Posted on 11/12/2001 7:06:29 AM PST by dep
Because??? The chance of true mechanical failure in an any vehicle is no way linked to terrorist actions. If my truck doesn't start tomorrow, do I blame it on terrorists?
'if it has t*ts or wheels it will give you problems'
Precisely. I am having that same argument with people here at work? I mean come on. Let's do a little statistical analysis folks. What are the odds or this type of accident happening on in the wake of 9/11? on 11/12? Almost two months to the day? Of course there wouldn't have been as large of a loss of life if it had occurred yesterday morning. I dunno.. All I know is I aint flying again anytime soon.
lol. They will?! Have you been living curled up in a conch shell for the last ten years?
Do we know what _really_ happened at Waco? Do we know what happened at OKC? Do we know what happened to TWA-800? (Heck, do we know if the US really sent a memo to Saddam prior to the Gulf War saying the US wouldn't care if Iraq invaded Kuwait?)
These days, nobody gets to the bottom of anything...
Mark W.
Flight 587 was heavy. It had 247 passengers and 9 crew on a plane that seats 280. It may have had nearly full tanks.
There was some report of engine trouble, recent maintainence.
It is the season that the canadian geese are migrating.
Someone on FR said this is a mixed vendor engine assembly. The engine is GE, the closely coupled intake fans are French.
Right. Like the NTSB "fact" that, after the nose of TWA 800 got blown off by a "center fuel tank explosion", the jet flew straight up, creating what many eyewitnesses mistook for a missile, right? This is what your precious "professionals" told America on national TV.
Despite the aerodynamic FACT that a jet with its nose blown off cannot fly any longer, period. All it can do is plummet like a rock.
Despite the FACT that two engines with a maximum thrust of 40,000 pounds each cannot make a 120,000-plus-pound lump of metal go up, especially once its aero-lift is destablized by the loss of the forward (nose cone) fulcrum.
You go ahead and rely upon your "professionals."
The Stinger Threat to Commerical AviationIt's the air industry's "dirty little secret"--more than 500 travelers and crew members on non-military flights have been killed in recent years as aerial ambushers use "Stinger"-type missiles with deadly accuracy. The number of deaths from "man-portable surface to air missiles," deadly devices given the mnemonic MANPADS, appears to exceed the deaths from hijackings during the same years.
There is very little that is presently being done to prevent terrorists from downing dozens, or even hundreds of civilian planes. While travelers are financing tens of millions of dollars in airline anti-hijacking programs around the world, the airlines themselves are just crossing their fingers and whistling through the graveyard when it comes to MANPADS. They're not doing anything about the problem and they're not telling travelers about it either.
More than two dozen documented attacks against non-military aviation have killed more than 500 people in the last 15 years. The attacks have taken place on four continents--North America, Europe, Asia and Africa.
In October of 1998 rebel fighters shot down a passenger jet with 40 people on board in eastern Congo. A missile strike on the rear engine of the Boeing jet caused the plane to crash shortly after take-off from Kindu airport. The plane, carrying women and children refugees, crashed into a densely forested area just outside of Kindu, about 620 miles east of the capital, Kinshasa. Spokesmen for the rebel force preparing to attack Kindu acknowledged downing the plane but said it was carrying 40 government soldiers to the city.
There was a dispute over the plane's direction. The airline said it was hit minutes after takeoff, while rebels said they fired as the plane made its landing approach.
The rebels apparently used a SA-7, a Russian-made anti-aircraft missile with a launcher that looks like a bazooka.
In June of 1996 security officials confiscated some surface-to-air missiles missiles--this time in Colombia--as they were preparing to blow that nation's president out of the sky. In March of 1997 there were reports that Iranian-backed Palestinian groups had acquired a supply of the missiles. Military analysts said they were threatening to reduce Israel's edge in fighting there by sweeping fighter-bombers from the sky. But the reality is that they could also be used, with more deadly effectiveness, against commercial aircraft from Bombay to Boston, Belfast to Buenos Aires.
Air travel anywhere in the world--even in the United States-- is in danger from attacks by terrorists or people acting at the behest of rogue regimes. If the traveling public understood the potential danger, it's safe to say that airlines around the world lose so much business that many would go broke within six months. This is the travel industry's dirty little secret--and it is indeed a shameful one.
The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA), which is supposed to be the traveling public's guard dog, seems to have been guarding the airlines and their dirty little secret. The fact is they don't have an answer.The best semi-public information has come, surprisingly, from a State Department document on security practices.
