remember the plane that exploded, fell apart and dumped people all

[donsu]

over a neighborhood, right after 9/11?

I was watching TV when it happened. they tried to say it came apart because of vibrations but at the time many eyewitnesses said they saw/heard explosion on one part of the plane. and one guy ran up to a reporter on the street and pointed down a block of houses and said the bodies, strapped in the seats, fell out and where piled up at the other end of the block.

one woman was at her kitchen sink and saw/heard the explosion and the plane come apart. another man was driving over the bridge and saw/heard it.

never ever heard these eyewitnesses again or mention of them on the media. everything was hushed up immediately. no pictures of the emergency crews or clean up crews. no interviews of the residents in that neighborhood.

wonder what the victums families have been doing?

why doesn't anyone ever talk about this?

[FoxNewsSucks]

1. I didn't know it exploded

in mid-air. I just remember the news saying that a plane had crashed in NYC, and that it was just coincidental bad luck, not a terrorist thing.

Suppose someone set their shoe-bomb off?

[Benhurst]

2. Who knows?

The truth is the first thing to go.

BushAmerica
And this be our motto:
Root, hog, or die.

[acmavm]

3. Until you posted this I had never heard any of the witness statements.

Where did you see or hear them?

[donsu]

5. CNN right after it happened. CNN never reran that reporters report

if I hadn't seen it I would have never known about it either.

[Warpy]

23. They were reported in online newspapers

but disappeared the same afternoon. If you didn't look quickly enough, you missed them.

There were more than the ones cited here, from cabbies to dock workers to joggers to people just walking down the street.

I have never seen anything hushed up quite so fast before or since.

[LibraLiz1973]

4. It was in October, right? In Queens I think?

I'll NEVER believe that shit was an accident

[donsu]

11. yes, I can't remember if it was Queens or Brooklym, it was right after

takeoff and the plane went over a small bay. they said it was from turbulence from a preceding plane caused it to vibrate apart.

the 2 witnesses were not the only ones to say there was a small explosion first. maybe small is the wrong word. the explosion didn't blow apart the plane just one part of it. other people who didn't see the plane did hear the explosion and looked around and saw the coming apart, falling plane.

CNN hushed it up immediately. they are complicite.

[sabbat hunter]

91. you are not even close

to the story.

the plane didnt vibrate apart from turbulence

the preceding plane caused turbulence. the co-pilot (Who was flying the plane at the time) tried to use the rudder to adjust. due to his overcorrecting/design flaw the tail of the plane broke off.

a commercial plane is not designed to fly without its tail.

when the tail broke off causing the plane to go into a spin. said spin caused the engines to come off the plane due to stress. plane then crashed and exploded


CNN did not hush it up. there have been stories on TV recently about that crash even, as shows are on about 911 and that accident.


remember people, sometimes planes do crash and it has nothing to do with conspiracies, terrorists, etc.

[lonestarnot]

6. I also wondered from time to time why NOTHING more was ever said

about this accident. Just nothing like it never happened.

[AZBlue]

55. Me too.

I never bought their explanation.

[file83]

7. Flight 587

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/17/200515.shtml

[Aviation Pro]

8. No....

...it was a 3-time excessive use of the rudder to full deflection at high speed that caused the Airbus to come apart. Here is the NTSB probable cause:

"On November 12, 2001, about 0916:15 eastern standard time, American Airlines flight 587, an Airbus Industrie A300-605R, N14053, crashed into a residential area of Belle Harbor, New York, shortly after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, New York. Flight 587 was a regularly scheduled passenger flight to Las Americas International Airport, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, with 2 flight crewmembers, 7 flight attendants, and 251 passengers aboard the airplane. The airplane's vertical stabilizer and rudder separated in flight and were found in Jamaica Bay, about 1 mile north of the main wreckage site. The airplane's engines subsequently separated in flight and were found several blocks north and east of the main wreckage site. All 260 people aboard the airplane and 5 people on the ground were killed, and the airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a postcrash fire. Flight 587 was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 on an instrument flight rules flight plan. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program."

Link here: http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20011130X02321&key=1

[Poppyseedman]

14. Excuse me, but no rational explanations are allowed.

It was the BFEE cabal that brought the plane down. What else could it be?

Structural design failures never cause accidents. :crazy:

[Kingshakabobo]

19. Of course, the CTers will deny that an engine can separate in flight.

I got in to a long winded discussion with someone on DU trying to tell me there is no way an engine can separate due to excessive maneuvering - in this case, uncontrolled flight/spin. "It had to be a bomb/missile/BFEE"

[karlrschneider]

42. Don't you know that all plane crashes are part of a hugh* conspiracy?

There are no accidents, the BFEE has caused every accident since the Wright brothers first cracked their Wright Flyer! :eyes:

* sic

[undeterred]

9. I thought it broke apart because of structural defects with the tail

but its been a long time.

[LibraLiz1973]

10. American Airlines Flight 587 (Just did some quick research)

November 12, 2001


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587


http://www.airsafe.com/events/aa587.htm



http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/12/newyork.crash/



http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/aa587.htm
By Peter Gelzinis
Boston Herald
November 13, 2001



ROCKAWAY BEACH, NY — "I will never believe it was an accident. They'll never convince me of that."

Eugene Sanfilippo kept looking past the microphones and notebooks, down 131st Street toward Jamaica Bay and a vision that the rest of us could not see.

