It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flight 587 and the link to 9/11

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Did any of you take the time to watch the tollbooth video? If you watch it, you see the plane "explode" and plummet.




posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
It's most odd the flight recorder information ceases long before it hits the ground... Why would that happen? The CVR was still working...

I've watched the tollbooth video as well now and it is most odd, why would there be an explosive flash just from the tail coming off? There wouldn't as far as I'm concerened.
There reports that an engine fell off too, what's the explanation for that?

[edit on 14-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I dont't believe the it 'fell off due to shearing' story. I believe that the video shows a plane in flight, an explosion, and then descent. I mean, it is better than the WTC 7 video



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Engine mounts ARE the most reinforced portion of the wing, but NOT against Lateral G forces. There was a C-135 that landed in Japan, and one engine went to power, and three into reverse. They spun on the runway, and all four engine mounts suffered significant damage due to the lateral forces applied to them in the spin.

Take a look at the KC-135 that had two engines fall off and almost lost the other two, due to lateral G forces. They got caught in wake turbulence and started dutch rolling (side to side rolls). When they recovered, they had lost power to two engines, the boom operator went a looked for damage, and two engines were just gone. They had sheared off during the rolls, because of the lateral G forces. They barely landed, and when they did, they inspected the other two engines, and they were barely still attached.

Don't tell me that a flat spin can't cause the engines to come off. What do you think is going to happen when something designed to simple HOLD the engine on, and is reinforced for turns, and basic flight parameters suddenly has a large amount of force applied at what's effectively 90 degrees to what it's reinforced for? They're going to snap.

As far as the video, what do you think is going to happen when the engines come off? You're ripping fule lines, hydraulic lines, etc. Guess what? Those are flammable, and they tend to explode. Which means fire. And you can't see tell if the plane is in normal flight or not in that video. You can see a black speck, and that's all.

You still haven't explained how they were able to sabotage the tail to fall off first. Do you know how hard it is to get access to the tail? They would also have had to cut partially through HUGE mounts that attach it. I have the pictures of the tail, iI was NOT cut, it ripped off.

[edit on 4/14/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

.. Those are flammable, and they tend to explode. Which means fire. And you can't see tell if the plane is in normal flight or not in that video. You can see a black speck, and that's all.




Fair enough, but wouldn't the (fireball) trajectory indicate a steep dive if the plane was already in a spin ? from the video, it looks like it was going straight until the visible explosion occured, only then did it appear to fall.

As for the way of planting the explosives, it would have to be done during maintainance.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   
A flat spin can happen where the plane will continue to go forward as it spins. So it will look like it's flying normally, while it's spinning.

Ok, but if you rig it with explosives to blow the engines off, WHY would you rig the tail to fall off? And HOW could you rig it to not show any sabotage? It's obvious from the debris field that the tail came off FIRST, not as a result of the spin.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I've got a question about that toll booth video and flight path animation. It is written on that site that:

"...The rudder parameters are blanked out at the time the tail section separates from the airplane..."

Separetes ? How ? Just like that ? And what about that flash just before plane started to going down leaving smoke trail ? Tail separating from the plane did this ? Yeah :>

Btw. This video is just like those frames from Pentagon attack. It only raises more questions.

[edit on 15-4-2006 by STolarZ]



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
There have been issues with the composites Airbus uses for their planes. Several rudders have ripped off of the tails on other planes. This particular flight was caught in wake turbulence, so there was a lot of stress on the plane from that, and the pilots had full opposite rudder input, which put even more stress on the tail. At some point the composites failed and it seperated.

The flash and smoke trail was from the engines coming off. After the tail snapped, the plane went into a flat spin. During the flat spin the engines snapped off, and that was your flash and smoke trail.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Hmmmmm. I'm supposed to believe that not only this plane had bad luck because was hijacked but also tail ripped off etc. etc ? Give me a break. Prove it :>



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I apologize for being morbid about this …

Shoe-Bomb:

If you are going to shoe-bomb a plane, your best bet is to wait until the aircraft is at cruising altitude. Why? The rapid decompression will cause much more damage to the aircraft.

If you set the bomb off 2 minutes after take-off, the aircraft will be at 600-800m and close to the airport. There won’t be much additional damage from decompression and there will be a better chance the pilot can return to the airport.

Of course it all depends on how big your shoes are and where you are sitting.

Consider Pan-Am 103. While 10,000+ meters over Dumfries, Scotland, a luggage-bomb punches a 0.5m hole in the forward cargo hold … however, the following rapid decompression tears the skin from much of the forward section of the aircraft. Within a few seconds, the entire nose section separates and strikes the right wing.

Back to AA 587, how could a bomb cause the vertical stabilizer and engines to separate, but leave the fuselage intact?

Reverse Thrusters:

Cutting a hydraulic line the night before a flight?

That would set off an indicator or two (probably 15) in the cock-pit when they prepared for the flight the next day. To sabotage all those safe-guards … you would need a great level of knowledge and unlimited access to the aircraft. I can’t even imagine it would be possible.

