• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Terrorism, Accident Or CIA ?

A

Anonymous

Guest
C'mon folks

what dropped that airbus on Queens ?

I personally go for the Terrorism. After all there is no history of that model of airbus loosing an engine in mid flight before, although they have had birds fly into the engines and the occasional fire. Neither of which should down a modern aircraft.

2 months and one day after the last attack, bit of a coincidence.

Bert and Bin Laden are to blame. :rolleyes:
 
Ohmigawd! I'd forgotten about Bert!

Frankly, I'm suffering from information overload right now, what with the airbus and Kabul. I was lying awake several hours listening to the BBC world service, eventually decide to get up about 0520. I shall be zombified by this afternoon.

There's already another thread on the airbus - Conspiracy theory gets a look-in again. The powers that be might

a) Try to hide the fact that it is terrorism to restore public confidence in flying

b) Try to hide the fact that it was aircraft failure to restore public confidence in flying

c)...have caused the crash themselves just to keep TWAT on the boil

...and so forth and so on. About the only sure thing is that it is not a good time forshareholders in the aircraft industry.

Still, less flying means less fossil fuel being used, reducing somewhat the effect on global warming, so it's not all bad news, eh?
 
I know this is a bit 'the bloke down the pub told me', but according to a poster on Plastic http://www.plastic.com , there were several jet fighters patrolling the skies around JFK. Maybe it was pilot error, but not the poor sod in the airbus, but some Top Gunner whose finger slipped.
 
Topgunner no longer eh!

If that happened we can be sure that the public would never know the truth.

I am willing to bet that in a few years ther will be a Horizon, Equinox or Panarama episode that will relay the real reason for the crash.

I can wait.... ;) :blah: :)
 
Seems like the money is on "tragic accident".

Initially I thought:

1) Approx 2 months after 11th Sept
2) American Airlines aircraft hit
3) Aircraft at start of long haul flight. (laden with fuel)
4) Similar time of day to the other attacks.

However:

1) What would be the significance of 2 months + 1 day?
2) AA is a very large carrier in the US
3) Take-offs and landings are the times when aircraft are most likely to have accidents
4) That time of day is probably ~a peak period for flights?

Horrible coincidence.


:(
 
Chriswsm said:
C'mon folks



After all there is no history of that model of airbus loosing an engine in mid flight before, although they have had birds fly into the engines and the occasional fire. Neither of which should down a modern aircraft.

Birdstrike is perfectly capable of bringing down a modern aircraft. One of the pilots that they had commenting on the crash afterwards even said that it wasn't particularly unlikely, goven that at this time of year there are several major migration routes that pass that way.

Besides, what sort of Fortean argument is "well, it hasn't happened before". Anything that isn't actually impossible can happen. It's perfectly possible, though deeply, deeply unlikely, for all of the electrons in a plane's entire wing to suddenly decide to be somewhere else for a while, resulting in a utter bizareness.

Compared with that, a bit of random metal fatigue is nothing.

Remember: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however unlikely, must be the truth. But not necesarily the truth that you think it is.
 
I understand that it's entirely possible the plane went down on it's own, but to summarize concerns:

1. Exactly the same time of day as before
2. Big plane on long flight
3. Exact same part of the country as before
4. Elapsed time is a little bit suspicious


My own concerns were that the press was immediately saying 'Oh, no, there is no sign of terrorism.' How the hell could they know? How could anyone rule out sophisticated electrical sabotage, when they can't even tell if it was a bomb or not? What makes them think a different group with different tactics isn't possibly responsible?
The next time I have to take a flight for work, I'm going to give it some serious thought. Shameful.
 
Of course it was terrorism, just the wrong sort of terrorism. You don't know just how embarassing that is!

Niles
 
Re: Re: Terrorism, Accident Or CIA ?

Jonny B said:
what sort of Fortean argument is "well, it hasn't happened before". Anything that isn't actually impossible can happen.

A perfect arguement for the Conspiracy forum.

That is why I posted it here.

I have been a fortean for 15 years and I know the might of the open mind, however, no one is going to respond to a namby-pamby conspiracy post are they.

If I had typed "coo it might have been terrorism" even I would have nodded off.

It needs a little Meat.

This post and the previous posts contain a minimum of 22% bull

my conclusion not that it really matters in the scheeming of things... :blah:

Bert did it.

Or a least some muppet in the maintenance dept:rolleyes:
 
Re: Re: Re: Terrorism, Accident Or CIA ?

