Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/25/2017 7:35:25 PM
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 11/12/2001 9:33:18 AM EDT
Terrorist action or accident?
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 9:34:00 AM EDT
Why don't you make this a poll? Accident.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 9:40:20 AM EDT
I put Terrorist bomb, but I believe that it was hijacked and somebody tried to stop it. The Terrorists may have had a bomb and detonated it when they were stopped.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 10:02:05 AM EDT
Sorry folks, but every witness who saw the plane as it crashed has described seeing a small explosion near where the wing meets the fuselage. On the Airbus 300 this is where the middle fuel cell is located, which sits between the forward and aft cargo holds. In other words, if a bomb was placed in the cargo section, it's possible for it to have detonated here. This would also explain why and engine and other debris fell prior to impact. Airbus aircraft aren't typically known for mid-air explosions caused by mechanical problems. Matter of fact, only one "documented" case of an explosion has been recorded and that's Flight 800. In that instance the aircraft fuel cell was nearly empty and temperatures were estimated to have been in the 168 degree range due to the extreme heat of the day. This was a freak accident, but it's also notable that these conditions did [b]not[/b] exist today with Flight 587. Again, these planes don't just explode. Engines don't just explode. Even with bird strikes the engines are designed to remain attached. Even with a total engine failure (one engine, not all of them obviously) the Airbus 300 can remain in flight and safely land. Did I mention these planes don't just explode? Sorry folks, this is HIGHLY suspect. The Fed's are going to be reluctant to scream "TERRORISM" for fear of causing a panic. The evidence already available, unless the stories change, strongly points to either a bomb or sabotage.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 10:08:20 AM EDT
I cant make a educated guess yet. However, we should know in a day or two, the flight data recorder has already been discovered by firefighters according to FOX and is already on its way to Washington DC.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 10:10:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/12/2001 10:03:18 AM EDT by Finnbear]
[url]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/12/105555.shtml[/url]
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 10:29:11 AM EDT
Like flight 200 off Long Island was "mechanical failure".
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 10:48:31 AM EDT
What's the range of a Stinger? How many hundreds/thousands did we give OBL?
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 10:54:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Arock: What's the range of a Stinger? How many hundreds/thousands did we give OBL?
View Quote
Heck even those Russian Shoulder to Air Missiles are good enough to hit a freaken Jet Airliner (big and slow). The witnesses saw the problem start in the wing near the engine. That's the classic point of impact of a heat seeker. That's why I put "shot down by terrorist." Maybe it was the same guy who sent all the anthrax from NJ (not too far away). It would have been just as easy to buy a ticket and put a bomb in the luggage though (and then not get on the plane). -SS
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 10:57:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Arock: What's the range of a Stinger? How many hundreds/thousands did we give OBL?
View Quote
No one has said they saw a missile...some have stated they saw a engine fall off. they havent even used a Stinger in Afganistan, they dont work without batteries and coolant units for the seekers. If they have any of the 650 left- and that isnt likely since they have been constantly fighting each other AND gave some to Iran- they apparently dont work. If it was a terrorist act a bomb and not a missile is more likely.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 11:09:20 AM EDT
anyone ever fly a radio control airplane with a video camera in it? They are fun to fly, buy parts at hobby shop and radio shack.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 11:13:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By biffy: anyone ever fly a radio control airplane with a video camera in it? They are fun to fly, buy parts at hobby shop and radio shack.
View Quote
I don't think that brought the plane down though..... Av.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 11:56:52 AM EDT
IMHO it's still too early to tell. The Airbus has a record of crashes related to its fly-by-wire control system (including one really spectacular one at the Paris Airshow as I recall), but no history of parts falling off like the DC-10 had. Due to the reports of a midair explosion, I tend to lean towards a bomb in the baggage compartment. The fact that it happened in NY seems too much of a coincidence.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 12:20:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker: IMHO it's still too early to tell. The Airbus has a record of crashes related to its fly-by-wire control system (including one really spectacular one at the Paris Airshow as I recall), but no history of parts falling off like the DC-10 had. Due to the reports of a midair explosion, I tend to lean towards a bomb in the baggage compartment. The fact that it happened in NY seems too much of a coincidence.
