Plane crash in New York

Former Member

An aroplane has crashed in the suberbs of New York there where 250+ on board, and it crashed in to a residential area. Its too early to speculate on causes. But one of the engines may have 'fallen off.' It is another tragic waste of life <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/frown.gif"&gt;

Former Member

Thanks for not speculating on the causes.
Could be terrorists again, may be human error, or something as stupid as a bird flying into the plane.
Tragic though.

Former Member

Its sad that I can actually say im glad it was 'just' an unfortunate accident. It seems more than likely that it was an engine malfunction rather than any kind of terrorist attack.

Just feel very sorry for the families of the dead.

Former Member

Engines don't just fall off, and they're designed to resist bird strikes - the armour around them is something a tank could be proud of.

Sabotage or very shoddy maintenance, it's got to be.

Nice to see that not every 'accident' is instantly re-labelled 'terrorist attack,' though. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif"&gt;

Former Member

They are in fact designed to fall right off if there is a catastrophic failure of the engine which could endanger the rest of the plane.

Former Member

the problem being theory doesn't always work.

i still maintain it was just a freak accident. eyewitnessess were saying that the wing and engine appears to fall of just b4 impact.

who knows. we'll just have to wait and see. more happy news for the world tho.

---

If there's anything more important than my ego around here, i want it caught and shot now

Former Member

Balddog: Didn't know that - thanks.

In the morning paper I read that although the Airbus is a plane with a good safety record, the particular engines this one was using have had repeated safety warnings from their manufacturer, General Electric. It seems that said warnings were ignored by UK/USA transport authorities.

I'll keep an open mind on this one.

Former Member

All of those type of engine's where due to be checked on Dec 5th

Former Member

The plane in question was delayed for an hour and 15 minutes because of mechanical problems. It was then cleared for takeoff.

Sounds like someone in maintainance is responsible.

Former Member

It'll be pilot error.

the A3xx series are very safe planes - all the crashes have been because of pilot error, and not defects in the plane.

just don't ask wether an interface that leads to so many errors amongst highly trained people is a defect.

Former Member

there are no accidents

Former Member

Originally posted by byny:
there are no accidents

What's that supposed to mean? Of course there are accidents. You wanna expand on that a bit?

Former Member

is it me, or could a well placed arab of been able to plant a small bomb inside the engine during maintence checks ? do engines really fall off just like that ? has a plane never got that near to the one before to suffer turbulance ? aren't these engines tested to withstand stary birds ? there are a mass of excuses flying around, trying to hide something ? who knows what happened, but i doubt that if it were terrorists the us government would admit it, they were already gainin upper hand in war, and they have a very very fragile economy to protect and recession of avoid

---

If you don't plan something, it can't go wrong

Former Member

The thing that makes me very suspicious is that the US govt announced it was DEFINATELY an accident just 1.5 hours after the crash...They cannot possibly have known that. It was a blatent lie to placate the people.

They say it was down to turbulence now....The plane took off 2 mins and 47 seconds after the preceeding plane...The law says they must take off at least 2 mins after the previous plane...This plane took off well within legal limits...If a plane can crash from turbulence from a plane that took off 2.47 mins before then why the hell hasnt it happened a dozen times before?

The whole thing stinks..Theres more to this story.

Former Member

www.debka.com

Run by two ex-Mossad agents, with good intelligence. An extract from their November 15 update:

These reports gain credence from examinations by intelligence officials in the United States and elsewhere of the circumstances of the American Airlines flight 587 crash over Queens, New York, last Tuesday, November 13, in which 268 people were killed. The Information accumulating opens up the possibilities of a bomb having been planted near the tail of the Airbus, or a suicide bomber blowing himself up in the rear of the aircraft. The plane came down shortly after taking off for the Dominican Republic from John F. Kennedy International airport.
Another scenario under investigation is that a surface-to-air missile was fired from a boat in Jamaica Bay near the airport.
According to DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources, a number of people linked to Al Qaeda in New York behaved suspiciously several hours before the crash; some, who were under surveillance following the September 11 attacks, managed to disappear, with the FBI unable to determine how they slipped away or trace their current whereabouts.
Those sources also noted that the US F-15 warplanes, on 24-hour patrol in the skies of New York and other major US cities, were ordered immediately after the crash to search for any boats or unusual activity in the Jamaica nature reserve.
The morning after, Wednesday, November 14, divers were seen scouring the marsh area for signs that missiles had been fired at the plane, such as a launcher or a scuttled boat, on the assumption that the terrorist who fired the missile escaped in a scuba suit.
Despite adamant denials by the US Federal Aviation Authority, it is now becoming clear that prior to the crash, US intelligence did indeed receive numerous warnings from intelligence sources outside the United States that a terrorist strike was likely on Tuesday, Veterans Day, to mark the two-month anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
Information also points to a new wave of terrorist attacks in the making against military or economic targets in the United States, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
In the United States, targets could include airplanes and other modes of transport as well as train stations, bridges, tunnels, central buildings in main cities, military bases and various intelligence installations.
Despite US government efforts to assure a jittery public that bin Laden and his forces do not possess nuclear weapons, DEBKAfile’s sources are certain that senior intelligence officials – including Americans -- believe that Al Qaeda does indeed possess small nuclear bombs called “suitcase bombs”. They estimate that two to three terrorist cells armed with nuclear weapons have infiltrated the United States.

