Montreal man downed U.S. Plane, CSIS told
'Farouk the Tunisian' involved, al-Qaeda say, but officials insist crash was accidental.
August 27, 2004
A captured al-Qaeda operative has told Canadian intelligence investigators that a Montreal man who trained in Afghanistan alongside the 9/11 hijackers was responsible for the crash of an American Airlines flight in New York three years ago.
Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents were told during five days of interviews with the source that Abderraouf Jdey, a Canadian citizen also known as Farouk the Tunisian, had downed the plane with explosives on Nov. 12, 2001.
Aviationwiz From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 962 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5256 times:
That's a load of bull, and it being on the "Drudge Report" confirms it. It was downed due to taking off too early from the departing aircraft before, which I believe was a heavy. The wing and tail broke off if I'm not mistaken due to the excessive wake turbulence. I'm sure there are plenty here with the exact specifics, but that's the gist of it.
UA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5193 times:
Well the CVR tapes say no such thing. They just say that the a/c lost control. Now unless his training taught him how to exit an a/c during cruise and jump onto the rudder and make a bit of turburlance, which the crew openly commented about right before the crash, then this is BS.
Here's the ATC/CVR tapes/records that should put this nonsense to sleep.
BENNETT123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7566 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4981 times:
Was the alleged shoebomber even on board.
How did a shoebomb rip off the lugs securing the tailplane.
Would a shoebomb actually destroy an A300.
According to BAC One-Eleven, the whole story (ISBN 0 7524 2774 1)
RP-C1184 MSN 190 twice landed safely after grenades were exploded in the toilet. In 1975 it happened at 20,000 feet and in 1978 it happened at 24,000 feet. The aircraft retired in 1992. What was the Max Altitude of AA587.
The other issue is just how much Semtex/C4 or whatever can you get into the heel of a shoe.
Have there been any reports about the amount of damage done by small explosion on board.
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8133 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4969 times:
Nothing I've read in the investigation thus far is indicative of any explosive damage to the fuselage whatsoever. It is incredulous to even suggest that a fuselage bomb would take the tail off the airplane anyhow.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
Dakotasport From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 228 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4917 times:
Uh, guys, wake up and smell the JAVA. This event happened 3 months after the events of 9/11, so if it REALLY was a terrorist act that brought the plane down (which I personally doubt), do you think that the US Gov. would allow that to leak, or would they make up some BS story saying it was mechanical failure! Think about it.
Ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13078 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4882 times:
Often nutcases will say they did an act of terror, killed someone, committed a crime, saw someone commit a crime to get attention among peers or because they are so mentally ill. There were false claims of terrorism on TWA800. This 'disclosure' took place long after the AA587 tradgey, so it is a lie. However, the truth was perhaps that al-Queda did want to attack with up to 10 aircraft in their original 9/11 plan then scaled it back to the ultimate 4 and this person was privy to those original plans. This guy should be probably be locked up in a the worse possible jail and suffer the rest of his life there.
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2688 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3983 times:
Guess maybe Al Qaeda was not responsible for the two downed Russian jets then? Because the cause was of AA Flight 587 was from the JAL 744 it took off after...supposedly it was too close? I don't know about the Russian jets, but Al Qaeda causing Flight 587 is a bunch of bull.
FRAspotter From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2349 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3591 times:
Aviationwiz is correct, the plane before it was a heavy (JAL 744) and the AA A300 took off to soon after the 744 took off. All that wake turbulence would be enough to tear off the rear stabilizer (tail). It was on CNN.com earlier but can't find the link to post here.
"Drunks run stop signs. Stoners wait for them to turn green."
Elwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3549 times:
While I also find it unlikely that AA587 was the result of terrorism, I think that evidence should at least be reevaluated. Just because the majority of persons on board would have been Dominicans doesn't mean that it wasn't a reasonable target for Al Queda... After all, how could the Dom.Rep. possibly strike back?
However, I don't think the government would have covered up another terrorist attack (just TWO MONTHS after 9/11, not three!). I think that they would have used it as an example of: "SEE?!?!? We're not safe! We need to do more!!! Give us the authority to kick ass and forget the names 'cause they're dead!!!!"
Not that that would have necessarily been a bad thing, assuming they didn't go completely ballistic with it...