It was past three in the afternoon, the sky above this sliver of Queens was clear, but all this lanky, 45-year-old bus mechanic could see was a huge orange ball of flame; he could still feel the unbearable heat; he could hear people screaming; he could taste the acrid black smoke.

And he was still afraid.

"When I heard the explosion, I thought we were under attack," Sanfilippo said.

"My first impression was that they'd hit us with a nuclear bomb. I figured it was just like the World Trade Center. And I watched that burn from the (Jamaica) bay."

Miles away from where Eugene Sanfilippo stood, at the edge of a new Ground Zero, a mayor, a president's spokesman and a slew of FAA officials were urging us to think "accident."

But they were not standing in Rockaway Beach.

They did not lose neighbors and friends across the bay in Manhattan on Sept. 11. Black crepe still hangs here, along with the memories of funerals for roughly 80 cops, firefighters and stockbrokers.

To look into Eugene Sanfilippo's eyes was to see there were no coincidences.

"Every day," he said, "I fear more and more for the safety of my family. Why should we be made to suffer this way?"

Tommy Rayder, who works at JFK Airport, kept looking past the fire barricades, toward a place where the autumn leaves had been burnt off the trees.

The homes that were gone belonged to neighbors Tommy knew, "because in this part of the city, we all know everybody."

"I want to believe it was mechanical. I'm hoping it was an accident. These days," Tommy Rayder sighed, "an accident is what you pray for.

"That's a weird thing to say isn't it? Here, a jet plane comes down in the middle of a neighborhood, and you pray it's an accident because you can't bear to think they'd do it again to us.

"Not here, not in Rockaway. You figure it couldn't happen again cause we already suffered enough."

Standing a few feet away, James Gill tried as best he could to comfort his wife who appeared to be deep in the throes of this new suffering.

"We are up on the Cross Bay Bridge," James Gill said, "driving over from Richmond Hill to look at a house.

"My wife saw the whole thing. What she saw was an explosion, way forward on the engines, sort of just behind the cockpit.

"I had to pull over, just there on the bridge. Amanda was hysterical. She dialed 911 on the cell phone, and just started to scream, `Help me! Help me!'

[LibraLiz1973]

16. Just a bit more.........

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2053
But now comes a wisp of evidence to suggest that AA 587's demise was in fact not an accident but an operation carried out by Al-Qaeda. This information has a complex pedigree:

It is recounted in a top secret Canadian Security Intelligence Service report written in May 2002 and made public on Aug. 27, 2004 by Stewart Bell in Canada's National Post.
Its source is Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, a 22-year-old from St. Catharines, Ontario, said to be of "unknown reliability."
Jabarah in turn is reporting on what he heard from Abu Abdelrahman (a Saudi Al-Qaeda member who worked for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the organization's highest ranking operatives). KSM's information has usually turned out to be reliable.
So, the information that follows is not exactly rock-hard, but it is a real lead.

And this is it: Abu Abdelrahman told Jabarah who told CSIS that

the 12 November 2001 plane crash (btb American Airlines flight 587) in Queens, New York was not an accident as reported in the press but was actually an AL QAIDA operation. Abu Abdelrahman informed Jabarah that Farouk the Tunisian conducted a suicide mission on the aeroplane using a shoe bomb of the type used by Richard Reid.... "Farouk the Tunisian" was identified from newspaper photographs as being identical to Abderraouf Jdey, a Canadian citizen who had resided in Montreal."

Jabarah claimed Jdey used his Canadian passport to board Flight 587 but Jdey was apparently a master of aliases (they include Abd Al-Rauf Bin Al-Habib Bin Yousef Al-Jiddi, Abderraouf Dey, A. Raouf Jdey, Abdal Ra'Of Bin Muhammed Bin Yousef Al-Jadi, Farouq Al-Tunisi, Abderraouf Ben Habib Jeday), so one really has no idea what name he might have flown under that day. Jdey, 39, had emigrated from Tunisia to Canada in 1991, becoming a citizen in 1995. Shortly thereafter, he decamped to Afghanistan where he trained with some 9/11 hijackers and recorded a "martyrdom" video that coalition forces in Afghanistan later found. He did not join the 9/11 mission but was to be part of a second wave of suicide attacks. He remains on the loose, with a worldwide alert for him. The FBI has a "seeking information" notice out for him "in connection with possible terrorist threats in the United States." Of course, if he went down in AA 587's fiery crash, there is little chance of finding him.




http://www.geocities.com/Northstarzone/587.html
When all the mediawhores and government suits told us that the American Airlines flight 587 crash of November 12, 2001 was "an accident," one would only have had to look at the known facts -- overlaid with the Law of Probability -- to know that they were lying. Consider: The federal government is on record as saying the crash was "an accident" -- "some sort of engine failure" -- long before they had the voice recorder or the flight data recorder. Curious and suspicious to a very high degree as it's highly unscientific and unprofessional. This even though they have no records of previous airplane crashes showing such unusual "separation of parts" prior to accidental crashes, on the same or similar planes, as was seen in this so-called "accident." Instead, they specifically, clearly and IMMEDIATELY released statements that break with investigatory patterns involving conclusive statements pointing to causes of previous crashes. Highly suspicious, to say the least.
The engine separated from the plane, as did at least one major section of the airfoil structures (tail fin, shown above, being recovered from the waters off of New York, not long after the crash). Reports from multiple pilots -- including one who witnessed the crash and the engine's separation from the plane -- say they saw 2 explosions, coming from where the fuselage meets the wing. The NTSB's nonsense ignores the fact that experts have NEVER heard of mere engine failure, or turbulence, to make engines and tail fins fly off of airplanes -- in this or any other modern aircraft of its type. The facts point to a clear, unmistakable cover-up.




http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25379

American Airlines Flight 587, which came apart in the air over Long Island and crashed into homes in Rockaway, N.Y., was not an accident.

