Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Possibility Of A Bomb In The Bulk (AA587)  
User currently offlineRed Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 1 month 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1660 times:

What is the possibility that there is a bomb in the bulk?! There might have been a little bomb in the bulk hold that triggered the whole chain results of the accident. The fact told us that the vertical stabilzer came off first, and this is believed to be the cause of the loss of control. But what made the tail to fall apart in the first place? Was it really wake turbulence? I personally do not believe that wake turbulence would cause such a large structural damage to an acft. Turbulence or CAT can hardly cause such damage to the acft external structure since acfts are built to stand turbulence. Even pax got thrown up and down in the cabin during turbulence, the structure of acft itself should only suffer minor damage or even no damage at all.


The accident also remind me what happened to Alaska MD-80 that plunged off the coast of LA.

all thouhts are welcome
r panda

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGF-A330 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 1644 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1498 times:

a little bomb .......oh really

User currently offlineCritter592 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1484 times:

Yeah, How LITTLE of a bomb can we get... And don't the bags go through X-RAY...

User currently offlineAWspicious From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1468 times:

yeah... a little bomb.... shaped like a rivet... real James Bond stuff!

 Laugh out loud


User currently offlineBoeing757fan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1462 times:

Its possible... I hope they cover it up though, and say it was a different problem.



User currently offlineWoodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1031 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1456 times:

CAT can most certainly cause structural damage to large aircraft. There have been incidents of trailing wing slats being crinkled, wing panels coming off or being deformed and even more signifigant structural damage.

User currently offlineBoeing757fan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1443 times:

WOW, you guys really know your stuff... Did you know that CHECKED baggage isnt screened, the FAA just announcing today that they want to implement a system at all airports by 2004, to screen checked bags for bombs?

LOL

You guys are good!

HOW DOO YOUU do it?

 Laugh out loud


User currently offlineRed Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1432 times:

pls note that there are many diff. ppl working on the ramp. The "little bomb" may not originally from the baggage itself. Employees or ramp rats are not necessarily checked by the securities before each shift.

r panda


User currently offlineBoeing757fan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1416 times:

That too!

User currently offlineBoeing757fan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1413 times:

I owe an apology AW SPICIOUS... I seriously thought that it was AWSuxspicous... Sorry.



User currently offlineMika From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 2881 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (13 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1403 times:

The accident also remind me what happened to Alaska MD-80 that plunged off the coast of LA.

Alaska 261 came down because a bolt or whatever (sorry for being so specific  Smile in the horizontal stab. jammed into a position which forced the plane to a rapid descent. If i'm not wrong here (feel free to correct me if i am) this was a fault specific to the MD series A/C? Therefore not applicable for the A300. Again, this is mere speculation and please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.


User currently offlineBoeing764 From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 298 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1358 times:

I don't think that a bomb in the cargo hold would result in such a clean seperation of the vertical stabilizer. It's my humble opinion that it was a mechanical failure on either the engine or the stab.


From Dr. King's America to Nelson Mandela's Africa, the journey of equality moves on.
User currently offlineAWspicious From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (13 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1357 times:

Boeing757fan;
R U cuttin up my name or something? Cuz if U R, u'll hv 2 'splain yerslf. Ah don't git whr u cumin frum.
That thing bout the "rivet bomb" was just a walk on the light side. No offence to Red Panda.
I'm also aware of the insecurities posed by some ramp employees.... and groomers, too. Who's to say one of them can't have a hidden agenda.


User currently offlinePilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (13 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1344 times:

This thread sucks. What kind of stupid arse comments are these. What is so hard in believing it was mechanical failure?

- Neil Harrison


User currently offlineBoeingmd82 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 241 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (13 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1343 times:

BOAC Boeing 707-436 G-APFE, March 5, 1966

Clubbed sideways by a violent W-NW stream rolling over the cone of Mt. Fuji and round flanks. The tail fin was torn off along with the stabilser. Sudden pich up after stabiliser loss caused all 4 engines to fail sideways at the wing pylon attachments.

Braniff International Airways BAC-111-203AE, N1553, August 6, 1966.

Hit from behind by a violent wind gust, elevators and rudder torn off.

There's probably more out there, but I don't remember. The point is, that turbulence can destroy an aircraft. It's hard to imagine that wake turbulence from a B747 could cause a similar accident to an A300, but we must wait for the investigation. Remember, they also didn't think a DC-9 could be destroyed by the wake from a DC-10, but it happened May 30, 1972 - Delta DC-9-14, N3305L. We may find something totally new about the A300 after this investigation that can make th airplane safer, or change procedures to make us all safer.

