AA 587, Another
The best indication that terrorist activity may have been involved is fire. Nearly all of the theories that the NTSB put forward involved standard conditions like turbulence and structural weaknesses.
The NTSB and media outlets initially reported several witness descriptions of fire and explosions during the flight. However, the NTSB later announced
that the engines were working properly and they, along with the media, quickly stopped reporting any views of explosions that would undermine their non-terrorism theories.
As reported above, the FBI apparently announced that an explosion occurred aboard the jet, but this fact was later retracted. The fire and
explosions that forgotten witnesses describe is very similar to the imagery on the video the FBI refuses to release.
NewsMax.Com, November 17, 2001
Flight 587 Video Shows ‘Puff of Smoke' in Sky
Though Flight 587 probers have not released the key videotape, shot from a Metropolitan Transportation Authority highway surveillance camera, reporters from
New York's Daily News were allowed to view it Friday.
"The tape… shows a white outline of the jetliner against a clear sky in fairly steep decline," the News
reported in Saturday editions. "Seconds later, the outline disappears and the video shows a blurry, white, undefined patch as the plane apparently breaks apart."
Visible in one of the final frames of the sequential videotape is "a puff of white smoke in the sky."
Credible witnesses such as a firefighter and a policeman that understand fire and explosions have also been ignored; despite the fact that their descriptions seem to corroborate the video.
NewsMax.Com,December 3, 2001
Flight 587 Eyewitnesses Insist Explosion Came Before Tail Broke Off
"It was after the explosion," eyewitness Tom Lynch, a retired firefighter, told the New York Post. "I'm telling you, the tail was there until the second explosion."
"No tail fell off, not before the explosion. I swear to that, " Lynch told the paper's Steve Dunleavy.
"I had my head up taking in that beautiful, clear day and was staring straight at the plane. It made a bank turn and suddenly there was an explosion, orange and
black, on the right-hand side of the fuselage. It was a small explosion, about half the size of a car."
"The plane kept on going straight for about two or
three seconds as if nothing had happened, then ‘vwoof' — the second, big explosion on the right wing, orange and black. It was only then that the plane fell apart.
It was after the explosion and I'm telling you, the tail was there until the second explosion."
Lynch, who lives near the Belle Harbor, N.Y., crash
site, said he knew 13 others who also saw the explosion and/or fire.
One, retired, police lieutenant Jim Conrad, told Dunleavy:
"I saw exactly what Tom saw. I was near a stoplight at the Marine Parkway Bridge. First, the small explosion. The plane kept on going, tail intact, then
the big explosion and the plane nose-dived. The first thing I said was, ‘The bastards did it again.'"
Lynch said he's tried to contact the FBI and the NTSB
but they weren't interested in his story. Ditto Sens. Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton and his congressional representative, Anthony Weiner, who also gave him the brush-off.
The majority of evidence indicates a catastrophe involving fire, explosions, and massive structural damage that, given the current circumstances, are
more consistent with terrorist activity than with a freak accident. Additionally, there are many prominent people trying to tell us so. If you listen carefully enough, you will hear the pin drop.
Spin, More Spin and Haunting Questions
Six major corporations control America's main media outlets and a collapse of the air travel and tourism industries would do immediate and deleterious
damage to their advertising revenue streams. This no doubt is why they have actually avoided any form of true investigative journalism — they'd be cutting their own financial throats.
Ergo, most of the population will happily accept what they are being told, as opposed to the many knowledgeable experts do not believe so easily. It is
the opinions of these independent experts we should be trusting, not the government musicians that are marching in lockstep to the sound of their own beat.
A reliable airline industry source with intimate mechanical knowledge of the A300 aircraft told YOWUSA about his concerns. He could see a natural
failure happening with the separation of the tail and one engine. However, the tail of Flight 587 and both engines separated. "This," YOWUSA's
source stressed, "is an unnatural failure. Something else caused it."
He also told YOWUSA that the Airbus has a considerable history of composite delamination problems. These and other fundamental Airbus design problems make routine servicing of the A300 type much more labour
intensive than comparable Boeing aircraft.
Further, YOWUSA's source is just one of a growing number of professionals who now question the government's reasoning.
NewsMax.Com,November 17, 2001
Flight 587 Video Shows ‘Puff of Smoke' in Sky
Independent aviation experts have generally scoffed at the NTSB theory.
"[747 wake turbulence] is not strong enough to be able
to break off a tail or to compromise any sort of a normal airplane," said ABC News aviation analyst John Nance on Friday.
"They could turn a little airplane upside down. But especially an A-300, which is a jumbo jet — no way in the world should that ever have any potentially disastrous impact on the aircraft or the tail," he
Nine MSN, November 17, 2001
Experts probe American Airlines crash
"The wake vortex of a 747 should not bring down an aircraft," said Tom Ellis, a spokesman for the Nolan Law Group, a Chicago firm that represents victims of airline accidents.
