FLIGHT 587 WITNESSES BLAST FEDS

New York Post | January 7, 2002 | John Lehmann

[Beach_Babe]

New Yorkers who believe they saw American Airlines Flight 587 explode in flames before its tail sheared off have accused crash investigators of ignoring their eyewitness accounts and prematurely ruling out a terrorist attack.

Six witnesses, including a recently retired police lieutenant, an FDNY deputy chief and a former firefighter, have written to the National Transportation Safety Board demanding they be called to testify at a public hearing.

Tom Lynch, 59, a retired firefighter, said he had also spoken to 18 other people who saw the Airbus A300 flying on fire before it crashed into houses in Belle Harbor, Queens, on Nov. 12, killing 265 people.

"The NTSB is not publicly acknowledging the many eyewitness accounts of the in-flight fire or explosion, many from people who are adamant that the fire occurred before any tail or engine breakups," he told The Post.

Lynch, who organized the letter, said he was standing on Rockaway Beach Boulevard when he saw a bright orange ball of flame streaming from the right side of the plane.

Two or three seconds later, he said, he saw a larger eruption of flames consuming the entire right side of the plane's fuselage.

"There were no falling parts until the second explosion of flames - I'll go to my grave with that," he said.

The witnesses said they were surprised NTSB Chairwoman Marion Blakey was able to say, only hours after the crash, that all indications pointed to an accident, rather than a terrorist attack.

"How could that statement be made while the flight-data recorder had not been recovered, the crash-investigation team had not yet showed up and initial eyewitness reports included many accounts of one or two explosions in flight?" Lynch said.

Another witness not involved with Lynch's group, Michael Benjamin, said he saw a huge orange fire engulfing the front third of the plane's right side while he was driving along Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn with his wife and two children.

Benjamin, who works for the Oversight, Analysis and Investigations Committee of the state Assembly, said he had attempted to contact the NTSB but had not received a return call.

Preliminary reports written by the NTSB have not mentioned in-flight explosions, but have focused on air turbulence, the composite materials used to build the jet's vertical tail, and sudden rudder movements.

An NTSB spokesman said more than 200 eyewitness accounts had been recorded and were being considered as part of the investigation.

But he said if the NTSB decided to conduct a public hearing, it would most likely seek opinions from air-safety and aeronautical-design experts rather than witnesses.

The people who signed the letter, in addition to Lynch, are retired NYPD Officer James Conrad, FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, retired transit cop Richard Kvies, sales manager John Power and food-services manager Ellie Scholfield.

[Mixer]

Thanks for the post.

[J Jay]

The investigation of Flt 587 is beganning to resemble the investigations of FLT 800 and OKC Fed. Center.

[MissAmericanPie]

They did the same thing with Flight 800, but the jig is up, they are busted and no one believes them anymore.

[amom]

hummmm

[KQQL]

Now AA joins TWA ,,,,,,,,, in Govt cover up.

[Beach_Babe]

The video tape from the Marine Parkway Bridge, which recorded the incident, would answer a lot of questions. But a friend of mine who works on the bridge told me that since it is a "security" tape, it will never be released.

[oyez]

Check that maniest. I bet there was an Ali Akbar Bula Bula on board and he was probably wearing Nike 14 DDD's.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

"The NTSB is not publicly acknowledging the many eyewitness accounts of the in-flight fire or explosion, many from people who are adamant that the fire occurred before any tail or engine breakups," he told The Post.

All law enforcement agencies know eyewitnesses are highly unreliable, especially if their story contradicts the official version.

[glock rocks]

swamp gas.

[Tymesup]

Keeping quiet really helped TWA's business, didn't it?

[Chad]

This NTSB photo looks aft over the top side of the left rear fuselage. It shows the left center and left aft vertical stabilizer attachment points.

Note the lower center portion of the picture. It shows a gaping hole thru the fuselage where the aircraft's torn skin is bent upwards and outwards. This area, as well as the area immediately downwind of the gaping hole, is colored by dark residue. Can this be evidence of an in-flight explosion from inside the fuselage, near the left side of the vertical stabilizer?

[tberry]

"New Yorkers who believe they saw American Airlines Flight 587 explode in flames before its tail sheared off have accused crash investigators of ignoring their eyewitness accounts and prematurely ruling out a terrorist attack"

I personally believe that the only reason we are fighting after 9-11 is that the attack was so public that the government could not cover it up. There have been so many disaster that have seemed deliberate to the public but because of the government controlling the dissemination of information they go into history as accident.

I'm getting to the point that if the government say something, I automatically wonder what the truth really is.

[Alamo-Girl]

Hmmmm ... Thanks for the heads up!

[coloradan]

Eyewitnesses are only unreliable when they contradict the official version. When they support it, they are foolproof.

[Mr. Bird]

Here are some questions meant to elicit thoughtful answers. Please don't construe them as a defense of governement coverups:

If it is agreed that we are at war, and Flight 587 was an act conducted under the auspices of that war (by our enemy), would our government be able to justify lying about it to prevent the propaganda victory for the enemy? Did Britain do anything similar during the blitz?

At this time, what would change if it was revealed that 587 was attacked rather than an accident? Would the public lose faith, or steel their resolve? If, at that time, 587 was revealed to be the victim of attack, would that have boosted our war efforts at a time when media support was waning? If so, why cover up?

[Pearls Before Swine]

I personally believe that the only reason we are fighting after 9-11 is that the attack was so public that the government could not cover it up. I'm getting to the point that if the government say something, I automatically wonder what the truth really is.

I hear you. With respect to Flight 800 and OKC, I tend to agree. However, with Flight 587, which occurred after 9-11, I'm having a hard time understanding why the government would want to cover it up. We were already moving toward war. You could argue that the government wanted to prevent a panic out of aircraft travel for economic reasons. Perhaps. But, I think that if the case could be made for foreign involvement, it would increase public resolve and demand for action. Maybe they'll "discover" evidence of an Iraqi bomb in the spring.

[EggsAckley]

It gets more and more interesting.
Glad to see the witnesses speaking up.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Eyewitnesses are only unreliable when they contradict the official version. When they support it, they are foolproof.

A corollary to my statement. :^)