Chriswsm said:
Or a least some muppet in the maintenance dept :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, that's one of the more plausable options :(
 
As a sideline, there was a bit on bin Laden in todays (13th Nov) Daily Mail which reckons that TWA 800 was hit by a SAM missle fired by one of the bearded loons lot, but the cause was stated as mechanical to avoid the obvious question of how a terrorist cell could shoot down an airliner either from the mainland or from US costal waters without being detected. As for yesterday, I do find it too coincidental that it happened on Veterans Day, and to a flight that took off around the same time. Whatever the true cause, it will undoubtedly be put down to mechanical failure or pilot error (poor sod!), because otherwise Bush will have to admit that either a) An American fighter plane shot down a civilian aircraft for no reason, or b) Despite appointing Tom Ridge (the man makes Pee Wee Herman look dynamic) as head of the Homeland Security Taskforce, and despite the supposed increased security at airports - i.e. men with big guns and checking 25% of hand luggage - a terrorist managed to get a bomb of somesorts onto a US plane. Stupid as Dubya may appear, I can't believe he'd make either admission and wave goodbye to a second term like his daddy did.....
 
I agree that poor maintainance seems the most likely cause of the crash.

I remember a crash several years ago, when an engine fell off a plane. Later it was found that the maintainance crew had used a fork lift truck to get the engine to the right position on the wing, damaging & weakening the mountings in the process.:rolleyes:
 
Emergency Landing @ Stanstead Airport (UK)

I heard the following on Radio 4 on the 4pm news

Today an Airbus took off from Luton and then was Diverted to Stanstead to make an emergency landing. It touched down safely using just one engine (the other engine was still attached)


Does this mean that problems occur with Airbus more often than we thought but were not in the press until recent events made such things more interesting ?

Could it be Sabotage ? :(

Have both the recent airbus incidents been due to them being serviced at the same place or by the same team ?

This incident also shows that an airbus can fly and land safely with only one engine. Presumably it got to a safe height before losing power in the engine.



As for the NY crash in Queens how could the wake of another craft take off an engine ? :confused:
 
They're now saying the plane lost its tail, and this (somehow?) caused it to lose BOTH engines.

But I'm sure a plane without a rudder can be steered by using differential throttle on the two engines - I believe this once happened in the States; the pilot controlled the pitch and roll, while the co-pilot handled the throttles. Not easy, and I think the plane crash landed, but the emergency services were ready for it.

Did the airbus crew even know they'd actually lost the rudder? After the Concorde crash, especially, there was talk of installing TV cameras on planes so the crew can check exactly what damage has occured to engines, wings, etc., since these are often invisible from the cockpit.

The 'wake' theory has been cited in one or two other crashes, but it cannot be taken seriously or planes would crash far more often, resulting in far greater spacing between take-offs. This may occur anyway, with fewer planes flying nowadays....
 
rynner said:
They're now saying the plane lost its tail, and this (somehow?) caused it to lose BOTH engines.

But I'm sure a plane without a rudder can be steered by using differential throttle on the two engines - I believe this once happened in the States; the pilot controlled the pitch and roll, while the co-pilot handled the throttles. Not easy, and I think the plane crash landed, but the emergency services were ready for it.

I think that the difference here is that the tail fin actually came off. Even if the rudder had failed, as long as the tail fin remained in place, there would be some degree of stability in yaw. Without the tail fin, I think it probably becomes a lot trickier.
 
The Question is HOW the aircraft lost its tail and two engines.

Also was there a link with the emergency landing in the UK today
 
It is some coincidence, and though in my heart of hearts I think there is some mechanic to blame there are a few things that worry me.
Bird strike - very common and very rarely does it make one engine fall off let alone 2.
Catastrophic failure of the turbines - American Airline is one of the good guys as far as maintenance is concerned (or so I've seen reported). Also the engines since Manchester have been fitted to minimise damage to the wing if they fail ie fall off.
Fitting Error - The engine is designed to fall away from the aircraft.
Loss of the tail - see above

Also the early reports of causes were patently untrue eg "These aircraft are impossible to control with one engine" and "there was a lot of rattling in the cockpit about 2 minutes into the flight ... indicating it was an accident"

Lastly where are the recordings from Air Traffic Control, or have I missed them?
 
intaglio said:
the engines since Manchester have been fitted to minimise damage to the wing if they fail ie fall off.

Since Manchester ?