Intereeesting, no?

---

If there's anything more important than my ego around here, i want it caught and shot now

Former Member

Suicide bomb, no. SAM, possably but not likely. Birds, more likely, and no there is nothing to do about birds and they can be leathal. Just a ink pen is enough to damage a engine and make it unoperable, not likely but a small possablility.

As for the nukes, just hearsay, stop scareing people. In the words of my father,"Sheep are stupid and don't think logically" the lie was required.

Thanatos-jr

Former Member

Mechanical failure or birdsrike i'd say. There is only one plane in existance that is proofed against birdstrikes and that is a ground attack fighter in the hands of the US military (the A10) mechanical faults can lie dormant for years before surfacing, one plane that crashed a few years back had a fault the size of a grain of rice in the engine which laid dormant for seven years!

Former Member

ive always been told that JFK is particularly notorious for birdstrikes, due to it being so close to the sea and marshland.

Former Member

These planes are designed to still be able to function if they lose an engine.

If a bird strike brought down a plane everytime it happened then our airports would be littered by bodies and bits of planes. Its a relatively common occurance, especially at JFK as whowhere said.

I still think theres more to it than we are being told.

Former Member

The weird thing is that this plane lost both engines at the same time, i think?

Former Member

didn't the tail fall off at the same time ? i still think a nice lump sum payed to a well placed mechanic is the most probable form of a terrorist attack, if that was the case- which no doubt we'll never know

---

drugs may be the road to nowhere, but at least there the scenic route

Former Member

erm...i just dont think that's something that's gonna happen in the current environment. and with terrorist networks allegedly losing money...well, it doesn't add up.

a well placed terrorist could easily manipulate the engines, but...

but who knows.

---

If there's anything more important than my ego around here, i want it caught and shot now

Former Member

Can I expand on my comment about there being no accidents.

Try and think of the death of someone in any circumstance - car crash, plane crash, drowning, fire ..... somehting contributed to that happening, something beyond the control of the individual but caused by another person, or something caused by their own actions.
Perhaps a building falls down ... why? structurally unsound,who built it - what did they do wrong in the construction.

What I am trying to say is that there's a reason for all "accidents". ie the plane that crashed - it didn't just fall out of the sky, perhaps it was because of pilot error, perhaps it was because it wasn't built properly, perhaps its because no one noticed it wasn't air worthy...not an accident but the fault of someone down the line!

There are no accidents - plain and true.

Anything that is refered to as an accident, has a reason for happening. If I get knocked off my bike tonight on the way home, it'll probably be down to Human error - not accident.

[This message has been edited by byny (edited 28-11-2001).]

Former Member

Originally posted by byny:
There are no accidents - plain and true.

What's your point?

Former Member

Ahh I see where you're coming from now Byny, I just think that there might be a few different definitions or interpretations of the word "arguement".

<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif"&gt;

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish Man:
What's your point?

I was just wondering why someone said perhaps it was an accident - there are no accidents - that's my point. That was it...that's all.
Do I need to explain more?

Former Member

Well i'd have to disagree, 'accidents' do happen. I had an accident on my motorcycle a few years back. Yeah i could trace the blame/fault to a car driver but it isn't like he meant to ram into the back of me and send me skyward is it............hmmmmm maybe the whole world is out to get me!

---

All evil needs to thrive is for good men to sit back and do nothing

Former Member

Originally posted by byny:
I was just wondering why someone said perhaps it was an accident - there are no accidents - that's my point. That was it...that's all.
Do I need to explain more?

You mean that there is always someone to blame...someone who can be sued..

To much of an US culture slipping in there byny. Accidents do happen - an accident is a mishap. Whilst there may be a cause, it doesn't mean that there is fault.

Former Member

Well I guess that the definition in the OED would back that up -
Accident - An occurrence, incident, event - anything that happens without foresight or expectation; an unusual event, which proceeds from some unknown cause, or is an unusual effect off a known cause.

However - I would say that it is pretty much known that if a car is driven at speed toward another vehicle then the other smaller slower vehicle will come off worse...therefore it's hardly an unknown cause or unusual event. Anyway whatever - this board is probably not supposed to be used for endless discussions about the word accident!

Girl-From-Mars

Originally posted by byny:
However - I would say that it is pretty much known that if a car is driven at speed toward another vehicle then the other smaller slower vehicle will come off worse...therefore it's hardly an unknown cause or unusual event. Anyway whatever - this board is probably not supposed to be used for endless discussions about the word accident!

i see your point about there being no accidents... but isnt the common definition of an accident in people's minds something that happens unexpectedly, without intent ?

it might not be unexpected or unusual for the slower car to come off worse in this situation... but the fast driver probably isnt intending to crash into other cars and cause damage - accident?

in this circumstance... terrorist, sabotage, etc.... not an accident. human/mechanical error, circs beyond anyone's control, whatever = accident. no?

Former Member

See your point - but I was talking about the plane crash and I think the conclusion is that there was a fault in the plane. Who's fault? Someone will be blamed - therefore it wasn't an accident