It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Flignht 587 Crash of Plane in 2001 over Long Island really Al-Qeada

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 02:49 PM
Found this quite interesting...

"In discussions, Abu Abdelrahman mentioned AL QAIDA was responsible for the assassination of Massoud, the Northern Alliance leader," the report says. "According to the source, Abu Abdelrahman added that the 12 November 2001 plane crash (btb American Airlines flight 587) in Queens, New York was not an accident as reported in the press but was actually an AL QAIDA operation.

The source claimed Jdey had used his Canadian passport to board Flight 587 and "conducted a suicide mission" with a small bomb similar to the one used by convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid, a "Top Secret" Canadian government report says.

Link to the whole article

I have never believed the offical story and this sounds credible. Anyone else have any information to add to this. The fact that they talk of Reid and the showbomber case would make sense, Weren't one of the engines found quite a bit away. Engines don't just Fall off.

[edit on 27-8-2004 by esdad71]

posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 03:28 PM
This might be of interest:

posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 03:57 PM

Originally posted by esdad71
I have never believed the offical story and this sounds credible. Anyone else have any information to add to this. The fact that they talk of Reid and the showbomber case would make sense, Weren't one of the engines found quite a bit away. Engines don't just Fall off.

[edit on 27-8-2004 by esdad71]

There is no official story yet. The NTSB is still investigating the accident. Here are some links to the NTSB's examination.

Pilot recommendations

Accident Sequence and preliminaries

NTSB FL 587 main page

Couple things to note from the site. This plane had experienced wake turbulence before. What kind of stress does this put on the rudders? The NTSB is so concerned with pilots performing "evasive manuevers" for lack of better term - they issued a recommendation for pilot training.

Really interesting read BTW. I would like an actual pilot or engineer's take on the information.

posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 03:58 PM
I have read some of this. THanks for the links.

posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 05:48 PM
Bleys, plenty of informed opinions here:

posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 12:19 AM
Seems poor rudder design combined with a pilot who in simulators tended to overuse rudder input for controll. However, the anchor points for the omposite tail should not have come off. Is Airbus looking at this?


posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 10:49 AM
Flight 587 over Queens, NY. Here's a link of interest
Sorry about that, the link has been lifted:

What cannot be explained away by the NTSB or FAA is how or why the stabilizer parted company with the aircraft at precisely the point where it joins the fuselage proper. Look at the enlarged photograph very carefully. There are absolutely no dents, scratches, on the leading edge or on the panels. This proves the vertical stabilizer was not struck by any other object, in turn proving it was the first component to detach from the aircraft. Trickier still for the NTSB, FAA and Airbus Industries, will be explaining to the general public why, with prima facie evidence proving catastrophic separation along a critical attachment line, the FAA and Airbus Industries failed to immediately ground all Airbus A300-600 models worldwide. This in order to conduct black light inspections of the stabilizer spars, panels, attachment pins, bolts and other critical components.
Not only is grounding of this nature a normal operating procedure, it is also a legal requirement. Most readers will remember that all Concorde aircraft were grounded for more than a year after the crash of Air France 4590 at Paris. Concorde’s grounding was based mostly on speculation, and partly on trivial circumstantial evidence, flimsier by far than the prima facie evidence already existing in the case of American Airlines Flight 587. In order not to ground all Airbus A300-600 series, the NTSB, FAA and Airbus Industries would have to be convinced that the reason for the crash of Flight 587 was strictly unique, a one-off that could not occur under similar flight conditions to any other Airbus A300-600 worldwide. The only reason unique enough to fit this requirement is an act of terrorism.
Currently the US Government is fixating on the co-pilot of Flight 587 noting “wake Turbulence” from a Japanese Airlines 747 ahead of them. The media has already taken its cue and is drawing elaborate diagrams of the Airbus A300-600 tearing itself to pieces in the “tornado-like” wake left behind the JAL 747. This is absolute rubbish, perhaps best illustrated by some of the higher forces all aircraft are designed to withstand.
Decades ago I flew "box" in a close aerobatics formation of four Mach 2 fighters. Basically this is a "Diamond Four", where the "boxman" is located at the back centre of the diamond, slightly behind and slightly below the leader, with the two wingmen on either side. Though located slightly below the leader to minimize discomfort from his wake turbulence, our vertical stabilizer was intermittently battered by a full 20,000 pounds of thrust from his twin turbojet engines, at a range of only 100 feet, at speeds up to 400 miles per hour. Sure it was uncomfortable, but do you really believe we would have done it at all, if there was the slightest chance of the vertical stabilizer falling off?
Though wake turbulence can be hazardous at times, it really only poses a serious threat to tiny lightweight aircraft like two-seat Cessna and Piper trainers. The notion that the residual wake turbulence from a jumbo one and a half miles on front of American Airlines Flight 587, could have torn its vertical stabilizer off, is absurd. If that were even remotely possible, most of the world’s fleet of "heavy" jets would have crashed years ago.
Marion Blakey, chairwoman of the NTSB, said an initial listen to the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) found nothing "to indicate a problem that is not associated with an accident." What kind of politically correct double-talk is this? In order to include the possibility of a terrorist act, Ms Blakey presumably requires a voice with a heavy Arab accent saying: “I have a fruit knife in my jacket pocket Captain; crash this aircraft immediately or I will kill you…”
But what else could bureaucrat Marion Blakey say? One is reminded of the words of George Orwell, which now seem to mock us from the grave: "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

UPDATE November 22. Extensive checks on the vertical stabilizers on all other A300 and A310 series Airbus aircraft have found no problems at all. Unfortunately. this exponentially increases the probability of Flight 587 being subjected to some form of sabotage before flight. The NTSB and FAA will now have to do some very nimble footwork if they wish to continue claiming that the crash on Queens was just an unfortunate "mechanical failure". Those wishing to read the results of the inspections should click here.