The tail section and two engines do not fall off by accident.

Like most Americans, I was relieved to hear the tragedy of Flight 587 was not an act of terrorism. Now, failing any contrary evidence, it seems most likely to have been an act of sabotage. My confidence in the same government players who have been feeding us bovine excrement since the downing of TWA Flight 800 has dropped below the perception of nanotechnology.

I recently had a caller to my WorldNetDaily syndicated talk show who identified himself as a United Airlines pilot with over 27-years experience. I asked him three questions:


Have you ever heard of a plane losing the tail section like Flight 587? He said, "No."

Have you ever heard of a plane losing two engines like Flight 587? He said, "No." Although he had heard of one engine dropping off as a result of traumatic weight shifting.

Have you ever heard (in all aviation history) of a situation in which a modern aircraft has lost the tail and two engines spontaneously? He said, "Absolutely not! And if that were possible I'd stop flying."
Statistically, the probability of any commercial airplane losing the tail section the way Flight 587 did is incomprehensible. Statistically, the probability of any commercial airplane losing two engines the way Flight 587 did is equally incomprehensible. To combine two monumentally incomprehensible statistical anomalies doesn't just double the improbability – there would be a compounded geometric explosion of zeros following the decimal point.

Flight 587 was not an accident. We are being told what we want to believe. We are being stroked, conned and b.s.-ed by a government and aviation industry already suffering because – as Jack Nicholson's colonel said in "A Few Good Men" – "You can't handle the truth!"





http://www.geocities.com/mknemesis/airbus.html
With the American Government frantically trying to halt the slide in US stocks and shares brought about by the events of September 11, the last thing it needed was a large Airbus A300-600 crashing into a New York suburb. Unfortunately, shrill government lies combined with predictably hysterical media hype, fly in the face of hard physical evidence available on the day: crucial evidence which proves exactly how the Airbus initially lost control after the take-off roll from John F. Kennedy airport.
Within hours of the crash, the US Army lifted the entire vertical stabilizer of the doomed Airbus out of Jamaica Bay, at a location halfway between JFK and the primary crash scene at Rockaway Beach, shown on the photos and diagrams at the top of this page. For those not familiar with technical jargon, the vertical stabilizer is the big upright piece that sticks up at the back of the aircraft and carries the airline logo. The fact that the entire vertical stabilizer separated from the fuselage is news enough, because such an event is almost without precedence in modern aviation.
Aircraft have lost rudders in the past (the bit at the rear of the vertical stabilizer that moves left and right), and from time to time have lost a “piece” from the top of the vertical stabilizer due to an air strikes by a large bird, or a mid-air collision with another aircraft. But the entire vertical stabilizer? Never, so far as I know.
Put simply, any aircraft other than a highly-specialized “flying wing” that loses its vertical stabilizer is going to crash, because there is absolutely no way the pilot can control it. The vertical stabilizer is the only part of the aircraft which provides lateral stability, meaning the split-second it separates from the fuselage, the aircraft is free to fishtail to the left or right in a completely uncontrollable manner. For example. if you apply more power to the left engine than the right engine, the aircraft will attempt to make a flat turn to the right. If you try to lower the left or right wing, perhaps in an attempt to return to the airport, the aircraft will sideslip into a fatal dive. The only way out of the situation is by ejector seat, unfortunately not fitted to American Airlines Flight 587.
Claims of onlookers on the ground that “an engine came off” just before the aircraft crashed at Rockaway Beach, are entirely believable. By the time Flight 587 reached Rockaway it was completely out of control, subject to almost unbelievably high lateral sheer stresses (whiplash), because the vertical stabilizer was two miles behind the aircraft, back in Jamaica Bay. This whiplash effect with the aircraft in a steep uncontrolled dive, would certainly have been sufficient to shed one or both of the engine pods.

[ewagner]

12. If I recall correctly

the tail section of the plane (an Airbus 300 or 320 I believe) came off and fell into the river. The rest of the plane disintegrated as it came down in a "flat spin".

The loss of the tai section was blamed on an "over-correction" of the ruddere pedals by the co-pilot while flying through wake turbulence of another plane....

what follows is my personal opinion:

BULLSHIT!

If Airbus 3XX series planes are that f-ing fragile, then the FAA should yank their type certificate (certification to fly in US airspace)

As for the "eyewitnesses" they could have very well seen the plane come apart in mid-air....

[file83]

15. Moreover, no passenger jet has EVER crashed due to turbulance from a 747

before, EVER. Yet we are supposed to believe that this coincidence just occured while our nation was under attack that Fall (9/11 and the anthrax attacks)?? I don't.

Another fact: No steel structure building had EVER collapsed due to fire/or damage prior to 9/11. Yet we are supposed to believe that WTC building number 7 collapsed after only a few hours of small sporadic fires and minor structural damage?? I don't.

