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
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]