The document, Terrorist Tactics and Security Practices, was released in February 1994 by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. The document, prepared by the bureau's Office of Intelligence and Threat Analysis, is perhaps the best explanation of the problem made public.
According to the diplomatically-couched wording of the State Department report "there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that the threat to civil aircraft emanating from terrorist groups, rebel militias and even criminal enterprises possessing MANPADS is an increasing possibility."
"MANPADS were widely proliferated during the 1970s and 1980s. Now, after 20 years of reported instances of SAMs in the hands of rebel militias, narco-criminals, and terrorist groups, the potential for increased SAM threats to civil aircraft has become a serious reality. Recent terrorism events such as the World Trade Center bombing, and those that were prevented, underscore the fact that fanatical elements were not deterred by the potential implications of mass casualties that could occur if a man-portable SAM were used against a commercial airliner."
According to the State Department security report "another worldwide trend having implications for the safe passage of civil airliners is the growing instance of ethnic, religious, and civil unrest. Although the risk of a world war as at least temporarily passed, the ethnic and regional conflicts found in the four corners of the world indicate that perhaps our situation is more unstable than at any time in recent history. With this instability has come the risk of terrorism in new and more dangerous forms. Hundreds of MANPADs have fallen into the hands of ethnic militias that are battling against established governments."
The situation is actually worse than the report suggests. We know these weapons have made their way into the hands of narco-terrorists in drug producing regions around the world, from Colombia to Burma. Drug lords world-wide already have the technology in their arsenals--and there is every reason to point those missiles at U.S.-owned aircraft. We know that in January of 1990 CBS News authoritatively reported that Colombian narco-terrorists had acquired SA-7 heat-seeking anti-aircraft missiles and that they planned a shoot-down attempt against President Bush's plane at the February 15 drug summit in Colombia. As a result there were special security measures in place to thwart such an attack. About a month later the Colombian government said that 10 shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles were uncovered when agents raided a location in Bogota used as a hideout by drug cartels. Two men were arrested in the raid. And the threat, as it turned out, was proved to be real. In mid-1992 Thai border officers seized a Russian-made SAM-7 missile and arrested three men who were apparently taking them to Burmese drug warlord Khun Sa. Khun Sa, the region's drug kingpin who is under indictment by American authorities, isn't known as a great fan of America. And even at that time he was believed to have at least five SAM-7s. More missiles were seized in the fall of 1994 as they were being smuggled into Burma. These were apparently purchased from military people with access to them in Cambodia.
If it were true that what you don't know won't hurt you, the world would be pretty well off with regard to these mini-SAMs. That's how little we know. But the old saw isn't true at all and our abysmal lack of knowledge may well prove deadly to hundreds--or even more--of commercial airline passengers.
The State Department report alluded to our lack of knowledge: "(B)ecause of the very nature and characteristics of MANPADS, there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding their proliferation to and among terrorist groups, guerrilla movements and criminal elements. The real issue with regard to the potential use by a terrorist group in which groups have acquired MANPADs. The overriding concern in this regard is that the exact number and location of these systems cannot be accurately assessed due to the inherent characteristics of MANPADS--size, mobility and concealability.
"While we don't know anywhere near enough, we do know is that rebels around the world have these surface to air missiles. While not all of the guerrillas and terrorists have employed them against civilian aviation, many have.
They were used extensively in El Salvador, though not against civilian aviation. Rebels there had a collection of SAM-14s, SAM-7s and Redeye missiles. Similar missiles are known to have been used by guerrillas operating out of Costa Rica. The Sudanese People's Liberation Army in Sudan, Polisario Front guerrillas in Morocco, the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola, clans in Somalia, Abkazian rebels in Georgia, government opponents in Tunisia, and ZAPU insurgents in what is now Zimbabwe all have had access to these arms. We know that the Irish Republican Army and other groups involved in that long war are trying to get MANPADs, and in fact may already have them. The same goes for Croatian terrorists. Kashmiri secessionist groups are believed to have them.
There are clear indications the Abu Nidal organization, one of the most effective of all terrorist groups in the world today and an organization which seems to specialize in attacking planes and airports, has potential or real access to them. There have been credible reports that both Iraq and Libya are willing to turn over quantities of these missiles to any terrorist or insurgent group willing to carry out specific missions for it.
These problem areas pale when compared to the core problem--an explosive mixture of religious fundamentalism, anti-Israeli sentiment, and hundreds of unaccounted-for missiles given away by the U.S. to Afghan rebel groups.