Go ahead and flame me. We're not going ballistic...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3624 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 days ago) and read 3147 times:
This event happened 3 months after the events of 9/11, so if it REALLY was a terrorist act that brought the plane down (which I personally doubt), do you think that the US Gov. would allow that to leak, or would they make up some BS story saying it was mechanical failure! Think about it.
Think about what, exactly? That some nut who wants us to think he's dangerous now claims responsibility for something he had no connection with?
So I'm guessing the government somehow recorded and re-edited the CVR tapes so the pilots are saying something completely different on it than they actually were? I suppose the government planted the vertical fin in the water off Long Island Sound? I suppose all those witnesses (including other commercial pilots on the ground) that actually saw the fin tear off the plane are government agents?
If anything, the government would have used any terrorism after 9/11 to its advantage in justifying the various wars we're now involved in. It would have made it easier to convince the public that these terrorists need to be eradicated before they strike again. So you not only don't have the facts on your side, you don't even have a motive that makes sense.
Jesus man, this was not terrorism, and if it was, the government would go out of its way to tell us. There's a reason you're not seeing this story on CNN or MSNBC or good lord, even Fox News. It's because it's a bunch of nonsense. It's one idiot who thinks it's in his best interest that some who don't know any better think his group's responsible for this crash. The problem is, he and they weren't, and that's already been conclusively proven. It was an accident.
757drvr From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3044 times:
I am not saying it was an act of terrorism, but I find it very hard to believe that wake turbulence can rip off a tail of a modern airliner. Planes hit wake turbulence every day, but their tails don't come off. I know some blame has been placed on the FO for over controlling the rudder which may have ripped off the tail. But I find this hard to believe as well. I don't know much about Airbuses, but on all the Boeings I have flown (727, 737, and the 757) there is an input computer to help prevent over controlling the rudder. If the 727 has it, I would think the A300-600R would also have it. It does make you wonder what else might have brought down that airplane. Also...who is to say the tail wasn't sabotaged to the point where it was destined to fail. To the crew, it would seem like some sort of control issue just as the CVR and FDR indicate. I know that security at some of those Latin American and Caribbean airports is not the best in the world. I am sure that someone wanting access to an aircraft could do so at night when the aircraft RON's especially at a remote location of the field. It does make one wonder!!!!!!
NWA330Tony From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2852 times:
Im not saying IT was terrorism either but why is it if you take a look at the NTSB and try to get the final findings they only have the prelim reports to this Accident which is now almost 3yrs old? why is it also that the goverment took over on the investigation? but yet you compare it to almost any other accident here in the us and the the final findings are posted months before thier 18month deadline? look up the charlotte Midwest accident they havent even reached the deadline yet but we already have the final findings. Like i said it may not have been terrorist, but there is deffinatly some info being withheld.
PS the 3min departure rule wasnt followed ha thats funny visit any major airport in the US see if its followed especially in NYC!!! Wecontrollers dont have stop watches with us checking!
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4781 posts, RR: 23
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2841 times:
Explosives are out of the question unless there has been a coverup and conspiracy on the part of the FAA of massive proportions. The only way that terrorism could have been involved in this accident is in sabotage of the aircraft. But even the chance of this is slim to none. It was a bad set of circumstances...following a heavy too closely and having a pilot who according to Airbus, overcontrolled the rudder in an attempt to recover. However there is still debate on how much the rudder control system on the A300-605R was to blame.
Uh, don't shoot the messenger Aviationwiz. The article is from the Canada's National Post. I suppose the article would be much more credible if the prestigious and objective New York Times had reprinted it...... Lots of links to important news and events on Drudge's site the mainstream media doesn't think newsworthy- not Drudge's words.
I do think the Al-Qaeda claim of responsibility for bringing down AA 587 is false and merely an attempt by Al-Qaeda to bring more attention to themselves. I'm sure they'd like to take credit for the massive devastation caused by the recent hurricane in Florida too...
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
Any plane can be broken by the pilot(s). This is not unique to the A300. Saying that "weak rudder" was the ONLY cause of the accident seems drastic. I won't even get into the terrorism thing. No traces of explosives found and no sign of foul play otherwise.
