I thought this might be of interest:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/books/1463 ... a-cover-up

Early in his book, Juby offers these little-known details about the Sept. 2, 1998 flight: the first class passengers had been moved to the rear of the aircraft, and all aboard were dead before the plane crashed.

I noticed they used the word "details" instead of "facts"... which stands out, as I don't recall any of the official reports mentioning either of these.

In fact, due to massive deceleration damage, I'm pretty sure it states that cause of death was indeterminable for most pax. From what I remember, there was only 1 corpse that was even recognizable as a human body, most couldn't even be identified by dental records due to the 351g impact having shattered their teeth!

The part about that worker who used fake credentials and worked the shift of the flight and booked it was very interesting to me.

"Claims" is the operative word here. Just like there are some who "claim" 9/11 was a hoax. It is the problem with the alternative facts/conspiracy theory world that we live in that, in the face of incontrovertible facts, others push this drivel.

Nobody seems to mention that there was was smoke in the cockpit that was caused by shorted wires in the overhead near the cockpit bulkhead causing a fire. Also the pilot tried dumping fuel over the sea by circling when he should of attempted landing the aircraft heavy at Halifax and maybe there would of been survivors.

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Nobody seems to mention that there was was smoke in the cockpit that was caused by shorted wires in the overhead near the cockpit bulkhead causing a fire. Also the pilot tried dumping fuel over the sea by circling when he should of attempted landing the aircraft heavy at Halifax and maybe there would of been survivors.

I thought they did the math on "direct to Halifax" and determined he wouldn't have made it before the cockpit became uninhabitable. I guess it depends on where you start from in the math.....

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Also the pilot tried dumping fuel over the sea by circling when he should of attempted landing the aircraft heavy at Halifax and maybe there would of been survivors.

That part's been debunked time and time again.

From the moment of diversion, to declaring Pan-Pan-Pan, to declaring emergency, to the FDR cutting out (presumably due to fire burning through the electrical lines)... the aircraft would not have had enough time to make it into YHZ. The "Mayday" episode places it as crashing about 6min shy of the runway threshold into that airport, assuming the most direct diversion/approach within the same timeline as the actual crash.

Thus, as macabre as this may sound, it's probably best that they did head out over the sea, because if it crashed on land (which it would've, based on the timing) it probably would've taken out a number of people/homes on the ground as well.

The accident was investigated very thoroughly by the TSB, NTSB, FAA, and AAIB. The investigation lasted five years and was the most expensive investigation in Canadian aviation history. I'm thinking they probably covered all their bases, and considering they were able to replicate the fault that led to the fire, I would think the entire accident was fairly well documented.

It's sad to me that some people feel the need to profit off of conspiracies like this. This was a tragic accident that escalated extremely quickly -- too quickly for the crew to react in time to get the aircraft safely on the ground. Fortunately because the cause was determined, it made the aircraft of today far safer by requiring more robust electrical systems and increased use of fire retardant materials. I'm not sure how much more could be read into all of this, but I guess some people are simply determined to do so.

If we're talking aircraft accidents into the Atlantic in the late 90s, it seems to me that Egypt Air 990 is far more controversial. I feel the NTSB conclusion is best supported by facts, but the Egyptian ECAA refutes the NTSB conclusions to this day. There's far more conspiracy and controversy involved in this than with Swissair 111.

It's unfortunate how everything seems to become a "conspiracy"

Were there some VERY valuable works of art in the cargo, seem to have heard about this? (lives are worth more)

If I remeber correct, it was the IFT system connected to the main power distribution bus which has become a don't since then. IFT went out of business & Swissair a few years later. I remember that IFT systems well, it was owned by a Vegas family, AZ used it too. Full AVOD, great entertainment, big heavy screens, basically everyone a PC under his seat. Very power demanding.

atcsundevil wrote:

If we're talking aircraft accidents into the Atlantic in the late 90s, it seems to me that Egypt Air 990 is far more controversial. I feel the NTSB conclusion is best supported by facts, but the Egyptian ECAA refutes the NTSB conclusions to this day.

While it's tough to give much credence to the Egyptian perspective, they do raise one interesting point:
The Captain did not return to his seat nor begin communicating with El Batouti until well after the dive had begun. At that point, the cabin would've been in near zero-G.

How did a nearly 60yr-old man, who wasn't in the best of shape, somehow spiderman his way from the lav, through the (small) cockpit door, and into his seat.... while in freefall?

The part about the fake ID seems plausible, but the part about the passengers being dead before impact is untrue. I read a book by a retired CASB investigator who worked on the SR 111 case. He had to answer questions from families, and one of them was "What did my relative feel in the final moments of flight?" The answer was that they were still alive. They were moved to the Y cabin and it was dark, due to the lights being out, but there was calm and they were being prepared for a landing in YHZ, and from the autopsies, there was apparently some smoke, but not enough in the passenger cabin to kill or disable people besides the pilots. And, IIRC, the pilots could control the plane until the bitter end, so I doubt that his theory is true of a bomb.

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Nobody seems to mention that there was was smoke in the cockpit that was caused by shorted wires in the overhead near the cockpit bulkhead causing a fire. Also the pilot tried dumping fuel over the sea by circling when he should of attempted landing the aircraft heavy at Halifax and maybe there would of been survivors.