"MANPADS were widely used against Soviet military aircraft-- and at least five civilian aircraft--in Afghanistan. Many people from Moslem countries elsewhere around the world came to Afghanistan to 'fight the infidel.' They became imbued with a religious fundamentalist spirit in their years there. Since the end of the war many have spread out across the globe to carry out attacks against more secular governments, from Cairo to Manila. Some of the suspects in the alleged terror ring that targeted the World Trade Center, as well as other landmarks and transportation targets, reportedly had links with the 'Afghans' as the insurgents of diverse nationalities are known to security agencies.
Stingers will be used against U.S. aircraft, at U.S. airports, sooner rather than later. Like the World Trade Center an airliner-- any airliner anywhere in the United States--represents a high- value, low risk target. The experience of the 'Afghans' in knocking down planes--including commercial jets--as well as their training place them among the most likely to use MANPAD technology against Western, particularly American, aircraft. These are well-trained and experienced men of war. They probably have the means--access to hundreds of 'Stinger'-type missiles are unaccounted for in the war- -as well as the motive and opportunity.
Defining a problem is only half the solution. It is clear that the problem of MANPAD access by terrorist/insurgent groups and irresponsible military officials is not one that the traveler can address. There are things that the traveler can do to minimize the danger from these devices, however. In all cases it is important to keep a level head. A number such as 530+ seems large. It looms as a tremendously large figure if you, someone you love, or even if someone you know, is counted among the casualties. It is an infinitesimally small number when considering the number of passengers flying non-military flights during the period it covers. When compared with the number of people dead in hijackings during the same period, it gives pause as to whether the economics of anti-hijacking measures pencil out, or whether those represent a "make work" project that is as benign as it is expensive. If there is no "quick fix" or guaranteed solution for the traveler, there are steps the individual can take to lessen the dangers from MANPAD attacks.....
United States
Having fairly successfully predicted the type of attack, target, bomb and vehicle in the World Trade Center blast, we'll take another look into the crystal ball. It seems likely that foreign- born terrorists will target a commercial airliner landing or taking off from a U.S. airfield by the year 2000. The attack will probably be staged against a higher-value target (airliner vs. executive jet). It will likely be staged at an airport that has symbolic significance, such as New York Kennedy or La Guardia, Washington National or Dulles. Los Angeles International, Chicago O'Hare, Dallas-Ft. Worth and Atlanta's field also rank high on the list of possibilities. The attack will be mounted from a location between 1/2 and three miles from the end of the airport runway. There will be no warning of the attack, but news media will receive a call claiming the downing within 30 minutes of the attack. The aircraft will fall into urban areas, creating heavy secondary casualties. When flying in the U.S., avoid the major hubs where possible. Use smaller airports where possible.
Fly aircraft that make smaller, low-value targets insofar as this is consistent with general overall safety. (Remember that in the past many smaller airlines have not had as good a safety record.
Use teleconferencing, trains, and other forms of transportation/communication in lieu of flying.
For the rest of the artilcle, click HERE.
:
But you see, this is a bulletin board (see dictionary if necessary) and we are here because we desperately want to air our theories and frustrations. If all we wanted was calm, professional investigation, we could just wait 8 or 9 months for Peter Jennings to tell us that it was nothing at all. But in the meantime, we want to chat about it. I'm sure the military and the airline safety board will have a reasonable explanation by, oh, Christmas or so. Check back then.
I don't think that anyone is doing that.
Deport, deport, deport. Now!
Considering the weight of the turbines and the speed at which they rotate, when they break apart and throw their blades, if the engine housing does not contain them, all types of damage can be done to the rest of the plane, including cutting open fuel tanks and starting fires.
I agree with all those who say that in these times we have to look at terrorism of some type as the cause. But, everything so far physically described could be a result of a turbine failure.
The black boxes will probably answer the questions. Since the remainder of the plane went straight in, the black box in the nose may not have survived. But the one in the tail probably did. That one won't have cockpit conversations, but it will have flying and mechanical parameters. That may be enough to answer the questions.
Do not be surprised if there is a claim by al Qaeda that "we did this," whether or not they did. We can't do any more to them than we are already doing, and a false claim by them that this was their operation would spread the results of terror just as much as if the claim were true.
So I think we need to rely on two things: 1) that they find and can use the black box from the tail, and, 2) that we now have a President who will tell us the truth, when he know it.
And as a former physicist, I agree with those who noted the lag of the speed of sound against the speed of light. The fact that witnesses "saw" parts come off the plane before they "heard" an explosion doesn't answer the question of which happened first. Commercial airliners fly past the mountain I live on all the time. The sound of their engines trails about 25 degrees behind the point where I see the planes.
Conressman Billybob
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.