"The A300 is designed to withstand forces of that nature. It should be well within its design tolerance. There's got to be something that interferes with the ability to recover."
News, November 15, 2001
Doomed flight mystery deepens
It is not unheard of for one engine to break away. Never two.
Another expert said he had no recollection of such a strange air disaster.
I can't remember a crash where a plane broke up this quickly," said former Federal Aviation Administration chief of staff Michael Goldfarb.
TIME, November 26, 2001
If Not Terror, What Was It?
"People are acting almost as if this airplane was randomly designed," says Paul Czysz, a professor at Parks College of Engineering and Aviation at St. Louis University. "It was fatigue tested, and I'm sorry, but
it just doesn't come apart like that."
If these witness are not convincing enough that NTSB logic and reasoning should not be believed, then what about a former NTSB official who knows exactly how they operate these investigations?
NewsMax.Com,November 12, 2001
Former NTSB Official Doubts Accident Caused Flight 587 Crash
Aviation expert and former National Transportation Safety Board official Vernon Grose said late Monday that he's increasingly skeptical that the crash of
American Airlines Flight 587 was purely accidental.
"I am backing away from the ready idea that this is simply an accident," Grose told Fox News Channel's John Scott.
Judicial Watch, November 12, 2001
FBI Irresponsible In Making Early Statement That Crash
Of Airliner Not Due To Terrorism
(Washington, D.C.) Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government
abuse and corruption, today watched, with horror, as yet another U.S. airliner exploded, apparently killing all passengers aboard.
Given the current state of affairs, obviously terrorism cannot be ruled out. Yet, in an apparent attempt to deflect blame from its continuing dismal performance in
protecting the American people, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) waited no more than one-half hour before it proudly announced that "there is no evidence of terrorist activity."
"In short, the FBI does not want to see reality, but instead continues to paint a rosy picture of its performance," stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.
If we are to believe that it was a genuine malfunction of the aircraft and not terrorism, then the conduct of the FAA could indeed be very criminal.
The Sierra Times, November 14, 2001
Hard Scientific Evidence Proves United States
Government Desperately Trying to Mislead the American Public
Trickier still for the NTSB, FAA and Airbus Industries, will be explaining to the general public why, with
prima facie evidence proving catastrophic separation along a critical attachment line, the FAA and Airbus Industries failed to immediately ground all Airbus A300-600 models worldwide. This in order to conduct
black light inspections of the stabilizer spars, panels, attachment pins, bolts and other critical components.
You're Not Alone! Join with Like-minded
Others on the Planet X Town Hall
Not only is grounding of this nature a normal operating
procedure, it is also a legal requirement. Concorde's grounding was based mostly on speculation, and partly on trivial circumstantial evidence, flimsier by far than the prima facie evidence already existing in the
case of American Airlines Flight 587. In order not to ground all Airbus A300-600 series, the NTSB, FAA and Airbus Industries would have to be convinced that the
reason for the crash of Flight 587 was strictly unique, a one-off that could not occur under similar flight conditions to any other Airbus A300-600 worldwide. The
only reason unique enough to fit this requirement is an act of terrorism.
Flight 587 Was Terrorism
There is an old saying, "A fish stinks from the head down." In this regards, the whole manner in which the American government has handled this disaster doesn't even pass the "stink test."
At the executive level, the government reacted to Flight 587 as if it was a terrorist attack. Perhaps they quickly realized in their panic that the public
could soon react as well if the situation was not sanitized soon after. From initial reactions by the government, to the reasoning for not grounding all
Airbuses, the logic appears to have always been the same; this was a terrorist act.
At the congressional level, airport security has been given the good old boy compromise deal work over. Sure, Americans understand that aviation
security is currently a bureaucratic mess that is struggling to look respectable, but the day Flight 587 crashed, Congress was still unable to
reach an agreement on how to unravel this mess. The net result is that Congress procrastinated until it could reach a good old boy compromise
deal (long after the crash of Flight 587) that both sides of the aisle could sell to their constituents when seeking re-election.
In a word, Congress acted shamefully. Aviation security is a matter of national defence and it should have enacted whatever law the President,
who is also the nation's Commander in Chief, saw fit, without all the good old boy deal making. However, that does not mean the President should have carte blanche discretion either.
We need to determine if Flight 587 was shot down, sabotaged with bombs, or tampered with to cause destruction, we need an open and honest
investigation that does not hide what they do not want to see. In the final analysis, we're the ones who fasten our seatbelts and raise our tray tables
to the upright position. Besides our stale peanuts and soda we deserve the truth.