View Quote
Well it still could be a engine failure of the catistrophic kind. You need to look up which model of GE engine it was and look at ITS safety record. Airbus users get to choose their engines, and they have the choice of either American (GE) Canadian (Pratt and Whitny) or British (Rolls Royce). Not all A300s have the GE engine.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 12:23:46 PM EDT
Fox News said it was a GE Engine.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 12:45:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/12/2001 12:43:16 PM EDT by gardenWeasel]
If a plane was looked at carefully enough to determine that no preflight sabotage had taken place you'd think that the inspectors would have noticed that the engine was about to fall off. I'll pick the terrorist hired as airline mechanic theory.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 12:56:30 PM EDT
"Again, these planes don't just explode. Engines don't just explode. Even with bird strikes the engines are designed to remain attached. Even with a total engine failure (one engine, not all of them obviously) the Airbus 300 can remain in flight and safely land." i'm an turbine components engineer and work on all the major motors that fly (and the ground pounders)...snecma, cfm, g.e., brown-boveri, pratt & whitney, munchen, allison, garrett, etc. i would take issue with the above statement. turbines DO experience catastrophic failure. blades, vanes, hubs, disks, segments, etc. all have failed at one time or other. sometimes their shrapnel gets sucked thru the motor tearing more crap out as it goes aft. the resulting imbalance condition can, as does, cause explosions (centrifugal debris hitting fuel tanks and the like) and engine separations (shear bolts doing their job). there are recorded incidends of "blue ice" (waste from the toilets freezes instantly upon jettison at altitude/speed) entering rear fuselage mounted pratts and causing instant terminal failures. a pilot may only have seconds to get a motor shut down from the time the alarms and indicators go off. at 15,000 rpm, ultimately, it may make no difference at all. while the plane may have been able to remain aloft and under control with one motor not running, a catastrophic motor failure may have done considerable damage to any number of other systems. this is, in no sense, meant to imply that a bomb was not the cause of this crash. it may well have been more terrorists at work. god have mercy on the passengers, crew, the people on the ground and their families.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 1:01:51 PM EDT
Tin foil hatters. It is obvious that there was a terrorist threat onboard the plane and in response the passengers heroically rubbed their feet on the carpet in unison causing a static discharge in the center fuel tank to blow up the plane.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 2:56:19 PM EDT
Mechanical Failure is probably a better term than "mechanical screw up". These engines do blow up (catastrophic failure) and can come off as Campybob explained. A large bird or birds down the intake can cause it also. Once it does come off the airplane is very hard if not impossible to control due to adverse yaw which is probably why the tail separated prior to impact. It is a huge coincidence but IMHO it was most likely caused by mechanical failure and not an act of terrorism.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 3:20:44 PM EDT
Man-portable SAM.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 4:37:29 PM EDT
The more I think about it, especialy including the date. I believe it was terrorists with missile launchers, possibly in boats. I know, put my silver beanie on, I also believe the Feds want to make it mechanical error to keep people flying. Cover up!!!!
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 5:00:35 PM EDT
I certainly SUSPECT terrorism but doubt the government will ever admit it! Separation of an engine should not have brought it down. Yaw rate from loss of the engine would not be enough to account for tail failure. What damage the shrapnel from the failed engine MAY have destroyed is of interest. A loss of electrical power most certainly would have eliminated ANY control and caused it to go down. Same thing that caused Egypt Air crash into the ocean when that idiot shut the engines down. No electrical power = no control with fly by wire. Trouble is, the media are so darn ignorant when faced with technical issues that the reports are nearly worthless. Same for eyewitness reports. I have read the eyewitness reports on accidents and they are mostly fiction! Be VERY suspicious of government findings in this. Very.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 5:15:39 PM EDT
This whole thing smells.............. Of all the Airlines, none other than AMERICAN AIRLINES! Dates: I believe it is 2 months to the day.... Location: None other than New York and within sight of the World Trade Centers if i'm not mistaken......... Another plane that was a flying bomb. Loaded to the hilt with jet fuel for another short trip straight to hell.......... Over the last few months, I believe some sleepers have been probing our defensive posture for security breaks. Last week I flew to Orlando, FL from Phoenix and noted what seemed to be a lack of security on the tarmac. I believe their chances of a successful terrorist act have been severly limited when attempted by passenger or luggage. However, an insider stil has easy access in which to sabotage the plane. I hope to god it is an accident but I fear it was another planned attack with maximum impact in mind. Passenger loads were 80% back to normal. Now, it seems a sense of insecurity is sneaking back into American's minds. Will we learn the truth if it is a terrorist attack. I sincerly doubt it. It will be the last straw to an already crippled airline industry......
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 5:24:52 PM EDT
Two people have stated that it was two months to the day. Wrong. Off by one day. And Imbrog, shut the f**k up.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 5:46:28 PM EDT
This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. I think this was done with maximum impact in mind. This is a war and their weapon is terror. Can anyone look at this and not see that it smells to high hell. If this is a coincidence, then I don't know what the think. To calm already frazzled nerves, the government has no choice but to find this incident as an accident. I really don't blame them.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 5:50:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DeepSky: This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. I think this was done with maximum impact in mind. This is a war and their weapon is terror. Can anyone look at this and not see that it smells to high hell. If this is a coincidence, then I don't know what the think. To calm already frazzled nerves, the government has no choice but to find this incident as an accident. I really don't blame them.
