence to support that this was *not* a terrorist attack. Why not say, rather, “The cause of this is not known at this time”? This insults my intelligence.
Maybe this was done to "avoid a national panic." If that is the case, it is quite “brotherly” of them to decide what information we "can and can't handle." However, I am not three years old.
Not advancing any crackpot theories here, but my rationale forces me to make a not-so-giant-leap in logic to believe there is a high likelihood , while not conclusive, that this was a terrorist action, given the circumstances we find ourselves in.
But as for foreign terrorists, they can blow up airplanes, and the government will do its darnedest not to implicate the terrorists.