[ewagner]

20. Just read thru the reports

the FDR (Flight Data Recorder) recorded the lateral forces the plane encountered. It was.4 g's..got it? 4/10th of a g!

Let me reiterate my opinion


BULLSHIT!

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kingshakabobo]

85. The .4 gs mentioned........

.....is in reference to the initial turbulence. It has nothing to do with the lateral force from the rudder reversal/overcorrection or the aircraft slipstream forces.......or the Gs that would be encountered during the uncontrolled spin prior to crash - the spin Gs is what caused the engines to separate.

[Kingshakabobo]

26. No one is saying "turbulence" caused the accident.....

It was the pilot's over reaction to the turbulence, design flaws and inadequate training procedures by American Airlines for that particular aircraft.

[file83]

29. So we are to believe that this pilot is the ONLY pilot EVER to

"over react" with the rudder? BULLSHIT. Think about it.

[Kingshakabobo]

36. I have thought about it.

I've been a private pilot since 1984. I think a lot about plane crashes. As a matter of fact, I've had a morbid fascination with plane crashes since the Chicago flight 191 crash that my father witnessed(he worked for American- he new the captain, Lux). I read the NTSB accident reports all the time. It's a hobby.

Yes, I believe a combination of severe over correction or "rudder reversal" while an aircraft is in a nose down side-slip could cause the aircraft to exceed structural loads below prescribed maneuvering speed.

[FogerRox]

87. A lot of MD-80s had tail Flutter problems, they grounded a bunch of them

Was it the British Constellation..... that lost 2 or 3 to inflight breakup..

[judaspriestess]

94. and planes also take off after a certain amount of time

to avoid the turbulance of the plane taking off before them. Otherwise there would be a whole lot of plane crashes. That 747 was pretty far ahead of the airbus. I'm no mechanic though just a former flight attendant.

[speedoo]

13. It was a tragic accident, nothing more.

There was a lot of attention paid to it here in NYC. The cause of the crash was apparantly the rudder failing and breaking off. (The rudder is the vertical fin at the back of the plane. No rudder and the airplane's stability is fatally impacted.)

The flight was going to the Dominican Republic, from JFK. I have friends from the Dominican, so I paid close attention to the accident and the aftermath.

The accident had nothing to do with 9/11, I am convinced.

[LibraLiz1973]

17. I am convinced of the exact opposite

But, thats life

[onenote]

49. because you have special expertise?

or because you know too little to actually reach an informed conclusion

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

51. Conspiracy theorists crack me up.

So we have 9/11, which was actually not a terrorist attack but was orchestrated by the government... And then we have this crash, which somehow WAS a terrorist attack, then covered up by the government. None of it makes a damn bit of sense.

[karlrschneider]

62. LOL! Good to see your irony meter is well calibrated.

:D

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

63. It's because of my work in the tech industry.

I have access to a good source of raw irony ore.

[karlrschneider]

64. I hear ya.

;-)

[Warren Stupidity]

80. Well actually I believe most of us think that 9-11

was allowed to happen (LIHOP) and not in fact carried out by our own guys (MIHOP). I think that most of us believe that the buildings fell down pretty much as described in the standard narrative from the planes that flew into them.

The case for LIHOP is pretty damn solid. They sure needed an enabling incident to get their war on. How convenient that one just happened along. How convenient that every effort to track those odd arabs learning to fly planes was thwarted. How convenient that the efforts to track al qaeda operations were downgraded. How interesting that officials were advised to avoid commercial aircraft. How astounding that Atta's papers were found in the wreckage of the towers. You coincidence theorists really crack me up.

The OP does not have enough to convince me or others that the airbus did anything other than what the NTSB review said it did.

At some point in the future americans are going to realize that this administration has the blood of 9-11 on its hands. How we deal with the reality of what happened will be most interesting indeed.

[LibraLiz1973]

74. nice- way to attack

I guess your ALWAYS right and no one better disagree with you!!

[karlrschneider]

76. You could have simply answered the question...

:eyes:

Are you saying the crash was caused by terrorists and the government covered it up? Do you have a scintilla of evidence of that?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. Why? n/t

[karlrschneider]

58. May I inquire as to your qualifications to render judgement on this?

Thank you.

[TroglodyteScholar]

18. The "vertical fin"

Actually, the vertical stabilizer is the "vertical fin" and the rudder is the hinged moving part on said vert stab which controls the yaw (side-to-side) motion of the plane's nose.

[ovidsen]

22. An act of God.

If there had been any evidence, however tenuous, that this had been the work of terrorists, you KNOW that the BushBot war machine would have been all over it. Especially so soon after 9/11.

I hope none of your friends lost anyone close to them in this tragedy.

[treestar]

25. IA, you are absolutely spot on and the coverage of every plane crash

or any disaster whatever for at least the first year, if not still, starts out "they don't think it is an act of terrorism." It's like that was the first explanation looked at by the media for any plane crash ever since.

[Kingshakabobo]

86. They are still making that "no terrorism" point ASAP.......

....they just did it after that Kentucky commuter jet crash.

[ldf]

28. no.

the nation was in a near panic.

the LAST thing the bush administration wanted to deal with was having to explain why they allowed yet another terrorist attack to occur.

all of the admin response was a frantic attempt to divert the people's suspicions that it WAS a terrorist attack.

it took many days, many corrected reports and the complete denial of the eye witness accounts, for them to come up with the "g-forces", "air turbulence", "plane fell apart" scenario.

