Flight 587 and the link to 9/11

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   
The 5th team of 9/11

American Airlines Flight 587 crashed into the Belle Harbor neighborhood of Queens, New York shortly after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport on November 12, 2001. It was stated that it crashed due to rudder failure, but something about it did not sit right with me. I decided to take a deeper look and was surprised and the lack of subject matter on the issue. I read the NTSB report and could not believe what I found.

www.ntsb.gov...

I have always believed that this was the first successful 'shoe bombing' and that it was covered up in an effort to not show that 'once again' terrorists had gotten in under the radar, and had taken advantage of the giant that is known as the United States and its poor security measures and huge intel failures. This would have plunged America deeper into distress if it had happened so soon after 9/11. This was actually claimed in 2002 by Al-Qaeda to be the 'first shoe bombing'.

usread.com...

There are eyewitness reports of explosions, and there was a debris field of blocks. This is the smoking gun for me though. Watch the video from the second tollbooth, and you see an explosion clear as day.

www.ntsb.gov...

Abderraouf Jdey is the name of the suspected shoe bomber who was indicated in the fl 587 crash, as identified by another member of Al-Qaeda during interrogation in Canada. Jdey disappeared 2 months after 9/11 from Canada and a suicide video was found of him in Afghanistan recorded in 1999. He was ready.

Richard Ried, most famously known as the 'shoe bomber', was stopped on December 22. 2001 from attempting to light a shoe bomb on a flight from Paris to Miami. After analysis, it was shown that the plane would have taken the lives of all on board if he had been able to light the plastic explosives in his shoe. This man also stated that he was one of the members of a fifth team that was to hijack a 5th aircraft along with Zacarias Moussaoui. This was at first dismissed by Zacarias Moussaoui lawyers, but events as of late have indicated that Moussaoui was more connected than earlier believed. Moussaoui later identified Reid as one of his team members. Both men lived in London in the 1990s and attended the Finsbury Park mosque, reportedly an al Qaeda recruiting hub.

If this is correct, that would mean that 3 of the 5 hijackers of that 5th plane have been captured or have completed an alternate mission to attack the United States. After Reid’s attempted attack, shoes became a very important to take a look at, and prior to this event were not. This means that no one would have been looking at any shoes on that day when flight 587 took off. This would mean that this type of attack more than likely would not be an option since it was on the radar.

So what we have here are 3 of the more than likely 5 members of a 5th plane that was intended to crash into the Capitol just as Moussaoui has now stated in testimony from his trial. Reid, Moussaoui and Jdey.

Is there a possible connection and a true government cover-up ? You decide…..




posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:12 AM
link   
The vertical fin fell off. They found it three miles away in the water. It's an ongoing issue with airbus. There have been at least two more veritcal fin problems since then that I'm aware of, including on rudder failing and snapping off the plane. I have pictures of the vertical fin and you can see where the failure occured.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   


So what we have here are 3 of the more than likely 5 members of a 5th plane that was intended to crash into the Capitol just as Moussaoui has now stated in testimony from his trial. Reid, Moussaoui and Jdey.


Very interesting. Nice post. If the 5th plane was intended to crash into the Capitol building, then where was the 4th (flight 93) supposed to go?



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I have suspected that 587 was connected to 9/11. I still think it might have been sabotage.

Planes just do not fall apart for no reason. people make them fall apart.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I am aware that they state that the piece was found in Jamaica Bay. However, losing the stabilizer would not have caused engine failure, and in the video I posted, the plane is travelling normally, then there is sometype bright flash, and then you see the smoke and it starts the descend to the ground. Watch the video from lane 13, there is a flash (explosion) and the palne descends.

Pilots are trained to recover from what occured with the jet wash, and that has been stated that there is is no reason a trained pilot could not have controlled the plane to land it. The palne also would not have lost engines due to 'abrupt corrective movements' by the pilots as flight data suggests.


Many witnesses state



archives.cnn.com...
Witnesses said they saw an explosion on one side of the plane before the crash, but different accounts placed the explosion on different sides of the aircraft. Ethan Moses said he saw the aircraft burning from its left side, then the aircraft's left engine fell off.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Excellent find with the video. From the moment this plane went down it was obvious terrorism. A large American Airlines jet full of fuel departing from a NY airport on a national holiday when there was already a reported threat of an attack was somehow an addicent involving turbulance because a 747 cleared to take off didn't actually do so for nearly a minute and this jet somehow followed in exactly the same path as this late 747. Want to talk about a conspiracy theory? There is one for you. The government cooked up quite a conspiracy theory on that one.

Arrivals and departures at NY airports are really tight. You don't just sit around after you have been cleared to take off. You go immediately. Planes follow each other over and over without a bit of trouble. But someone this big jet was supposedly threatened by wake turbulance that supposedly caused the fin to break off? I don't think so.

The reality of it is that this airline that was targeted only months earlier in a massive terrorist attack was targeted again on a national holiday. Eyewitness reports stated their was an explosion. The video shows there was as well. American Airlines was the target 4 times. They were the victim 3 times.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Don't want to rain on your parade and I'm not saying it was or wasn't terrorism, but the damage seems excessive for a shoe bomb. Even with a built up sole you could only get a few ounces in it, maybe enough to take door off, but a tail fin or engine.
Why would we see the flash? He must have had a window seat. Must have been in the smoking section as well.