- If the plane has not flown into wake turbulence, the rudder inputs would not have been necessary.
- If the pilots had been aware of the limitations they would not have maneuvered the way they did.
- If there had been a rudder movement limiter the tail would not have snapped off.
- If the plane had been at higher altitude the tail failure might have been revocerable.
It is rare for accidents to be caused by a single thing. Unfortunately in this case, AA and Airbus started pointing fingers instead of working together. This has clouded the issue and I fear the real answers may be long in coming.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
757drvr From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2665 times:
I understand that it was an excessive G load that ripped off the tail. My question was what could cause that excessive G load? Much of the blame has been given to the FO. Yes I also know that a pilot can break the airplane as someone stated earlier. I just find it unlikely that an experienced FO such as the one on 587 would over control the airplane to the point at which it would break unless it was their last ditch effort to save the aircraft. It would be such an un-natural thing to do to apply rudder in such an extreme manner. Having said that...I find it hard to believe that wake from a 747 could put an A300 in such a situation that it would take that much rudder to recover from. I once got caught in severe wake in a 727 following a 777 into SJC. The airplane immediately rolled nearly 60 degrees. It will certainly get your attention and make your heart beat faster. But wake turbulence is only a small area and within seconds you would be out of it. During our recovery...it took some rudder to help right the aircraft and some power to climb above the 777's wake. In the 737 and 757, there is quite a bit of adverse yaw during single engine operations. This is especially true during a go-around on a single engine. This maneuver requires aggressive application of the rudder when advancing power on the one engine for the go-around. I would imagine the A300 isn't much different. If the aircraft can withstand this kind of force I again find it hard to believe that wake can cause enough of un upset to an aircraft as big as a A300 to require the extreme rudder application that could rip off a tail.
Again, I am not saying it was terrorism. But if it was simply wake turbulence, I would think we would see this type of accident a little more often.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17029 posts, RR: 67
Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2625 times:
757drvr, I completely agree with your statements, and this accident certainly has it's share of mysteries. Unfortunately, with all the fingerpointing going on (not confined to A.nut unfortunately ) it's hard to find out what really happened.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2560 times:
It wasn´t a single application of the rudder, it apparently was a series of strong rudder reversals that ultimately produced a severe sideslip that stressed the tail fin well beyond its ultimate limits (which would have happened with any other tail fin design just as much).
Apparently, aggressive use of the rudder was only taught in AA training while both large manfuacturers recommended the use of ailerons for upset recovery.
The only somewhat possible fault contribution of the manufacturer I know of would have been the rudder limiter design that made precise control a little more difficult than necessary. But hardly enough to be "the cause" of the accident.
: Note the well written reply #14 by Phollingsworth here http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1717669/
: If it was the rudder and excesive G's why werent the investigators able to duplicate the problem in the full motion sim while investigating? They trie
: The reason they were not able to duplicate it in the sim while investigating is because the sim was not set up to duplicate the conditions. The proble
: N1120a Ultimately, this is down to money. If the aircraft was defective, AA can sue Airbus and the families of those who would died will do likewise.
: Im not saying IT was terrorism either but why is it if you take a look at the NTSB and try to get the final findings they only have the prelim reports
: I think too much is being made of the training at AA concerning the use of the rudder. I have done some of my training over at AA and have seen the vi
: IIRC the PIT 737 crash was due to rudder reversal. Took 2 years + to figure out. So yes, these things can take a long time.
: Wasn't that particular A300 (Ship 053) involved in a similar incident in 1997? If so, maybe that served to weaken the fin mountings? PROSA: I think wh
: LVZXV: The Queens accident was caused more by fin loss at a critical phase of flight (yes, induced by lateral G overloads from excessive rudder inputs
: LVZXV I do not think that the two incidents involved the same aircraft. Klaus Do you know the date that this Joint Note was issued.
: Wasn't that particular A300 (Ship 053) involved in a similar incident in 1997? If so, maybe that served to weaken the fin mountings? That incident occ
: BENNETT123: Do you know the date that this Joint Note was issued. As far as I could find out, it was in 1997.
: The JAL 744 took a wide turn and flew out over the Marine Park Bridge. AA 587 took a shallow turn before Howard Beach and went for the cross at 125th