Posted on 11/12/2001 5:30:38 AM PST by Attila_the_Hun
AA Passenger plane has crashed in Queens, live video on Fox News... Developing!
I agree, but flight 800 was because Clinton didn't want to be bothered with it, and this one has the countries economy riding on it.
This one HAS to be covered. America can't afford it.
You're James Kallstrom aren't you?
ABC had an eyewitness on the air..very detailed...she was on for 5 minutes talking to Jennings..she said her and her husband saw the whole thing.... they were looking towards the airport and watched the plane rise...was watching the plane and she saw a flash were the wing meets the fusilage. Everything was ok before that there was no smoke or anything before the flash. Then she said the plane broke into serveral peices and spun nose first down ( from another thread)
Thanks, no. I'll stick with what I've seen and heard so far, and my experience with aircraft engines and their failure modes.
bin Laden sure didn't sound aware of that when he criticized the UN.
So far very conflicting reports, yours says no smoke, another says the pilot in the plane behind this one saw a smoke trail upon takeoff, yet another says explosion and even yet another says no explosion.
I have turned off the coverage for a while till they get their sh*t in one sock!!
Once they determine that an emergency exists, they are entitled to take any action they deem appropriate to preserve the safety of the flight. That means they can deviate from their clearance or even ignore communications or instructions from the ground. Usually the flight crew will communicate that an emergency exists and its nature to the tower but even that is optional and generally waits until a convenient time.
The FAA and the NTSB can later second guess whether the actions taken during the emergency were apporpriate or whether the pilot is culpable in allowing the situation to turn in to an emergency in the first place, but they cannot charge the pilot with violating Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) during the emergency if the actions were justifiably aimed at preserving the safety of the flight.
This is a level of responsibility not enjoyed very often in our society.
Ever been in bad (stuff flying all over the cabin, people screaming) turbulence? Your biggest worry is the seatbelt giving way and you breaking your neck against the cabin interior. Wings don't fall off, even when it feels like Mother Nature is PMSing all over the plane.
When an incident is "covered up," you don't see the evidence. That's why they call it a "cover up," I'm told.
General Meyers, on all TV networks in an interview recently, stated that the al Qaeda terrorits have "300 to 400 Stinger missiles." (anti-aircraft missiles) I'm not saying it was a Stinger, yet.
Even if the government covered it up, wouldn't average people be blabbering to the press???
Besides, wouldn't a terrorist attack be more beneficial than a mechanical failure??? A mechanical failure would cause major overhauls of all Airbus 300 planes and destroy the airline industry. A terrorist attack would result in "tighter security measures". A terrorist attack would not destroy the insurance industry the same way as would a mechanical failure.
Whenever the plane paieces were still scorching and too hot to touch, we were reassured that there was no evidence that this was a terrorist attack.
They did for TWA 800, but nobody cared to hear them. There were hundreds of people. Bill simply called them liars. Go figure.
That's the problem. If all records and reports were released, there would be no question, aye?
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.