[speedoo]

30. Thanks, None of my friends lost anyone.

But the NYC Dominican community in NYC was devastated.

[file83]

31. Actually, quite the opposite -

- If the government had announced that ANOTHER terrorist had successfully sabotaged a plane so close after 9/11, our economy could have suffered even more and Bush would be blamed. It would have been very politically and economically damaging for our country.

Despite that, I think they shouldn't have covered true cause of this crash up.

[LostinVA]

37. Bingo

[El Zopilote]

21. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about this?

Because it was a Bush cover-up. It was hit by a rocket. Shhhhh!

[zonkers]

27. It gets spoken about plenty in NY. It crashed in a neighboorhood where

many firemen who died in WTC disaster had lived. I never suspected anything strange and unitl was satisfied with explanations. Actually, that plane over long island a few years earlier that went down -- the one which many people witnessed go down due to a surface to air missile, that is one I am skeptical about

\

[treestar]

24. I recall thinking

that perhaps regular plane maintenance was being ignored too much while the focus was totally on terra, terra, terra. That we were being "protected" from exotic threats at the expense of ordinary ones.

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. I wondered why bodies fell from this plane

but apparently not from the plane that crashed in PA.

[donsu]

33. the Pa. plane was blown to small pieces, scattered over miles and

miles of countryside. they are still finding pieces.

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. And what blew it up?

Boxcutters? :)

[Neecy]

34. National Geographic channel just aired a show about this...

On "Seconds from Disaster". It gives a sound scientific explanation of the rudder overcompensation that caused the accident.

Remember, we're supposed to be the rational ones....and it's clear this wasn't an act of terrorism.

[LeftyMom]

38. That's a good show

I haven't seen that specific episode but it's normally well-researched. They handle techinical details really well in terms of expaining them to the layman as well.

[donsu]

39. and the explosion that people saw and heard?

nt

[Kingshakabobo]

41. The engines separated when the plane went in to an......

......uncontrolled spin. It was fire from fuel spray. Engines, like the vertical stabilizer, CAN separate when the aircraft exceeds structural loads. When that plane went in to a spin all bets were off.

Watch the tollbooth video:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/anim_587.htm



Interesting witness statistics:

http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2002/020604.htm

Witness Interviews

The Witness Group has received 349 accounts from eyewitnesses, either through direct interviews or through written statements. An initial summary of those statements follows:

· 52% specifically reported seeing a fire while the plane was in the air, with the fuselage being the most often cited location (22%). Other areas cited as a fire location were the left engine, the right engine or an unspecified engine, and the left wing, the right wing or an unspecified wing.
· 8% specifically reported seeing an explosion.
· 20% specifically reported seeing no fire at all.
· 22% reported observing smoke; 20% reported no smoke.
· 18% reported observing the airplane in a right turn; another 18% reported observing the airplane in a left turn.
· 13% observed the airplane "wobbling," dipping" or in "side to side" motion.
· 74% observed the airplane descend.
· 57% reported seeing "something" separate from the airplane; 13% reported observing the right wing, left wing or an undefined wing separate; 9% specifically reported observing no parts separate.

[Neecy]

78. could be a couple of things....

They have video taken from a toll both that shows a trail of exhaust coming from the plane (and they DID discuss that witnesses claim the plane exploded). It's likely from the engines detaching from their pylons due to the stress on the airframe, causing the fuel tanks in the wings to rupture.

NG will probably run this show several times this month - if you have access to the channel it's worth having a look at.

[Retired AF Dem]

40. My wife was flying back from Germany when that happened

scared the shit out of me.

[Greyhound]

43. And what about the anthrax attacks? I just find it too convenient that

these stories have dropped into the memory hole. I know a person that absolutely convinced that the reason the Democrats have been so cooperative with the cabal, is that they fear for their safety and that of their families, due to the, still unsolved, anthrax attacks.

Is it plausible that the largest airplane manufacturer in the world designed an airframe that will literally fall apart if the pilot does something stupid in the midst of severe turbulence, and that's it? Further, this plane is still being manufactured, though it is scheduled to retire next year.

In this age of obfuscation, consolidation, and blatant collusion, is it any wonder that people are skeptical of "official" explanations of anything?

[karlrschneider]

45. No more of a wonder than the fact that every strange incident is

attributed by some people to a vast conspiracy, facts be damned.

[Greyhound]

47. The lack of facts is the problem. The way everything is done in private,

behind closed doors, until The Official Story is ready for dissemination, and of course the process that creates the line is also secret. It's all the secrecy that has turned our world upside-down. Private lives are an open book for anyone with an ax to grind to look at, but our government is all secret. :crazy:

[karlrschneider]

57. I agree in general but the NTSB is one agency I still trust.

I have worked with them for years and they don't take political shit from anybody. There are MORE than enough shady dealings coming down from Bushco without getting nuts about a conspiracy over every damn incident...plane crashes, controlled demolitions in the WTC, shit like that. When I read this kind of stuff, I am VERY tempted to leave DU - the people who broad-brush us all for what a few nutballs come up with have, I must confess, a point. :grr:

[Greyhound]

60. I am no expert on airframe design, but it does seem strange to me

that the largest manufacturer in the world would produce a plane that is, apparently so vulnerable to uncommon but hardly unheard of circumstances, that it literally falls apart, especially when it is still in production.