View Quote
Not true, another terrorist attack would further galvanize public opinion behind the imminent comitiment of US Infantry in Afganistan.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 6:12:33 PM EDT
Not true, another terrorist attack would further galvanize public opinion behind the imminent comitiment of US Infantry in Afganistan. I hope that you are not saying that this was orchestrated by someone in our government. If you have not noticed we have 4,000+ dead Americans still buried under the remnants of the World Trade Center. I would say we have more than enough reason to have troops on the ground stomping the shit out of the Taliban in Afganistan. This was one of two things, it was either a twisted accident or a terrorist attack. I believe it was the latter..... [marines]
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 6:15:10 PM EDT
1. Bird strikes in the engine don't cause wings to fall off. Strikes anywhere else would just result in tenderized bird meat. 2. Man portable SAMs emit a large blast/flash and leave a smoke trail when they launch. Weather was clear, someone would see that. 3. Don't underestimate government's capacity for putting out disinformation, especially when "national security" is at stake. 4. Is it coincidence that Bush increased the National Guard presence only a few days ago?? I don't think so. I vote for a man-made event. Too much coincidence that everything is happening in NYC. My vote is for a bomb in the checked luggage, smuggled aboard by a luggage handler. Bombers got lucky that the bomb was near (or deliberately placed close to) the wing root, causing structural damage to the main spar as well as destroying an engine, probably due to the initial blast and fire in the fuel system. Examination of the wreckage should be able to tell if there was an internal explosion or not. War is hell. Welcome to the American War Zone. Combat operations to begin in XX days....
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 6:51:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DeepSky: Not true, another terrorist attack would further galvanize public opinion behind the imminent comitiment of US Infantry in Afganistan. I hope that you are not saying that this was orchestrated by someone in our government. If you have not noticed we have 4,000+ dead Americans still buried under the remnants of the World Trade Center. I would say we have more than enough reason to have troops on the ground stomping the shit out of the Taliban in Afganistan. This was one of two things, it was either a twisted accident or a terrorist attack. I believe it was the latter..... [marines]
View Quote
No thats Imbroglio's department. What I am saying is that if it was terrorism that the admin wouldnt waste the effort to hide it. This admin is discovering that truth pays, at least for now. They really arent being held accountable for the first terrorist attacks, everyone understands it was a first time so no one was prepared. Even after this they were unlikely to face criticism for how they handle security. Now if it happens a THIRD time, people will expect heads to roll.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 6:56:58 PM EDT
Remember American Flight 191 DC-10 that crashed in Chicago in May 1979 because of improper engine removal techniques that cracked the engine pylon fittings? When the pylon failed, it took out the hydraulics and electrical power. The leading edge slats retracted and the crew couldn't do anything to keep it from rolling in. Killed 273. What do you want to bet this in the same sort of thing?
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 7:35:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DnPRK: Remember American Flight 191 DC-10 that crashed in Chicago in May 1979 because of improper engine removal techniques that cracked the engine pylon fittings? When the pylon failed, it took out the hydraulics and electrical power. The leading edge slats retracted and the crew couldn't do anything to keep it from rolling in. Killed 273. What do you want to bet this in the same sort of thing?
View Quote
It is certainly possible, and in all reality I hope that is the case. But, from what I have been gathering it is exceedingly rare. I guess the only thing that can be done is wait until the investigation is complete. I must say that I believe the Bush team has handled this very well up till this point. But there has to be a point where telling the complete truth does more harm than good. I wonder what kind of conversations are going on in the White House. Do they shoot straight with the American public even if it will continue to erode a weakening economy and continue to shatter our mistaken belief that the Airlines are now safe? Tough call. [whacko]
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 7:48:29 PM EDT
Why would the terrorists kill a plane load of Dominicans instead of targeting a cross-country domestic flight that would also be loaded with fuel?
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 8:22:38 PM EDT
The GE CF6 engines on this Airbus has a history of failure but nothing like this. Also the luggage was supposedly passed through the bomb sensing detectors. Only time will tell.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 8:28:46 PM EDT
At first glance a terrorist attack does seem about right, considering the location and airline. But I've been wondering the same thing as Renamed. Why would a Terrorist take down a plane which is reported to contain 90% Dominican Republic citizens? Seems to me there are many more prime domestic targets, which would also be easier since international screening is often more stringent than local. And the airline industry has been undergoing a tremendous amount of stress lately. maybe a mechanic messed up?
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 8:51:10 PM EDT
Ok please give me the benefit of the doubt here.. I work on the damn thing for a living. first the engine is a GE CF-6-80c or cf6 for short. And yes they can and do come apart.. 4 of them in the last 2 years.... not a lot when about 3000 of them fly each day. but they do. When they do come apart they are not like most jet engines, they weigh 8000 lbs and spin at 10000 rpm, so when it does come apart nothing on gods earth will stop the parts. If it were a bomb the fuselage would have comp apart not the engine. If it were a sam or shoulder fired rocket 2 million New Yorkers would have seen and heard it. The damn engine blew up. Simple mechanical failure...GE is going to be in deep shi%
Link Posted: 11/13/2001 2:46:33 PM EDT
I am not familiar with NY so help me out here. ANybody plot the 4 major impact sites? From what I have heard / read, the fuselage and each engine impacted in widely separated areas as did the verticle fin (Jamaca Bay). I do not find an engine explosion too far fetched as it does happen now and then. One falling off is not a stretch either. TWO falling off is REAL STRANGE as is loss of the verticle fin and rudder!!!!! That fin showed no impact damage such as would have resulted had it been hit by the engine or debris from same. Anybody here familiar with that particular aircraft? Would loss of an engine upset the CG so bad as to cause an unrecoverable stall? Too bad we can not trust the government to tell the truth!!
Top Top