BMD82


User currently offlineBoeing757fan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1334 times:

I apologized, what else can I do... I thought thats what your name was...

R U cuttin up my name or something? Cuz if U R, u'll hv 2 'splain yerslf. Ah don't git whr u cumin frum.


SAY WHAT????????
Please, speak that without the wannabe Ebonics...


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8034 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (13 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1326 times:

A bomb?? Surely you jest.  Insane

If there was a bomb, the bomb-sniffing dogs of the NYPD would have found them a long time ago. Besides, eyewitness reports show the fuselage crashed in ONE piece, not very consistent with a bomb explosion.

People forget that the amount of Semtex explosive used to bring down PA 103 was the equivalent of 80-90 sticks of dynamite. It was said the Semtex material filled almost the entire shell of the radio the hid the bomb.


User currently offlineRed Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (13 years 1 month 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1307 times:

My thread is aimmed to enhance ppl's thoughts by providing another possibility. I don't know what some ppl out there just got so mad about.
It's not that I don't believe the accident may be a result of mechanical failure, but we can't rule out any other possibility, can we. Ppl out there saying sth. like "this thread sucks" should think twice before they write it. Comments like this would just downgrade the quality of a.net.
All pros and cons are welcome as long as you are not swearing for nth.

r panda


User currently offlineRed Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (13 years 1 month 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1303 times:

the post about 707 damaged by turbulence posted by boeingmd82 is sth. way more constructive than comments like "this thread sucks".

r panda


User currently offlineSuper Em From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (13 years 1 month 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1295 times:

If a plane travelling at 550 mph encounters turbulence and doesn't fall apart,how could an a/c travelling half that speed suddenly fall apart? Very suspicious.

User currently offlineMilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2012 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (13 years 1 month 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1284 times:

Soon we will hear from the conspiracy nuts that AA587 was shot down by the same missile launcher as TW800

User currently offlineJfk747 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (13 years 1 month 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1284 times:

Here is my bomb theory

A small amount of a plastic exposives in a rear overhead or in a rear bathroom. This would blow the entire rear tail off and causing a dive. This would also start a fire in the a/c. How the engine came apart I don't know.

THIS IS MY BOMB THEORY, I Honstly thing it was just an simple ancident. We need to turn off CNN and relax. All this bull shit from the media is hurting our thought Proccess



User currently offlineTygue From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (13 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1262 times:

Your bomb theories contradict the fact that the stabilizer was found completely intact. Attatched to no other part of the fuselage, as well as appearing to be almost ripped off cleanly. No jagged edges or impact marks as a bomb would indicate.

Sorry too all the conspiracy theorists out there... this one's out of your hands.


User currently offlineBoeing757fan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (13 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1262 times:

If it is a bomb, they need to cover it up... All they have to say is... "It was the extremely rare, and endangered, "Pink-Eyed Elephant Finch." They are almost microscopic. Thats why they are so dangerous, you cant see the silly things..They got sucked into the engines or pitot tube..."

People will believe that.

And the people will keep flying.

And AA will survive.


User currently offlineTygue From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (13 years 1 month 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1259 times:

I'm intrigued.

A swarm, perchance?


25 Tincan : I personally don't believe it was a bomb, but a failure that just caused the tail to fall off. Jfk747, the engines might "shake" off because after los
26 Red Panda : Bomb Theory in the bulk doesn't seem to hold. Ths for all comments and facts. We are now all enlightened. So, the picture of the accident now is: Vert
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Number Of Airbus In The States posted Sun Oct 21 2001 07:26:51 by Flying-b773
End Of Visits In The Flight Deck? posted Sun Sep 16 2001 17:54:58 by LOT POLISH
Fate Of CO In The Pacific posted Fri Aug 10 2001 22:27:31 by Airbus380
The Highs And Lows Of Aviation In The Year 2000 posted Sat Dec 23 2000 01:23:52 by Teahan
Shortage Of Pilots In The U.s? posted Thu Oct 5 2000 19:20:57 by Piloto
Aerial Photographs Of Airports In The US... posted Sat Feb 5 2000 06:19:40 by Kdbay
Day In The Life Of A Commercial Aircraft posted Mon Jan 7 2002 21:44:32 by Bobbydgg
What Do You Think Of This Guy In The Picture? posted Wed Jan 2 2002 08:28:10 by Airbus Lover
Ever Seen One Of These Tri-jets In The U.S? posted Sat Dec 29 2001 16:56:46 by UK_Dispatcher
In The Background Of A CLE Photo posted Wed Dec 26 2001 03:31:23 by CleCo