LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9 Posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 323 times:
I know it is in everyone's favour to write yesterday's disaster off as an accident, but considering the circumstances, I just don't "feel right" about this crash.
I don't like the many coincidences in this crash. A heavily fueled widebody over NYC, 2 months and 1 day after the attacks of 9/11, same time, same airline. The characteristics of the damage and the A300 being in low altitude and speed at the time of the failure, seems to suggest the possibility of the a/c being hit by a shoulder-launched SAM, or perhaps a bomb. I do however doubt the terrorists' ability to acquire or import a SAM into the US. Also, it happened in broad day light, and no witnesses mentioned seeing anything resembling a missile. Someone also mentioned that if the a/c would have departed (and crashed) on time, there would be much more casualties on the ground.
What do you think?
I don't think this belongs in the Civil Aviation forum, because it doesn't really deal with aviation, but rather with terrorism and speculations as to the causes of the AA587 disaster. Hope you agree.
ADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 258 times:
I think your simply PARANOID and spreading this type of rubbish does NOTHING postive at all.
Personally, i'd like to await the findings of the experts before finger pointing at anyone. After all, how many times have people been accused of terrorism only to find it was an accident (I cite other airline crashes).
Rather than speculating and finger pointing our first reaction should be:
What a tragedy! When I heard about it my first thought was "how much does this city need to bear?".
My sympathies are to the community where the plane landed, the family and friends of the victims and of course, the people of both the Dominican Republic and USA for this tragedy.
Turbolet From Cape Verde, joined Nov 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 254 times:
ADG, expressing your opinon does not have to end up saying: I think your simply PARANOID and spreading this type of rubbish does NOTHING postive at all.
God, learn some manners! Respect people!
Ukair From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 288 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 219 times:
It is certainly unusual for an airplane from the states to suffer such a catastrophic faliure and in the light of recent events it would not be excessive to suppose there was a terrorist connection. The important thing is that the truth will come out.
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4834 posts, RR: 23
Reply 7, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 212 times:
I'm briefly going to pop my head back in the forums...
There are too many cocnincidences. The first major air disaster after 9/11, and it happens in New York. The chances are so miniscule that it isn't even funny. I'm not going to bring in any speculation on the causes, but I firmly believe that there is foul play involved...espescially when you see the disintegration pattern of the aircraft.
Aloha 737-200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 203 times:
Well I'm going to post my opinion and hope no one attacks it.
OK, I do not think this was an accident at all, though I highly doubt that it was a shoulder launched missile. Surely someone would have seen THAT.
Also, the plane reporetedly started breaking up as soon as it took off, and only was able to stay airborne for 3 minutes.
Now, a plane doesn't just "start falling apart", there has to be a cause. There was no adverse weather that day, nothing really dangerous, an a bird?? Give me a break a bird couldn't cause that much damage.
In fact if what I hear if correct, just before the engines caught fire, the vertical stabilizer (the tail) fell off. Hmmmm....I would consider that kind of strange, wouldn't you?? Considering that the aircraft had a maintenance check just the day before.
Personally I believe it was foul play, and I believe one of two things might have occured.
1) A bomb.
Despite the current security measures I don't think it would be all that difficult to get a bomb on that plane. Also, considering the terrorists from the 9/11 attacks had been trained to fly in the first place, is it not possible that perhaps someone trained as a baggage handler at JFK could possibly have planted a bomb on that plane? Consider that most witnesses reported seeing "A bright orange flash of light where the wing joins the body of the plane, then the engine fell off"
Hmmmmm. Now isn't that kind of interesting? The witnesses, nearly all of them, report seeing the flash of light not at the engine, but rather coming from the underbelly of the aircraft, right where the wing joins the body. To me that sound like a suitcase bomb. You be the judge.
Again, the terrorists have ways to get on the inside. Perhaps the maintenance check the night before, a mechanic might have sabotaged the plane. Here's where the vertical stabilizer anomaly makes sense. Something doesn't just fall off like that, something needs to be done to loosen it. Perhaps a few "repairs" were done to the aircraft, by a not-so-trustworthy mechanic.
Now, if it was not either of those two things, then the only real mechanical failures I can think of are these:
1) Fuel tank explosion.
Probably the most likely. Considering the probably origination of the explosion, the fuel tank might have explded.
2) Engine explosion.
Again a very likely possibility, but why did it rip off the vertical stabilizer? Why did it take the airplane apart as it did?
3) Catastrophic structural failure.
This is also very likely considering the way the aircraft broke up, but what caused it? The aircraft began breaking up before the engine/fuselage exploded, so this is a possibility, but considering the maintenance check the day before, unlikely unless foul play was involved.
I smell something fishy, and I hope you do too, this just isn't right, and I got a bad feeling in my stomach.
At any rate, I ask for no personaly attacks on my views, this does seem kind of strange, considering all the factors, so I as that no one blows up.
Leftseat86 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 143 times:
From what Imcan see on the news, it looks as if the aircraft broke up in flight, with the loss of the rudder, almost a clean cut, it could not have been an explosion. I highly doubt that a missle hit the aircraft, because:
1.It would have exploded
2.There are no burn marks on any of the parts I have seen
3.We would have heard of that WAY sooner.
I am speculating that perhaps a reverser deployed, causing massive aerodynamic instability much like that of Lauda Air flight 004 over India. In that crash, the reverser on the left engine deployed in cruise climb, wich eventually led to the breakup of the plane, and the subsequent loss of the port emgine.
If it wasn't for 9/11 no one here would have suspected fowl play...
ADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 137 times:
It is certainly unusual for an airplane from the states to suffer such a catastrophic faliure
Incorrect. US has a high incidence of airplance accidents, due I think to the high number of planes that actually fly in the US ...
and in the light of recent events it would not be excessive to suppose there was a terrorist connection.
True, however I think it would cause less anxiety to the residents of NY if conspiracy theories are kept out of it .. after all, if a member of your family was killed, wouldn't you feel much better if people weren't suggesting they were deliberately killed? All evidence from the moment the plane crashed to now would indicate that it was a structural failure .. why not just stick to speculating about what we know?
The important thing is that the truth will come out.
Agreed, and I for one, hope it was a structural failure ..
Bin Ladin announced that more airplanes will crash down onto american soil.
He didn't say how but fact is that it happened.
Leftseat86 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 120 times:
You need to read up on aviation crshes buddy!
Read my previous post here about Lauda Air flight 004, which broke up in flight when a reverser delployed on it's left engine. The rudder sheared off with a clean cut, much like that of AA587, because of structural overloads. So did the tailplane.
AA191, the DC-10-30 that crashed in Chicago in 1973 due to the port engine ripping off, also had just recieved a maintenance check, which was almost directly responsible for the crash. It was discovered that AA used inproper procedures during engine servicing...
More later, I have to go to the dentist!