Posted on 11/17/2001 10:58:21 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
Saturday, Nov. 17, 2001 11:39 a.m. EST Flight 587 Video Shows 'Puff of Smoke' in Sky A second-by-second videotape of the final moments of doomed American Airlines Flight 587 shows a puff of smoke in the sky seconds after it crashed outside New York's JFK Airport Monday, lending credence to eyewitnesses who say the jetliner exploded before slamming into a Rockaway, N.Y., neighborhood. Though Flight 587 probers have not released the key videotape, shot from a Metropolitan Transportation Authority highway surveillance camera, reporters from New York's Daily News were allowed to view it Friday. "The tape ... shows a white outline of the jetliner against a clear sky in fairly steep decline," the News reported in Saturday editions. "Seconds later, the outline disappears and the video shows a blurry, white, undefined patch as the plane apparently breaks apart." Visible in one of the final frames of the sequential videotape is "a puff of white smoke in the sky." The images of Flight 587's final moments are said to be "very unclear." FBI and NTSB investigators hope to learn more through video enhancement techniques. On Friday, MTA spokesman Tom Kelly told NewsMax.com that the FBI had turned the videotape over to the NTSB, but apparently both agencies now have copies and continue to analyze them. Enhancement of the Flight 587 video could confirm the accounts of eyewitnesses like Jackie Powers, who, minutes after the crash, told both ABC News and WABC Radio in New York that she saw "an enormous flash" near the wing on the A-300 Airbus before it dropped from the sky. "I don't know if it was fire or an explosion," she said. "It appeared that debris fell from the left side [of the plane]. It just plummeted. It had no momentum whatsoever. It just plummeted." Dozens of other witnesses told various media outlets they saw the jet either explode or catch fire before it crashed. An explosion would be a problem for NTSB officials, who spent the better part of the last few days trying to sell the idea that the plane's vertical stabilizer snapped off, causing the in-flight breakup, because of "wake turbulence" from a Japan Airlines 747 that had taken off from JFK two minutes earlier. Independent aviation experts have generally scoffed at the NTSB theory. "[747 wake turbulence] is not strong enough to be able to break off a tail or to compromise any sort of a normal airplane," said ABC News aviation analyst John Nance on Friday. "They could turn a little airplane upside down. But especially an A-300, which is a jumbo jet - no way in the world should that ever have any potentially disastrous impact on the aircraft or the tail," he explained. On Wednesday, an unnamed aviation expert quoted in New York's Newsday said one likely explanation for Flight 587's breakup was a bomb exploding on board. (See: Aviation Expert: Bomb One Likely Cause of Flight 587 Crash.)
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
TWA 800
War on Terrorism
Why would this be a problem,? Thought they were just trying to find out the truth. Since when is truth a problem? Oh, I know, when it conflicts with propaganda.
The fact that eyewitnesses saw either explosion or fire is not being brought forward by anyone in the mainstream press as a counter to the "wake turbulance" theory.
Was this so that the public would fly over the holidays, though? Support the airline industry, etc.?
That goes along with a question I have had all along, to which I have not heard anything from the media or government: Were there any Arabs who were hired as maintenance workers and worked on this plane? Did this person/people, come under the "grandfather" clause that existed (may still exist) and not have to go through security screening because he was hired prior to a certain year (I think it was 1997, not sure). If this is a possibility, then sabotage is also a possibility, either that day, the day before, or a month before.
IMHO, the explosion ocuured first. It threw the plane VIOLENTLY sideways or even caude the plane to turn sideways against the wind. The resultant forces caused the composite tail section to give way.
Without a rudder or vert stabiliser, the engines became free to thrust in any direction as the plane twisted in another, causing both engines to shear from their mounts.
The question is, what is the nature of the explosive which caused the initial "sharp turn to the left."
The tail fell off as a result of wake turbulance and fatigue, then the engines broke off as a result of a flat spin.
No bomb, no missle, no Martians, no sabatage.
They are not going to ground all similar aircraft for mechanical inspections if they know it was not caused by mechanical failure. If they call for a major grounding, then I'll be convinced it was mechanical.
Mechanical failure of what, though? Simply because there may have been some kind of mechanical failure does not rule out intentional mechanical failure.
Personally, I don't think anyone has yet proved anything of any importance, whether the theory is mechanical failure, structural failure, sabotage, bomb, whatever.
Bumping for the conspiracy theory. LOL! Really I'm serious. I don't think this was an accident.You aren't alone. There are a LOT of folks on FR and the general public that are skeptical regarding the reports coming out of the government. That would include me. I'm patient and will wait and see what the "investigations" reveal. The government needs to make sure that TRUTH takes the wheel and "pampering the baby" is not done. The government can hurt us worse by thinking they are doing the right thing by giving us false information with the thought of not causing a general panic. (Or, even worse yet, just a flat-out coverup!). "XXX" as it goes on the game show "Family Feud". Wrong answer!
I'm hoping that Bush will insert his bully pulpit into this and make SURE the wrong thing doesn't happen here regarding this tragedy. . .
Thanks for your input!
But I thought I read yesterday that they were going to be either grounding all Airbuses or checking them all before they could fly.
Perhaps you'd like to explain just WHY the pictures in your link are PROOF?
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.