Does this make sense to you?

I also find the assertion that the FAA, or any bureaucracy for that matter, is invulnerable to political manipulation, rather hard to believe. After all, they still have to keep the checks coming in like everybody else.
:shrug:

[karlrschneider]

61. The NTSB is not part of or connected to the FAA which IS

very political. Look, if I were inclined, and given the opportunity (to commit suicide), I could
make ANY aircraft break up in flight. It simply isn't possible to design one that can withstand
every conceivable control input. Well, it might be, but it would be WAY too heavy to get off the ground. So there are calculated compromises. The very last thing anybody in the aviation industry wants is for their planes to crash...it ain't good for PR, ain't good for business, ain't good for stockholders, and it's REAL bad for the peeps inside the thing.

[Greyhound]

65. OK, thanks for the reply.

:toast: :kick:

[karlrschneider]

67. Welcome!

:D

[hack89]

82. Research the Comet.

and the DC-10. They were are produced with major design flaws that were discovered only after a bunch of people were killed.

[FogerRox]

88. The British Comet, yeah, I posted upthread it was the Constellationn

Sorry.

[John Q. Citizen]

83. I'm agnostic on this. But no one said "vast" except for you. If you

believe governments are in the business of facts, that's fine. You can believe whatever you want. When the EPA says the air is safe, end of discussion as far as you are concerned. OK. Good luck.

Having said that, it does not mean that this occurrence was anything more than an accident.

But it also doesn't mean that it was an accident.

I see people jumping to judgments on both sides of this. It must be comforting to be so sure of what happened with no real direct knowledge of the occurrence.

You yourself, who claim that it is definitely an accident and the people who claim it is definitely sabotage are like peas in a pod. Perhaps it is your similarities that cause the friction instead of the differences.

[Kingshakabobo]

84. I don't understand your logic????

Are you saying, from 9/11 on, there is no such thing as an "accident"? Do we have to live in limbo-land were there is no truth or scientific explanations for planes crashing? Does it mean we have to believe plane crashes are like Fox news where we have to be "fair and balanced" - one person says accident and the other person says sabotage?

Maybe this was going on before 9/11?

Maybe American flight 191 (chicago 1979) WASN'T due to improper installation procedures of the engine and defective sheer bolts? Maybe it was a conspiracy????

Maybe Eastern flight 212 (charlotte 1974), the flight that killed Stephen Colbert's father WASN'T due to poor visibility/deteriorating weather AND pilots jacking their jaws about non-essential matters during an instrument approach. Maybe it was a pre-conspiracy to silence Colbert????

Are there no accidents? Is that what you are saying? What level of proof do you require?

[John Q. Citizen]

90. Your inability to address the points in my post is tragic, your highness.

Yet telling.

Your attempts to bully and intimidate reflects poorly on yourself.

Your transparent misconstruing of my post raises questions concerning your intelligence and/or your agenda.

And your apparent fixation on 9/11 may indicate a serious personality problem.

Perhaps professional counseling or a chat with your clergy man/women would be helpful.

[Kingshakabobo]

93. LOL. Personal attacks are all the CTers have......

.....when their kookiness is highlighted. Hello kettle.

Did you have a point embedded in your blather? - in your fox newsish "some people say" logic?

[John Q. Citizen]

96. I'd rather be a CTer than a TOG any day........

and I'd rather be a free thinker than a parrot for authoritarian double speak.

But I guess everybody's gotta learn sometime...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688

[Nikki Stone 1]

46. It was over a Rockaway neighborhood, 10 blocks from the cop who

told Osama Binladin to kiss his "Irish ass" on the VH special for New York. A lot was made of the connection at the time.

[Kingshakabobo]

48. One of the victims was a WTC survivor.

Not that it means anything - just trivia.

[Nikki Stone 1]

53. Interesting. And very sad.

Makes you wonder.

[DesertRat]

52. I remember

Why is it never mentioned? It hasn't even been 5 years yet and 260 people lost their lives on that plane.
Other major airline crashes are at least mentioned on the anniversary.

[flyarm]

54. Rockaway NY AMERICAN AIRLINES FLT 587

http://www.geocities.com/mknemesis/airbus.html
A300 AIRBUS


http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/12/timeline/

A timeline for events leading up to and following the crash of American Airlines Flight 587, an Airbus A300, en route from New York to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and carrying 246 passengers and nine crew members:

[flyarm]

56. NTSB REPORT ON AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 587

NTSB - American Airlines Flight 587
American Airlines Flight 587 Belle Harbor, New York November 12, 2001

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/default.htm

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.pdf

[karlrschneider]

59. Thanks. I meant to post the link earlier but got distracted.

KS

[karlrschneider]

66. That geocities link is pretty good. Short and to the point.

One thing that has bothered me some from this crash is that there apparently wasn't much (if any) attention paid to the possibility of "unporting." (Maybe it was discussed but I haven't seen it mentioned in the NTSB report)

Unporting is a rare phenomenon that's basically a divergent 'flutter' of an aerodynamic surface that can be initiated by several things such as a loose bolt, damage to the surface's skin, or improper rigging for example. I can't recall this ever happening to a vertical stabilizer but there have been several crashes from its incidence on the elevator/horizontal tail feathers.

