Flight 587 cover-up?

[bitSLAP]

I'm almost willing to bet money that the NTSB will conclude flight 587 was downed by turbulence. Already, the politically correct news sources have all but bought into the NTSBs agenda. I'm completely pissed off about this.

I'm also seeing exactly what happened with TWA 800. Eyewitnesses are being ignored, and the NTSB couldn't care less what they think.

I doubt we'll hear any more about the gaping hole in the engine.

And finally, ask any pilot and they'll tell you this turbulence explanation is probably nonsense. 90 seconds between planes, which is the closest the two Jets could've come, leaves sufficient space before wake turbulence poses a threat.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this?

[Splitfire]

My thoughts are who would YOU like to think brought down this jet? And why do you think that? And why do you think that NTSB would lie about it? And what reason would they have to lie? And what websites have you gotten your information from?

[tyler_durden]

first, just because the news reports it doesn't mean its true. the media will say just about anything they can. i doubt they really know whats going on in the investigation. my guess is that any claims that they have found the cause are speculation just to keep the press busy.

second, sure, turbulance by itself may not be too dangerous for a plane, but if there was a mechanical failure, that would be enough to take it past the breaking point. there have been cases were a normal expected strain caused serious failure. for example, a hawaii air flight had the whole top of the cabin rip off in flight b/c of the preassure difference. now sure, there was a mechanical problem as well, but that plus the preassure difference led to the problem. the same could be true for this.

third, what the heck is the motivation for running this conspiracy, honestly, if they though (or had proof) that it was terrorism, they prolly wouldn't say anything at all. it usually takes months before they have any difinitive reason for the crash.

as for TWA flight 800, my dad has done flight investigation (STUT UP STEVE!! I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE THINKING) for the airforce. he said you cant always rely on eye witness acounts. for example, an f4 crash in korea that he investigated was caused by a pin not being correctly locked that prevented the wing from folding. it folded at takeoff, the plane flipped over and crashed into the ground. my dad says about a dozen witnesses (all military people who are around planes) said they saw the plain crash bottom down. this was simply not the case.

i cant spell, sorry

[FlyingPenguin]

First of all this is VERY preliminary. It may take a year to complete the investigation.

And for crying out loud - eye witnesses are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable in airplane crashes.

You can't deny the fact that they found the tail in the bay and that the vertical fin and elevators broke off in flight BEFORE the crash - or do you think they made that up? (and while we're at it, do you think NASA faked the moon landings too?)

What agena would the government have for covering anything up in this situation?

[WeekendWarrior]

Its hard to say until we here more info but I am suspicous as are most people.
Why?
well I think that with the beefed up security it might be harder for terrorists to hijack a plane right now so they might have just tampered with the engines at the airpost.
they do have people inside the airports...
Or it might have been a flock of birds hit the engine I heard.
hard to say yet...

[bitSLAP]

I'd LIKE to think it was an accident, but it's irrelevant what I'd like to think, or what any of the other airline ticket consumers would like to think.

I think the NTSB would (supress the truth) to protect the stock market, and the airlines, and the other government agencies who's job is to prevent this kind of tragedy. I've followed the TWA 800 investigation very closely, and there is no doubt in my mind that they had an agenda other than finding the real cause behind the crash.

In terms of flight 587, I got most of my information from the tv. Between 3 different news stations I've watched since the crash, I've managed to find out a lot of information. I saw the eyewitnesses myself, and I saw the hole in the engine. I've also read the Ottawa Citizen, and the various websites such as CNN and newsmax. The Toronto Star says it pretty clearly here:

http://www.torontostar.ca/NASApp/cs/Con ... 8793972154

While they won't admit they've made up their minds, the NTSB is already hauling out of New York. Open-Shut case.

So while I don't know exactly what went on, I DO think the NTSB is probably blowing smoke up our a$$es...

The main questions I have based on my (albeit limited compared to the NTSB) knowledge are:

What was the explosion that multiple eyewitness accounts confirm? Jet fuel is not that volatile.

Why was there a hole in the right engine?

Why does the airplane experience two airframe shudders? The wake turbulance produced by airliners is fairly consistant. I doubt it would stop for 8 seconds.

Why didn't recent A-frame check find any flaws in the tail? The Vertical stabalizer was previously re-enforced, and would be a particular object of scrutiny. Also, the A-300 has a steller mechanical record. Not ONE has went down for mechanical reasons.

Added just a note: While birds can cause damage, and have brought planes down before, the even is fairly unlikely because the engine has a kevlar sheild, protecting the rest of the plane in the event of a catastrophic engine failure.

[Slugbait]

It took awhile, but they figured out that a worn jack screw brought down an Alaska Airlines plane. Had never happened before (to my recollection...). As good as planes can be, one flaw can can break the chain link, and it can be either missed or ignored during a routine inspection.

Sometimes planes crash. And it's usually for a different reason each time. I'll admit, when I first heard about the story, I thought "terrorists". But I'm leaning toward the explanation of it being an unfortunate accident...planes won't stop going down just because we stepped up security and awareness after 9/11.

