With all due respect, the cause is not unexplained. I would offer that many do not accept the largely fact-based explanation currently offered.

Beyond timing, circumstance and eye-witness observations, there IS NO defitinitive evidence pointing to sabotage by 'terrorists'. There is, however, considerable, verifiable evidence of a normal take off, a normal turn, an encounter with a strong wake, a second wake encounter, sudden lateral acceleration (odd in flight) loss of control, destruction of the airframe in the air by shearing forces, and loss of the aircraft by impact and fire.

While I accept the emotional response to point to terrorism, I have yet to see evidence of it, beyond the testimony of eye witnesses who saw and heard 587 in its death throes. As a hobby I work with 'eye witnesses' at amateur and pro road races who must write up what they observed (as they work as race track safety officials and are TASKED WITH watching the race) when there is an accident on the track. I would tell you that unless the various folks confer, that the eye witness reports seldom match, even when the incident happens on the turn right in front of them. Nobody is lying, it's just the way the human mind processes fast-acting events and images. If the EVIDENCE does not match the eye witness testimony (like "he hit him hard in the right rear fender", but the left rear is damaged) then you must discount the testimony.

Point is, in summary, the physical and digital evidence do NOT indicate an explosion as the initiator. There would likely be fires as the plane tore itself apart.

Flame away if you must, but present verifiable evidence with your position. Res ipsa loquitor.

Thanks for a voice of sanity.

Don't you think, though, that the A300 series should be grounded?

The tail is not supposed to fall off.

THanks. The A300s are currently 'grounded' for inspection, by American Airlines, voluntarily, and also by a recently issued AD from the FAA. The A300 has endured a lengthy series of ADs (think of them as TSBs or recalls) to deal with 'rudder desynchronization' that could lead to stress damage. A real harbinger of what happened, if you ask me.

To your point, I do not fly Airbus equipment domestically, 'cuz I have choices. Also 'cuz I used to work for Lockheed, and 'know better' than to fly on first generation, ripped-off designs.

When this is all said and done, it's gonna point to Airbus Industries, because American Airlines will be able to point out they complied with all the ADs, and the tail (and engines!) still separated from the airframe under aerodynamic stress.

Think of it as "Genuine GM parts" ... with a C-note attached. ;-)

Excerpts from some of the"unreliable" witnesses as told to CNN:

Eyewitnesses have spoken of their horror at seeing an Airbus A300 crash into a residential area of New York. Witnesses reported seeing a fire or explosion on one side of the aircraft as an engine fell off.

Ethan Moses said he had seen the plane climbing in the sky after take-off.

It was travelling to the left slightly and then it just nose dived straight down

The wing appeared to separate from the rest of the plane, which veered to the left and then plunged into a nose dive, he said.

"It was travelling to the left slightly and then it just nose dived straight down," Mr Moses said, adding that fire spread on the ground, moving from house to house within seconds.

David Solero was driving over a bridge by Rockaway when he saw fire on the left hand side of the plane.

He told CNN: "We looked up and saw the fire coming from the left hand side - it could have been an explosion."

Other witnesses told reporters that the fire or explosion was on the right hand side of the plane.

Mr Solero added: "It could have been the engine was on fire.

I was scared it was going to veer towards us and hit us - we stopped dead in our tracks

"I was scared it was going to veer towards us and hit us - we stopped dead in our tracks.

"We saw something fly off the plane."

Just to be clear-- I do not lke to call the reports or the people making them unreliable, rather refer to them as unverifiable. Most of those comment listed ring true, actually. As far as I have read, though, neither wing separated prior to impact. Fire I believe, as well as the roll to the left and parts flying off.

It's when people read these eye witness reports and then infer TERRORISM o their own that I get hostile.

If the NTSB doesn't release corroborating data with the events, smell a rat.

Agreed

There's very little chance that wake turbulence caused the motion described. Wake turbulence can be a jolt, or series of jolts, not an airframe rattle.

Agreed. The airframe rattle was the VS/rudder beginning its failure

The rudder movement is also wrong for wake turbulence. A direction change would be a function of a wing dropping, with corrective aileron input, not a rudder deflection.

While absolutely admitting I have never piloted a swept wing jet, turbine driver friends of mine tell me that roll can be countered with rudder, and vice versa, rudder causes some roll in a swept wing jet.

The "yaw damper" may cause approximately a 3-degree rudder deflection, but nothing that radical.Flutter in the rudder or deflection of the VS may be the culprit

As described, the side load sounds radically more like rudder movement than wake turbulence. The comment about the wake turbulence sounds like pilot speculation. I'm also curious why the copilot has been identified, but not the captain - that I've heard.Co-pilot was PIC on take off and departure

"If that's their finding AFTER thorough investigation, fine. But, I find it a little disturbing that they have reportedly reached that conclusion in a matter of days, particularly since those of us who watched the briefings this week got the sense that they had apparently reached that conclusion within 24 hours after the crash."

I agree. I am still leaning toward an accident but I smell a rat.

Look at the pictures. It was mechanical failure. photos

I feel as if this was an accident, but after TWA Flight 800, it was proven that you just can't trust our government for the truth on anything.

The photos don't indicate any delamination except the right forward joint and it isn't frayed. Everything points to catastrophic failure due to elongation tensile forces at the mounting holes. I believe the failures at the mounting holes are the result of a design flaw. I'm extremely surprised at the lack of titanium or stainless steel doublers around the six mounting holes to distribute both shear and tensile forces.

It isn't an "emotional" response to point to terror, it's called playing the odds. For example, what are the odds of it being coincidence that the wife of the first victim of the anthrax attack rented an apartment to Mohammed Atta? Hence "domestic terror" is baloney. It could happen, but the odds are very much against it. Same thing with 587: Osama said planes would crash, witnesses saw an explosion and/or fire, New York is his favorite target, and W and the UNGA are in town. What are the odds? OTOH, if there was an explosion, breaking up in midair is not just possible, but likely.

Correct: The vert stab was pulled off the plane. What can do that without damaging the vert stab? Air load. What can break the engines off? Same thing. Wing? Same thing. The problem is, of course, that if these structural failures have a common cause, they probably happened all at the same time, especially since everything happened so quickly. Look at those carbon fiber mounts. I bet they are stronger than the engine mounts. Something else was the starting event. Then air load caused the plane to come apart.

The reason there is no metal in the holes in the carbon fiber is that it is not needed. The carbon fiber is not "squeezed" by the bolts (or pins) that hold it in place. Unless the bolt (or pin) has a surface that could chafe the carbon fiber (which might be very resistent anyway - they make racing car brakes from carbon fiber) there would be no need for a collar or lining. Look out for "experts" that push the theory the bolts were over-torqued. They have never engineered such a structure.

I do not dispute the individual pieces of your reply, I just cannot infer a chain of logic that demonstrates that THIS tragedy was terrorism.

I believe it could be terrorism.

At this point, the verifiable evidence points to other causes.

BUT, terrorism is not to be ruled out yet, just put way down the list.

"The vert stab was pulled off the plane. What can do that without damaging the vert stab? Air load.

Actually, air would exert equal pressure over the surface of the VS. It would not be damaged like a hammer struck it.

The VS was pushed (not pulled) off the empennage by airpressure. Air pressure could do that because the attachment points were weak.(<-- hypothesis)

Were they weakened by a bomb? Not likely at this point. Were they already weak? Probably. What caused the airplane to get so sideways that the VS could be pushed/snapped off? Therein lies the real debate: pilot error, explosion, wake turbulence, rudder flutter, or the VS just fell off in wind shear.

FReegards,