[flyarm]

68. I KNOW MANY OF THE A300 PILOTS WALKED OFF THE JOB DEMANDING

THE XRAYING OF THE TAILS OF ALL A300'S...I RETIRED ( early retirement)fROM AMERICAN..SO THEN I LOST MY ABILITY TO READ THE INTERNAL EMAILS OF PILOTS..about what they were doing after the walking off..

i know there was alot of anger over the bullshit they were being fed on this..

further the day it happened the lady who was running the ntsb went on NY news and said over and over ..that she knew..the pilots knew they were going down because they dumped fuel..well that particular A300 had no capability to dump fuel and many of us were screaming it at the tv ,.then Pataki repeated the same bullshit over and over..


many of us were extremely angry at the bullshit coming out of the so called authorities.

that is when i decided to retire..i value my life.

fly

[karlrschneider]

70. I don't believe any of them actually "walked off". My very first

flight instructor (just retired too) was an AA captain (chief test pilot at the TUL maint base, actually) told me that a few 'threatened' to but he didn't know of any who actually did. Anyway,
I'm not sure x-raying them would be all that useful as they're made of composites. Maybe you already know this, but the tail feathers on large jets are held together with really small bolts and the
ones that hang the engines aren't much larger (1/2 inch or less).

[flyarm]

92. NO ACTUALLY MANY OF THE A300 PILOTS DID WALK OUT..

NOT FOR LONG BUT THEY ACTUALLY DID...

THEY WANTED THE TAIL SECTIONS XRAYED TO SEE IF THERE WERE HAIRLINE FRACTURES..

they did it mostly because they didn't believe the story they were being told..

understand the pilots were pissed because if indeed the tail broke off and if indeed it was a mechainical failure..why were all A300's not grounded??

look into Alaska Airlines crash ..and the bolt..all S80's were grounded and all of the Bolts in S80's of all airlines were checked ..the same bolt that failed in the Alaska Airlines crash

American's pilots were pissed that all A300's were not grounded for inspection!

but of course most were not buying the official story..that was decided by the FBI 1/2 hour after the crash....yes 1/2 hour after the crash..that it was not terrorism...

now how could the FBI make that determiniation?? in 1/2 hour before anything was recovered from the crash and inspected??

yes there were composite delamination problems with the A300's

but it wasn't just the tail that came off that aircraft..it was the tail and... not one... but 2 engines!

now no wake vortex could cause that..


and it was ignored by our media and government officials that there were two eye witnesses who both saw the same thing..they saw a small than a larger explosion on that aircraft..and they weren't any old witnesses...one was a firefighter, and the other a policeman!

and both saw the identical thing!

there was a camera on a nearby bridge..that the FBI confiscated immediately..yes the FBI..not the NTSB...the camera and the tape..why the FBI when all evidence of an air accident belongs to the ntsb?? exculsively!


why was the a300-600 series not immedately grounded??

ask this government that because it was legally required ..yes legally required ..if the government's official story is correct..unless our government knrew they were lying...

normal operational proceedures would have been to ground all A300-600's and do black light inspections of the stabilizer spars, the panels, the attachment pins, and the bolts and other critical parts of those aircraft

but that was not done..

so our pilots took it into their own hands, as long as they could and they were demanding these test be done...

they did not stay out long but they were attempting to make a point.


FLY

[hedgehog]

69. I wouldn't trust eyewitness reports of an accident.

I've witnessed auto accidents that happened in front of me and lightning strikes. I wasn't really paying close attention until after the incidents started. I can tell you that it is easy to remember events out of sequence and also to have difficulty categorizing the sounds. The woman at the sink may have seen the plane come apart and then remembered hearing an explosion bercause she would have expected an explosion. She may have heard something, then remembered what she heard as an explosion because the brain tries to fit new data into known categories. She's not lying, but her memory is an analysis of what she saw and heard, not a video recording.

[karlrschneider]

71. Good point. I worked my way through college as a cop...

It was part of the training at the police academy for a guy to burst into the classroom waving a gun
and accusing one of the recruits of screwing his wife and threatening to kill him (I knew this beforehand, having several good friends who were cops already) - then running out of the room.

The 'test', obviously, was for us all to write down a description of the guy. The results were predictably shocking...some said he was wearing a green shirt, others said red. Estimates of his
height & weight varied from 120 to 200 pounds and 5-8 to 6-2 tall. And this from a group with
supposedly some ability to observe accurately. It don't work that way.

I saw a B-47 bomber come apart in midair and crash over Tulsa one day. Was actually watching it
fly over precisely as it happened (about a mile horizontally from me.) Afterward, I could
hardly recall any details and neither could the 3 or 4 other guys next to me who were looking at it the same time.

Edit: By the way, there is some very good discussion here at
http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthread.php?mode=hybrid&t=53276

[hedgehog]

72. I read of a wonderful experiment in Scientific American Mind

The subjects are shown a film of a group of people passing several basketballs back and forth and instructed to count how many times the white ball changes hands. Amazingly, no one who watches the film notices that a person dressed in a gorilla suit walks through the scene! I wouldn't have believed it myself but I showed my daughters the film and neither saw the gorilla!

[karlrschneider]

75. Just like how too many of us are overlooking the elephant in the

living room. Bah.
(That's fascinating, though)...

[newyawker99]

73. I saw the same program. The plane crashed due to the

way the pilot was trying to stabilize the
plane. When the tail of the plane broke off
the plane crashed. As I recall there were some
interviews after the crash.