[Splitfire]

There is just too much material here to work with. First...

my dad has done flight investigation (STUT UP STEVE!! I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE THINKING) for the airforce.

My dad... err sorry. j/k Sorry, had to get the cheap shot in bud! Anyways, moving along...

I've followed the TWA 800 investigation very closely, and there is no doubt in my mind that they had an agenda other than finding the real cause behind the crash.

And what agenda would that be? Covering up the aliens?

...I got most of my information from the tv.

Well there is your first problem.

Between 3 different news stations I've watched...

There is problem number 2. [edit] I'll remove the cheap shot [/edit]

I've managed to find out a lot of information.

I find that hard to believe if you've only watching TV. And even if that is true, how is your information some how better than that of everyone else in teh free world who has been watching TV also?

I saw the eyewitnesses myself...

I'm a ibt confused by this statement. Are you saying that you were in Queens that day?

I've also read the Ottawa Citizen, and the various websites such as CNN and newsmax.

All HIGHLY reputable sources for unbiased reporting.

What was the explosion that multiple eyewitness accounts confirm? Jet fuel is not that volatile.

True jet fuel isn't highly volatile, but it still will catch fire. One simulation that I saw on the news <i>*GASP!*</i> said that the engines could have been sheared (?sp) off after the plane lost its rudder and vertical stabilizers. If the fuel lines were shredded, which would be probable if this were the case, the combination of the fuel and sparks from the disintegrating airframe could have easily ignited the fuel that would now be rushing out of the lines. (Remember the Concorde fireball?)

Why was there a hole in the right engine?

Any number of things comes to mind including, but not limited to, debris from the airframe, hitting something on the way down (like a bird), or ground debris.

Why does the airplane experience two airframe shudders? The wake turbulance produced by airliners is fairly consistant. I doubt it would stop for 8 seconds.

Admittedly I am no expert, but I can come up with two plausible explanations off the top of my head. 1) The first shudder was the turbulence and the second was the vert. stabilizer coming off. 2) The first shudder was the initial fracture of the airframe causing a loss of control, and the second was the stabilizers shearing off. Either seems reasonable to me, although the second sounds more plausible.

Why didn't recent A-frame check find any flaws in the tail? The Vertical stabalizer was previously re-enforced, and would be a particular object of scrutiny.

Did all of your quality research also tell you that this very plane had problems 8 months ago with its vertical stabilizers in flight? I don't remember the details, but I heard it on the news, so I'm sure you probably heard it also.

Also, the A-300 has a steller mechanical record. Not ONE has went down for mechanical reasons.

There has to be a first time for everything. A "stellar mechanical record" in no way means that it is 100% fail safe.

[bitSLAP]

Heh Splitfire. Always a pleasure...

And what agenda would that be? Covering up the aliens?

Perhaps, if they were in a boat and fired a missle at the aircraft.

...I got most of my information from the tv.
Well there is your first problem...

Actually I trust live television more than any other news medium. They don't have time to make it into something it isn't. While "first reports" are definitely not accurate, I can see what the story was initially, and how it developed into what it is now.

find that hard to believe if you've only watching TV. And even if that is true, how is your information some how better than that of everyone else in teh free world who has been watching TV also?

HELLO? Did I not say I also read the Ottawa Citizen, the Toronto Star, and god forbit CNN. While Newmax is definately not credible, they aren't afraid to post uncredible news, which touches on the point of censorship and politcal correctness. I also have an aviation background.

I'm a ibt confused by this statement. Are you saying that you were in Queens that day?

That question was unnecessary, stupid, just doesn't deserve dignification. I see what you're saying, but you already knew what I was saying.

the combination of the fuel and sparks from the disintegrating airframe could have easily ignited the fuel

Granted. I just can't see turbulence shearing an engine off in a manner that would cause the wing to be instantly engulfed in flames. The fuel blows back, not to the side. But that's beond the point.

Any number of things comes to mind including, but not limited to, debris from the airframe, hitting something on the way down (like a bird), or ground debris.

So wait, let me get this straight. A bird (or object) flew into a falling engine and punctured a hole in the side? What debris from the airframe might've flown perpendicular to the fuselage into the engine?

this very plane had problems 8 months ago with its vertical stabilizers in flight

No actually that's interesting. I didn't hear that after obtaining news from six different sources, all of which would have maid a big deal of it had that been the case, don't you think?

in no way means that it is 100% fail safe

Granted, again. But we are always playing a game of odds, and the odds were in this aircraft's favour.

BTW,

he said you cant always rely on eye witness acounts.

There were over 200 people who witnessed flight 800 go down. Among them where very credible witnesses.

You are still missing my main point though. It's not up to me or you to decide what really happened. I want the NTSB to show me what happened, in an objective manner. Instead they say "all evidence so far points toward an accident", which means that they've thrown out the little details that are perplexing me still.

[Kakarot]

I also have an aviation background.

