[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/duggan2.html[/url]

Ha!  You guys are going to call me a real conspiracy theorist now!  But I was watching the coverage of yesterday's "accident" and they cut off the guy who saw exactly what happened before he could describe it.  Explosion on board is the phrase he used.  Explosion on board.  Then the screen went blank due to some unexplained technical difficulty.  They've been cutting off a lot of people like that lately.

Doesn't sound like any kind of fucking accident to me.  But whatever.  The spin control has been set on "full" for this one, so I don't expect anyone to think otherwise, notwithstanding the fact that Flight 800 and Flight 93 met with their grim demise at the hands of our own government and that this latest "accident" comes after Sept. 11.  The pilots were taken totally by surprise, which shouldn't be the case for a mechanical failure, even a massive one (how do massive mechanical failures even happen in the year 2001?)  

I would be willing to believe it is an accident, but only if someone does an independent investigation.  I don't trust the NTSB or the FBI to give any kind of objective account, especially when the major airlines are all on the brink of bankruptcy.  Our politicians and their minions have been totally bought off.

I guess if another one crashes tomorrow we'll know for sure, right?

If an engine sucked a bird, that sure would look like an explosion as the turbine blades came out the side of the engine.

Everyone knows what the charter of the FAA is, right?

To protect and promote Air Travel in the United States.

And the little bitty turbine blades would.....cut the tail off the fuselage!??

I don't think so!

You can bet this one will unfold in a pretty strange fashion over the next few weeks....
I'm hoping for a low signal to noise ratio from the FBI and NTSB.  We'll see what happens...

Flight 800 WAS NOT BROUGHT DOWN BY A STINGER MISSILE.

It was several thousand feet above max range when it exploded.

No longer have the specs in my head, but it was the first thing I loked up after the crash.  IT WAS NOT A STINGER.

So now we're basing our understanding on what happenned on something we DID NOT hear?!?!?!?!

They wouldn't let that guy finish, so this moron knows what he was GOING TO SAY!?!??!?!

Please.  

... Similarly, KTAR Radio 620 AM in Phoenix, for some reason, refuse to replay the eyewitness account by a woman that worked in the business that reported:

(para quoting)

[i]"An explosion occurred at that part of the plane where the wing intersects the fuselage"[/i]

... She was being interviewed real-time live in Rockaway, NY. An "aviation expert" was even called to query her further. He attempted to suggest she might have seen an engine explode. She became livid. Stating: [I]“No. It was in the wing fillet common to the fuselage”[/I]

… Much silence afterwards.

The turbine blades themselves would not, but the force of the air on the side of it due to massive yaw after one engine is gone would do it easily. The tail section is not designed to be stressed that much in that direction, and the plane was still climbing at or near max thrust when the engine came off for whatever reason. One engine gone, and the other running at full tilt would give a huge amount of yaw, and rip that thing right off in my estimation.

Uh revrat, a missing engine would produce less, not more drag than a windmilling one.  The tail does not break off when there is asymetrical thrust.  Aircraft are specifically designed for those stresses.

It will all be settled in due time, to everybody's satisfaction.  Just like TWA 800.

This was of course a French airplane, so all arguements must keep that in mind.

No fod would get to the gas section to fail the turbine blades.  Planerench out.

Didn't that plane in Souix City blow an engine that tore up the hydrolics in the tail?

Attman

Different aircraft type, the one in Sioux City the engines were mounted on the rear of the fuselage near the tail, in this case the engines were mounted under the wings.

That's right, it was a DC10 now that I think about it.  The engine is [b] in [/b] the tail.

I agree, I don't think 800 was taken out by a Stinger, I think it was a bigger missile.  There are two theories in that case:

1) US Navy ship
2) Terrorists on a small boat

I tend to think #1.  So then the question is, how can they cover up something like that?  Well, how many people on a Navy ship actually know what is taking place and how many are below decks, only vaguely aware of anything?  If it's only 20 or 30 people, it would be easy as hell to silence all of them--just tell them it's top secret national security stuff and drop the hint that they and their families could suffer if any information get leaked.  Not hard at all, I'll bet.  The feds are good at intimidating people.

Then again, why not a stinger?  Maybe the published parameters are not the acutal reality?  I mean, they say an Abrams tank has a max speed of only 60mph, but anyone that has seen them in action knows they're much faster than that.

... Why in the world can't anyone remember the good old days when a terrorist simply packs a bomb in his check in baggage? Doing it for Allah.

... Similiar to the Pan Am flight 103 in Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988 incident.

It all depends of ship type. I am on Subs with a crew of 150. I know that on the boats that I have been stationed on you couldn't fart without everyone knowing. But the accountability of the weapons onboard would do them in. The accountability messages would have to be sent off. You can't just lose a missile without a metric butt ton of questions from several agencies.

They surrender!  They surrender!

"Cheese-eatin-surrender-monkeys!"