[sakabatou]

77. Never even heard of this...

Of course, I wasn't as into the news back then...

[RandiRhodesArchives]

79. What I find odd is...

...there's no video of this, which is kinda odd in this day and age where EVRYONE has a camcorder. But I'm sure someone did tape it and the tapes are in the same wearhouse as the tapes of whatever crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.

[RamboLiberal]

81. I don't know if this was terrorism or a problem with the Airbus

But I call it BS that this was the copilot's fault on the rudder. On a takeoff climb the plane shouldn't shed it's tail because of the copilot's use of the rudder. I believe there is either a problem with this particular plane in the tail (and if I remember right from what I read in book about this that I will list) this particular plane did have a problem at the factory or shortly afterwords with the tail attachment. It could also be a problem with the composites in this tail. Airbus I believe is the first to use these in critical flight surfaces. And I believe there is some issue in delaminating. I still have the book but it's down at my office. More knowledgeable DU'ers in airframes and commerical pilots may be able to further my layman's knowledge here.

Do some googles on composites in airplane tail structures.

The composite material used in the doomed aircraft was a carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic -- which, like most composites, is much lighter and stronger than a like amount of aluminum. The Airbus A300 pioneered the use of composites in the early 1980s, and both Airbus and Boeing have used them increasingly since then. The new Boeing 777, the most modern passenger aircraft flying, is significantly made up of composites.

Blakey announced American's planned inspection of all 24 of the tail fins on its Airbus A300-600 fleet. She also said the FAA was sending its chief scientist to the Flight 587 scene to study the possible relevance of composite materials. FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said that if the scientist and other FAA officials find that more inspections or corrective actions are needed in other parts of the aircraft industry, "the FAA will mandate that immediately."

Hans Weber, an airline engineering expert in San Diego, said most airliners still have metal tails. He also said that although the composite tails on Airbus planes are made with carbon fiber, the composition of that fiber has been constantly evolving as the plane maker tries to keep costs down. Composite tail structures are five times more expensive than aluminum -- $1,500 a pound compared with $240 a pound.

Weber also noted that the composite tails can be repaired, but that in most cases when damage involves a primary structure, they are not readily repairable and are often discarded. The layering, bonding and curing of the materials, he said, have to be just right -- and they have to be inspected more often than aluminum tails.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31476-2001Nov14?language=printer

The tails of all the aircraft to be inspected are made of a composite material -- thousands of layers of carbon fibers and plastics -- that can separate under excessive force. After the crash, the F.A.A. ordered visual inspections of other A300-600's, but the six selected planes are to be examined using ultrasound equipment. That requires removing the tails, an unusual procedure. The inspection will take several days for each plane.

Les Dorr, a spokesman for the agency, said that the other jets to be inspected belong to Federal Express; Air France; Tarom, the Romanian airline; and the German air force. The German plane originally belonged to an East German airline, Interflug.

The planes, A300's and A319's, were selected jointly by the F.A.A.; its French equivalent, the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile; the National Transportation Safety Board, which is handling the investigation of Flight 587; and Airbus.

Mr. Dorr said that the agency planned to publish a new rule, probably late next week, requiring inspection of planes that experience strong side-forces.

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F10B11FD345D0C758DDDAA0894DA404482

I recommend this book as a source on the crash. 93 Seconds to Disaster: The Government's Great Cover-up (Paperback) by Captain Brian Power-Waters XIII

From Amazon.com

“Sew another stripe on the arm of Captain Brian Power-Waters as the Conscience-in-Chief of America’s flying industry. In 93 Seconds to Disaster, the story of the tragic post-9/11 crash of American Airlines A-300 Airbus flight 587 in Queens, NY, he takes us inside the cockpit on the fateful morning of November 12, 2001 as the plane gets caught in bone-jarring wake turbulence from the 747 in front of it. Stacking up facts, figures, black box transcripts, and his own profound expertise, Power-Waters criticizes the NTSB for its rush-to-judgment conclusion that the co-pilot caused the breakup of the plane. The author cites reports of ‘popping noises’ and shedding of plane parts after takeoff, and believes the Airbus either was not airworthy before takeoff or there was an explosive device on board. Power-Waters’ probe flatly concludes that Airbus covered up evidence of the extreme sensitivity of the plane’s rudder. He hammers at airlines, accuses the FAA of ‘sleeping with the airlines’, and once again tests the air industry’s commitment to safety. A must read!”

—Alex Michelini, former Chief Investigative Reporter, New York Daily News

“If you think your airline captain is trained to recover from any position that the airplane might encounter, you’d be wrong.”

—Carl T. Butterworth, Senior Captain, American Airlines, Ret. Brig. Gen. (ANG)

“Thanks for writing your excellent book concerning the tragedy of American Airlines Flight 587. In it, you have raised questions that need to be addressed, and in doing so, you have helped make the rest of the world aware of these questions.”

—Andrew J. Michalak, Captain, American Airlines (Ret.)

[FogerRox]

89. I am going to watch the Toll Booth video again

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/tollbooth01.wmv

The first time I watched it, I saw the plane start to descend as the white smoke shows up...

On edit....What I'm seeing is an object in apparently level flight.... the object emits white smoke, and dives at the same point.

[HuffleClaw]

95. the one that crashed just after takeoff from JFK ?

yeah, a fireman reported an explosion. it got hushed up real fast. they called it an 'accident' in about fifteen minutes.