[edit on 28-8-2004 by LL1]


posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 11:15 AM
Here's another point of view.

The morning of the flight 587 incident, there WAS a expericenced fireman that rushed to the scence, as he stated on the TV news "his son was in the battalion that was fighting the fire and he was concerned". He indicated that he had "witnessed" a "flare shot up to the the flight (587)". It aired the morning of the incident, after that it was pulled.

Now if he has a "son" that is a firefighter, this makes the father older, and WELL experienced, and knowledgable of what he sees concerning fires.

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 04:05 PM
ok, so, the engines came off along with the vertical stabiliser, mmh, that would be like 3 fires simulataneously breaking out in the same building, aka. arson.

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 12:21 AM
ok, i held off giving my opinion in the other thread discussing this because i figured i'd get laughed out.

the day it happened, the very first pictures from cnn showed a single engine sitting by itself with a big hole in it. it was only shown once right after the incident, and you never saw it again. several friends of mine saw it as well (all of us work in the aviation community). every one of us thought exactly the same thing: shoulder launched surface to air missile.

the high impact forces of a missile slamming into the engine would be more than enough load to snap the tail section from the fact, this is a common occurrence in aircraft missile strikes.

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 01:32 AM
i remember reading eyewitness reports of a missile at the time(in alternative media, OF COURSE!, lol).
i'm glad someone remembers this largely ignored event.
now, some are spinning it as, "the first shoe bomber, the one that succeeded".

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 09:29 AM
i remember, in 1996 i believe a B767 went into full thrust reverse at close to cruise altitude while still at high power setting of the initial climb, resulting in an unrecoverable spin at very high speeds, aircraft remained intact, hit the ground in one piece...

now before you say, ah, Airbus, that's why, these planes are built to standards, and engine nacelles don't come off for no reason, in fact i'd wager that's the last thing to come off, as for rear damage, the first pics i saw showed the entire tail section being pulled out of the water, neatly cut off - go figure.

edit: no proof, though, the only images i really appreciate are those taken immediately after an incident, VERY telling if you look hard.

[edit on 11-10-2005 by Long Lance]

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 09:37 AM
There was a airliner that was downed of the coast of long island also that is under much scrutiny, and that is the one where there was an eyewitness acct of a missle fired. that was 1996 and flight 800

I am speaking of the the one after 9/11

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 09:59 AM
after re-reading some eye witness accounts, it seems most saw an initial fireball, after which the plane remained intact, and then a second fireball, which split the plane apart.
a directed energy weapon could presumably be used. there were reports of odd turbulence. like the plane was tossed violently to the side. and then the other side.
or a shoe bomb. why not?

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 12:56 PM
An explosion would cause rocking that would simulate the turbulence prior to the second explosion. Could there have been 2 devices or even 2 attackers?

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 02:45 PM
ok, lets say it was AQ. Now what ? Do we start a war against terrorism ?

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 03:50 PM

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
ok, lets say it was AQ. Now what ? Do we start a war against terrorism ?

no. we start a war against the wagging of the dog. a war against secrecy. a war against executive powers.
let's say evidence is starting to connect 'al queda' to the administration(which it is. dave emory's for the record 525 is chock full of surprising dot connections and players in the game. check it out.)

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 03:53 PM

the predominant theory around here is that 9/11 wasn't AQ, but really the cia sending missiles into the towers, but flight 587 was only AQ because the offical explanation is that is wasn't ?

now I'm confused. Maybe 587 was another CIA missile ?

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 04:53 PM
well, at least your confused now. it's a start.
things simply aren't always that simple.

my reality:
al queda, -real, but not what they say it is. ie. who's behind it.
911 planes were guided by remote into towers. no arabs on board. (not convinced of this, but it is what occam has left with me)
bin laden, -real terrorist, but in bed with the bush admin/nwo
motive, -total war, total chaos, >> >> >>NWO
players, -constantly shifting. most are unaware of their role. some get suicided when they have an attack of good conscience.
shoe bombers? doubt it. more like the secret service closing some mouths with remote control bombs or, perhaps, directed energy beam weapons.
number one 'rogue state' that is the true enemy of freedom, ...PAKISTAN.

let the victor write history!

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 08:45 PM

this is the plane that went down shortly after 9/11 correct ? I just thought it interesting that;

9/11. official story = AQ did it. ergo, around here, the CIA did it
flight 587. official story = accident. ergo, around here, it was AQ

so is AQ legit or not ?

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in