IIRC, if they could have known how severe the fire would become, they could have put her down at a couple of airports nearby....

I'm surprised A.net's resident "spymaster" didn't try to pin this on that feared post WW2 secret agency of Germany.

As for Juby's claim, surely the facts would be out in the open & dissected by many people. Why aren't there more people out with the same claim, and who'd benefit from covering up SR111?

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I'm surprised A.net's resident "spymaster" didn't try to pin this on that feared post WW2 secret agency of Germany.

I'm pretty sure he already has. Along with most other plane crashes.

Conspiracy theorists are those who claim coverups whenever insufficient data exists to support what THEY'RE sure is true.

ikolkyo wrote:

The part about that worker who used fake credentials and worked the shift of the flight and booked it was very interesting to me.

If this is even true, it doesn't mean there was a nefarious reason as to why it happened. Imagine your first day on the job as a ground crew worker and then this happens, it would hardly be surprising that he/she didn't go back to work, especially knowing that the 'fake credentials' would get a lot more scrutiny. I'm not buying the disappearing act, that sounds very fishy to me.

This is how conspiracy theories work, they tend to identify a string of perceived inconsistencies and then present that as fact for a cover up. I don't know what happened to SR111 (or TW800 or JFK's assassination, either) and of course there is an outside possibility that there was a lot more to these unfortunate events than we know about, but not having all of the answers lining up neatly is not proof of a greater conspiracy. For those not around in 1998, the Swiss crash was extensively covered in the media, albeit more so in Canada than the US, and was one of four major crashes involving JFK airport as a departure or destination airport within a four year span (TW800, SR111, MS990 and AF4590) so that would seem to indicate a pattern and therefore it lent itself to more conspiracy rumors. If you can discount the Egyptair crash as a pilot-suicide, itself a controversial finding, and the Concorde crash as a result of runway debris, the TWA and SR crash were most similar in that each crashed into the Atlantic Ocean. But as we know, the former exploded 12 minutes after takeoff and the latter was on-fire and had radioed mayday calls before its fatal plunge.

richierich wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

The part about that worker who used fake credentials and worked the shift of the flight and booked it was very interesting to me.

If this is even true, it doesn't mean there was a nefarious reason as to why it happened. Imagine your first day on the job as a ground crew worker and then this happens, it would hardly be surprising that he/she didn't go back to work, especially knowing that the 'fake credentials' would get a lot more scrutiny. I'm not buying the disappearing act, that sounds very fishy to me.

This is how conspiracy theories work, they tend to identify a string of perceived inconsistencies and then present that as fact for a cover up. I don't know what happened to SR111 (or TW800 or JFK's assassination, either) and of course there is an outside possibility that there was a lot more to these unfortunate events than we know about, but not having all of the answers lining up neatly is not proof of a greater conspiracy. For those not around in 1998, the Swiss crash was extensively covered in the media, albeit more so in Canada than the US, and was one of four major crashes involving JFK airport as a departure or destination airport within a four year span (TW800, SR111, MS990 and AF4590) so that would seem to indicate a pattern and therefore it lent itself to more conspiracy rumors. If you can discount the Egyptair crash as a pilot-suicide, itself a controversial finding, and the Concorde crash as a result of runway debris, the TWA and SR crash were most similar in that each crashed into the Atlantic Ocean. But as we know, the former exploded 12 minutes after takeoff and the latter was on-fire and had radioed mayday calls before its fatal plunge.

Not saying it had anything to do with the crash, I honestly don't think there is anything else behind SR111 other than what the investigators found.

One thing I'm curious about that I read above which seems unusual is one post says it was almost impossible to identify bodies even using dental records because of an impact so great teeth were actually shattered....then another post mentions autopsies were done and determined that smoke inhalation did exist, but did not cause death.
Maybe I'm just not knowledgeable enough on this, but if teeth were shattered, how the heck was there autopsies done to determine what they found regarding smoke inhalation? Doesnt an autopsie more or less require intact bodies?

ikolkyo]
Not saying it had anything to do with the crash, I honestly don't think there is anything else behind SR111 other than what the investigators found.[/quote]

That's pretty much where I am with it. You said it shorter.

[quote="trnswrld wrote:

One thing I'm curious about that I read above which seems unusual is one post says it was almost impossible to identify bodies even using dental records because of an impact so great teeth were actually shattered....then another post mentions autopsies were done and determined that smoke inhalation did exist, but did not cause death. Maybe I'm just not knowledgeable enough on this, but if teeth were shattered, how the heck was there autopsies done to determine what they found regarding smoke inhalation? Doesnt an autopsie more or less require intact bodies?

Even fragments of bodies can hold vital clues. If there was smoke inhalation, there would be evidence in organs and perhaps even in skin cells. I could not tell you more details because I'm not pathologist either, but I'm fairly sure there are plenty of CSI- and Forensic Files-like clues in even the smallest pieces. It is pretty gruesome work though, I'd imagine you have to be very tough to remove yourself from the human element behind such work. I would not be cut out for such a job.