Separation of Vertical Stabilizer, and thereafter Engines:

There are a number of cases of aircraft breaking apart when over-stressed during flight. Look them up. One failure often leads to another … when something causes a large aircraft to completely loose control and fall into a dive, it’s not uncommon for the engine pylons to overstress and allow the engines to detach.

Someone mentions Japan Airlines 103 flying normally without a vertical stabilizer for some time, and crashing for a different reason. This is not true … after the vertical stabilizer separated the aircraft was almost completely out of control and flew wildly for 45 minutes. The pilots only managed to stave off the inventible …

Perhaps the design of a 747 allowed it to stay airborne longer than an A300 without the vertical stabilizer. The pilots of JAL 103 also had more time to ‘experiment’ with the thrusters, while the flight descended from cruise altitude. AA 587 was relatively low and also caught in intense wake turbulence.

All commercial air crashes require incredibly unlikely scenarios, but they happen.

~*~*~*~


[edit on 15-4-2006 by vor75]



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Who said anything about it being hijacked? It WASN'T. That is purely a THEORY. It came apart because it was in wake turbulance, and under the stress the tail composites failed.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Esdad linked to this thread so I thought I'd post here rather than be off-topic elsewhere.

One post in particular struck me, it was Gordon Ross's:


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.


Whether or not it was terrorism, I would agree that it WASN'T a shoe bomb. Explosives are powerful, but not quite that powerful. Maybe enough to breach the aluminum shell could be fit into a shoe, but I don't think that kind of damage is consistent with what we're seeing here (simply punching a hole in the aluminum). A few grams or even ounces of RDX or C4 shouldn't destroy an area much bigger than the foot itself.


If maybe there was another failure of the plane itself, which is what I'm considering, then the plane could have just failed on its own in some catastrophic way, and it was subsequently covered up to prevent further economic damage to the airline industry. Just speculating, but if any explosives were smuggled on board then it would've had to have been more than you could fit in the bottom of a shoe. I suppose that's a possibility too, though.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   
The official NTSB report was structural failure caused by wake turbulence from a preceding flight. It put sideways stress onto a structure not designed for sideways stresses, and it failed. However, it had the potential to hurt a lot of people. American, and all the airlines that fly Airbus could have been ordered to ground them until they inspected the tail connections to the fuselage for cracking, which could have led to this failure.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I guess this has always bothered me as much as some the WTC 7 to others.I have always seen that as a smoke screen for other issues. My proof was when I watched the toll booth video. It was pretty convincing.

Why could a shoe bomb not cause that much damage as in the video? I do not mean to be ignorant, I would just think breeching the airliners is what you want to cause immediate instability in the controls along with panic.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Even if that was the case, which it could have been for all I know, I'm certainly not going to take either your word for it or the word of the NTSB. I'm not going to say it's crap, because I haven't looked at it, but the NTSB released some information relating to 9/11, and let's just say that they couldn't get important facts straight, just like FEMA and NIST, specifically regarding the times at which events occurred on 9/11.

Bottom line is I don't trust any of them, for good reason, and I would have to look into it myself if I ever cared to form an opinion either way. Thanks for the info though.


Originally posted by esdad71
Why could a shoe bomb not cause that much damage as in the video?


Because Hollywood is only for movies. There are plenty of videos on Youtube showing what real high explosives do in small quantities. Many show people unsuccessfully trying to cut through small trees with explosives like ANFO, and they can't even get 1 inch into the bark.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
They may have, but I've seen the pics from the investigation. I have them, but they're on another hard drive and I don't have access to them right now. You can see where the tail obviously failed, which fits to eyewitness accounts, and accounts on where it was recovered (the tail was found floating in the bay). I've seen quite a few NTSB reports that I disagreed with, but this one seems to fit everything that I heard and read about when I was looking into it.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They may have, but I've seen the pics from the investigation. I have them, but they're on another hard drive and I don't have access to them right now. You can see where the tail obviously failed, which fits to eyewitness accounts, and accounts on where it was recovered (the tail was found floating in the bay). I've seen quite a few NTSB reports that I disagreed with, but this one seems to fit everything that I heard and read about when I was looking into it.


Oh by the way if you check out the other thread i found info on the Vulcan tanker.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
That video was not mechanical failure, and I find it funny that you talk in a condescending manner about the Hollywood explosives when you think nanothermite was used on 9/11.

Why believe the NTSB and not NIST or FEMA? I mean, didn't the NTSB turn all 9/11 documents over to the FBI?I don't trust any of them, butI try to seperate fact from BS.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
That video is CLEARLY DOCTORED. It PROVES nothing. I mean, come on, This is 5+ years later and it is a compressed video on Youtube. It means nothing and nothing can be taken from it. You CTers are crazy... Laser beams.

(Being a "debunker" is easy.)



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I am talking about the NTSB toll booth video? Go jack another thread.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join