Gordon.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
who said it was just one shoe bomb?? what about 2 3 or even 4 or more?

and semtex is nasty stuff in a shoe you'll get enough to puncture the skin of a plane and cause damage...sat right, the person would cause considerable damage.

Great find with the video though!



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by gordonross
Don't want to rain on your parade and I'm not saying it was or wasn't terrorism, but the damage seems excessive for a shoe bomb.


If I remember the idea correctly about the shoe bomb it is to have the passenger positioned over the fuel tank. Plus if the jet is pressurized it doesn't take much for the jet to start coming apart after an explosion. Even a small one.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MadGreebo
who said it was just one shoe bomb?? what about 2 3 or even 4 or more?


If it were the middle of the three options then Jake the Peg would be the obvious suspect. Has anyone seen Rolf Harris lately?

How did they get near the tail fin? Through the rear toilets? Told the stewardesses they were going to join the mile high club?

Or the engine? Cigarette break?
This theory needs work.
Gordon.
Just had a thought. Maybe it was the Bay City Rollers. I always thought those platform shoes were a bit suspect. You could get pounds of explosive in those. This must have been the work of the Tartan Taliban the well known provisional wing and offshoot from Mac-Al-Qaeda.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by gordonross]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Reid was sitting in the most oppurtune seat. Again, what changed my mind was the video. This is not a modified WTC 7 collaspe, it is a toll booth that shows an explosion (flash) and the plane going down.

There is no way to correctly determine hte damage created unless the bomb was detonated in a plane, however it was stated that it was large enough to blow a hole in the frame and could have damaged the fuel tanks.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   
This is an accident that really interested me. On the sabotage angle I read an interesting webpage about 2 years ago (I don't know the site anymore). The theory proposed was that the thrust reversers could have been sabotaged causing the inflight deployment of the thrust reversers. The rudder may be able to snap off if the pilot applied full pressure, to the rudder, compinsating for the asymmetrical thrust caused by the deplyoment of the reverser.

On the other hand, I can also believe the official events (rudder snapping off). In March 05 there was an Air Transat A310 where the rudder snapped of on take-off.
www.airdisaster.com...

While it may not be the same aircraft the tailplane (stabilizer's, rudders etc.) are, if i'm not mistaken, nearly identical.

BTW- this site rocks



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 04:04 AM
link   
It wasn't the rudder that came off on this plane. It was the entire vertical fin. Air Transat, and one other plane had the rudders suffer severe damage, but on this flight the entire tail came off.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Gee the guys that don't believe that 911 had any inside connections now are speculating about plane crashes that may or may not have had anything to do with 911 at all? I'm not clear here what the purpose is? To spread the net, to keep hammering the arab connection while still denying the obvious to many of us here control over the US by that little country in the middle east.

A good topic for discussion but it is funny the moths that showed up to alight around this lamp.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Maybe it was Bigfoot.
I know that I'm stretching a point but he always struck me as being a shady character.
Also, there are definite similarities between Bigfoot and the Abominable Snowman. A touch of hair dye and they are virtually indistinguishable. Tibet is near Pakistan and Afghanistan - exactly the locations of the training camps.
It's all becoming much clearer.

Gordon.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   
No, I don't think Bigfoot had anything to do with it, Nessie on the other hand is one shifty mofo that could pull it off


Anyway, I found that website I mentioned earlier. I was way off on some of the points (that I mentioned in my earlier post). While the article doesn't really fully convice me of the sabotage theory it does sway me just a bit.

www.rense.com...



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_headcrusher
No, I don't think Bigfoot had anything to do with it, Nessie on the other hand is one shifty mofo that could pull it off


Anyway, I found that website I mentioned earlier. I was way off on some of the points (that I mentioned in my earlier post). While the article doesn't really fully convice me of the sabotage theory it does sway me just a bit.

www.rense.com...


good link, interesting stuff the guy knows what he is talking about. Learned a bit about aircraft too.


I agree this crash was mechanical failure too.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Flight 587 lost its tail AND engines, since they are not anywhere near one another, it was sabotage. Yes, i believe it has to do with 9/11, but i don't know how, tbh, and i don't believe i could tell a whole lot from the passenger list, d'uh.

old thread on the same issue



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Did you read the link that was provided? Once the tail came off, they went into a flat spin. Engines aren't made to withstand lateral G forces that a flat spin would put on them, and the mounts snapped, which is why the engines came off. How exactly did someone sabotage the tail to make it fall off first? I've been involved in folding several tails over to replace antennas and it's not the easiest thing in the world to get access to ANYTHING in the tail. And it's not like you could do it where no one would notice.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
so, suddenly a huge amount of torque was alledgedly applied to the aircraft, making it spin so fast that both engines sheared off while the rest of the plane splashed into the sea in one piece, all within a very short time, because altitude was still rather low, right?

You know there was a fatal accident over Thailand approximately 10 years ago, one engine went into thrust reverse at full throttle (late climb), no engines lost, plane hit the ground in one piece. that was a cruise velocity with infintely more load applied to the airframe and nacelles, obviously.


If there were cases of planes losing engines to shear turbulence, you'd have a leg to stand on, but these nacelles are one of the most reinforced structures of an airliner, lateral loads or not, they're one of the last things to come off.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join