What happened in Manchester that caused a change in engine fitting techniques ? :confused:
Methinks I have missed something
 
I just found this on NewsMax

Here is the bulk of the text just in case the story URL changes:

Aviation Expert: Bomb Is One Likely Cause of Flight 587 Crash

An aviation expert said Wednesday that an in-flight bomb explosion could explain why Flight 587's vertical stabilizer sheared off intact and fell into New York City's Jamaica Bay, a half mile from where the rest of the plane crashed in the Belle Harbor section of Rockaway.

"That tail coming off is very puzzling," the expert, speaking on condition of anonymity, told New York's Newsday.

"There are only a handful of ways it can come off," he explained, saying that there was either a structural problem with the tail, or something else broke away from the plane and sheared it off, "or a bomb."

Beginning Monday afternoon, when investigators said that catastrophic engine failure likely brought Flight 587 down, NTSB officials have repeatedly insisted there was "no evidence" that Flight 587's crash was anything but an accident.

But the tail section became the focus of new scrutiny late Tuesday when investigators said an inspection of the Airbus-300's two engines showed no evidence of engine failure or burnout.

"When they pulled the tail section from the water, I have to say that was quite a shock," said former Transportation Department Inspector General Mary Schiavo late Tuesday in an interview with Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."

The tail fin was pulled from the water showing no damage except for the smooth seam where it had previously been attached to the Airbus-300's fuselage.

"The tail section, to me, points to even greater problems and other problems for this aircraft," said Schiavo, who had been a leading proponent of the catastrophic engine failure theory only a day before. (See Schiavo: Mechanical Failure Likely Caused Crash.)

"When you think back to other accidents of this magnitude, if indeed this is an in-flight structural breakup of this aircraft, you don't have just a problem with the engine," Schiavo said. "You have a major problem with the airframe on this plane because the pilot trying to save the plane should not have torn the plane apart."

"I think terrorism is a possibly," the former DOT official said.

In accounts that have apparently been dismissed by NTSB investigators, witness after witness described seeing a midair explosion.

"I saw an enormous flash where the wing meets the plane," eyewitness Jackie Powers told WABC Radio Monday morning. "I don't know if it was fire or an explosion. It appeared that debris fell from the left side [of the plane]."

Another eyewitness who called into the radio station said, "The right wing seemed to catch fire and explode. The wing was on fire with a trail of smoke behind it."

"I saw the plane going across Jamaica Bay," a third witness told WABC. "It was trying to ascend and then it just exploded."

"The combination of a rattle back in the airplane [as heard on the plane's cockpit voice recorder] and the fact of an in-flight breakup indicates there was some sort of event which occurred that caused the breakup," said John Hansman, professor of aeronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an interview with Newsday.

"We still have no idea as to exactly what that was."
 
I thought right from the start that the denial of any terrorist connections was premature, if not deliberately misleading.

As this is a conspiracy thread, a little speculation:

Another succesful terrorist attack would be a disaster for all American airline operators, showing that increased security since 11th September hadn't worked. This could put the whole aircraft industry into an even worse tailspin than it's already in.

However, if it was just a cruddy foreign built aircraft that fell apart in the sky for no particular reason, then US built planes are safe, US operators are efficient. Jobs of US planemakers saved, millions of people start flying again, everyone (in the US) is happy.

I like to call this the "Export the Problem" theory.
 
Blame it on turbulance in 1994

The Following is part of an article From Annanova

#######

Several aviation experts have suggested that there was some unseen weakness in the tail assembly. The tail fin was held to the fuselage by six fittings. Maintenance records indicate that one of the fittings had to be repaired by the manufacturer before the plane was delivered to American Airlines in 1988.

The problems could have dated from 1994, when the jet was severely shaken by air turbulence, injuring 47 people. The plane was inspected following the incident.

"That's where the investigation really has to start," Feith said. "It may be the inspection was just a visible inspection. They're not going to be looking inside that fin area, they're going to be looking for obvious damage. Something could have happened that, although it didn't immediately fail the tail at that point, did set up a fail scenario."

#######

wonder what they will blame it on next ?
:confused:
 
Chriswsm said:
Since Manchester ?

What happened in Manchester that caused a change in engine fitting techniques ? :confused:
Methinks I have missed something
Sorry not Manchester, there was a crash in the 80's or early 90's where an engine came off an aircraft damaging fuel lines and contols in the wing. I'll check further.
 
Back
Top