Aren't you like a teenager or something?

Another detail that hasn't been mentioned here is that the pilot started dumping jet fuel while over the water... indicating he knew something was wrong or that he was going down....

[tyler_durden]

EDITIED. VERSION 2.0

ok, here we go, at the top.....

Perhaps, if they were in a boat and fired a missle at the aircraft.

sure, and what witnesses saw this missile shooting into the sky. how could they all see the explosion but not see the missile shoot up. they leave a large trail of smoke.

second, missle explosons are nasty. they don't actually make contact with their target, they explode next to their target. this would have blown LARGE chunks off of the airplane and wing. the plane would have blow into many pieces. this is what happened with the twa flight plane. an engine didn't blow off, the whole wing and midsection exploded. (whether by a missle or not is besides the point)

second, what is the terrorist motivation to shoot this down (or even twa 800). terrorist like events that are very public and very messy. this one was neither. even if there was a missle that shot down twa 800, they would have realized that it never got press.

third, the air force has been flying conitinous air coverage with awacs. they would have detected a missile. i am sure this would come out.

Actually I trust live television more than any other news medium. They don't have time to make it into something it isn't. While "first reports" are definitely not accurate, I can see what the story was initially, and how it developed into what it is now.

ok, i don't trust any of the news media. i think any conclusions that the ntsb is making publicly is being pressured by the press. i seriously doubt they are making any decisions as to the cause for a long period of time.

the media tends to be very uncredible when making judgments as to why these types of things tend to happen.

Granted. I just can't see turbulence shearing an engine off in a manner that would cause the wing to be instantly engulfed in flames. The fuel blows back, not to the side. But that's beond the point.

ok, now were are arguging specifics of how the plane "exploded". i have yet to see ANY specific eye witness accounts as to how this expleded sidways, backwards ect.

There were over 200 people who witnessed flight 800 go down. Among them where very credible witnesses.

again, i doubt these are credible. (my above mentioned story)
but even if its true, i doubt this has a huge barring on the current investigation. there arn't 200 eye witness accounts, and i doubt they are in agreement of anything. let me know when you have interviewed them and have credible accounts.

I want the NTSB to show me what happened, in an objective manner. Instead they say "all evidence so far points toward an accident", which means that they've thrown out the little details that are perplexing me still.

i think you are taking their quote out of context. at this point in the investigation, i think they are saying there is no direct link to terrorism. they arn't gonna call this an open and close case by the end of the week. they won't come to a final decision for months.


my point is simply of a couple of comments have been made about the investigaion, prolly by people who arn't compeletly qualified to make them. the real investigation will take long time. this is the most scrutinized airplane crash ever. there is gonna be a ton of speculation about this event, very little of which is credible.

also, about flight twa 800. i have heard alot of the evidence abou the missile theory. i think a lot of people both within and outside the ntsb gave it credit. in my opinion, the reason that judgement was not rendered was that there was another credible explination and they have to reason to think that it was a terrorist attack. apart from the evidence from the plane crash and eye witness acounts, there is little other evidence supporting it. regardless, i don't think the situation is applicable.

[bitSLAP]

Hehe not anymore. I'm 20

I grew up on an <a href="http://www.tomvale.on.ca" target="_new">airport</a>. I learned to fly before I could see out the window.

It's possible they started dumping fuel in a panic. It takes a long time though, and there wasn't much gas on the surface on the water. I don't think the cockpit recorder had anything to indicate this either, but then again I'm trusting my news sources.

[Splitfire]

Granted. I just can't see turbulence shearing an engine off in a manner that would cause the wing to be instantly engulfed in flames. The fuel blows back, not to the side. But that's beond the point.

I don't think I stated clearly above. Here is the sequence of events that I have in my head. The Japan Airlines jet takes off. American takes off and flies through the wake turbulence of the previous plane. The turbulence caused the fracture in the airframe. The fracture then causes the vertical stabilizer to be lost. The resulting resulting loss of control causes erratic movements and stresses that cause the engines to shear off. This rips the fuel lines open as the engines fall away. A piece of shrapnel is torn off the engine. It hits the wing and the metal-on-metal contact creates a spark that ignites the fuel lines. It makes sense in my mind, but like I said, I'm no expert.

[SuperDave]

Splitfire's theory is more plausible when considering this plane's past history - seven years ago it had a turbulence episode strong enough to have injured 47 passeners on board. Now I'm not a metallurgist or an AP mech, but I can't imagine being able to completely xray/magnaflux/whatever all the potentially damaged structural components without completely disassembling the aircraft.

I read that in today's newspaper, and am surprised at the minimal play it's getting in the media. I'm also surprised at how little mention Google can find of this fact, but I found one reference at CBS News .

[smb]

turbulence can cause some serious damage, especially to aiprlanes that large, even more so when something that large is moving at a high rate of speed in one direction, and is forced to move rapidly in another.

Those planes are made to flex, and perform flawlessly under normal conditions, but they are unable to take a constant beating.