Author Topic: 767 goes down in Queens, New York (Read 1905 times)

Eagler · « **Reply #60 on:** November 16, 2001, 03:02:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime:
The bit about the 'damaged' FDR having to go back to the 'manufacturer' for 'repair' prior to its being 'read' by the NTSB stinks too.

Yah.. I know; I'm over-reacting and lookin for trouble where no trouble is... right?

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Hangtime ]

Nope

I think they are playing the "drag the crap out and they'll forget about it" game.

Dunno, if it is for the good of the economy and thus the country, a big part of me hopes they can spin it if the facts point to more terrorism. Then again maybe they are playing a wait and see game, if we don't announce it, maybe the chicken toejam terrorist org will ... that is if the tail section just didn't fall off the plane by itself.

Toad · « **Reply #61 on:** November 16, 2001, 05:33:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SWulfe:

Besides, aircraft engines have a built-in emergency system that forces them to jettison if a fire or explosion is detected inside them. They don't just fall off because the tail fell off.
-SW

Well, that's news to me. I don't know of any controlled way to jettison an engine.

Gadfly · « **Reply #62 on:** November 16, 2001, 05:41:00 PM »

Come on, Toad, just fly real low and scrape it off.

Dinger · « **Reply #63 on:** November 16, 2001, 07:14:00 PM »

Okay, Hang, I don't buy it.
First, Airliner Crashes draw lots of conspiracy theorists because of the simple fact that they don't happen very often. When they do happen, it's usually for a freakish combination of events.
Second, if they wanted to "cover up" a terrorist plot, why not just leave it at an engine separation? That's a good enough argument, and the other evidence could be swept under the rug or ignored.
Third, so far the terrorists have followed the path of least resistance. Blowing the Vstab off a plane at low altitude is not consistent with this: that should require a helluva lot of explosives or a high-profile sabotage job. If they could pull this off, it'd be much easier to slip 200 grams of semtex on board set to blow at 30,000 feet.
Fourth, they're not saying it was wake turbulence. All they have is that the plane might have encountered WT from the jet ahead of it, as the pilots mentioned that on the CVR, and the FDR has some pretty big jolts on it. Nobody in their right mind believes that if the VStab came off due to Wake Turbulence, that WT is the primary cause. The primary cause would in that case be the failure of the vstab to withstand the force.
Fifth, they're not suppressing the information about an explosion and engines on fire. That did happen. Remove the vstab and the plane doesn't exactly fly in a straight line. Put two jet engines at max power and you could see all kinds of fireworks: compressor stalls, failures, separation.
Sixth, the argument about the videotape doesn't work. When the Concorde crashed, we saw the videotape in 48 hours because the amateur photographers sold it to their news studio. It took so long because they took it to Spain, IIRC.
So the FBI has it. Anyone want to tell the crowd why Commercial Aircraft don't have cameras mounted on them tied to a black box?

Hangtime · « **Reply #64 on:** November 16, 2001, 09:25:00 PM »

Hey, don't mind me.. I'm just a cranky old man wot didn't eat his weaties.

I mean, with hundreds of thousands of cycles in and out of airports with that same seperation between aircraft, established to provide a safe margin to avoid the well known effects of 'wake-turbulance'..

...when suddenly, 8 weeks after the WTC attack, at an airport 15 miles away and purely by coincidence a relatively young airframe suddenly loses a vertical stab and rudder when the pilot tromps on the pedal to control some wake turbulance, experiences .4 g's of side acceleration, spits off it's engines, explodes into flames and spins into the dirt.

Happens all the time... no cause for alarm; move along now, folks...

No.. I got it.. it wasn't an accident; it was seperatist french-canadian terrorist geese armed with stingers working off of the PITA agenda. There was no claim of responsibility from the despsiciable terrorist geese because as we all know, french-canadian geese can't speak english worth a damn; and, after all; they were trained and equipped by the CIA anyway.

I'll shut up now. Sorry.

Toad · « **Reply #65 on:** November 18, 2001, 01:17:00 PM »

Hang,

If there's one thing I've learned in my career it's that the early speculation rarely gets it right.

I DO trust the NTSB. It's one of the better government agencies, IMO. I guess they could be "bought" but I'd think they'd be the last ones to go.

For your scenario, there's going to have to be a smoke trail from a missile or evidence of an onboard explosion. I'd think those would be hard to hide. Too many fireman and police around to hide metal shredded and fragmented OUTWARD from the fuselage, don't you think? And where's the big "whomp" on the cockpit voice recorder? Man, you can hear the F/A's slam the drink carts into the galley slots. I'm thinking an explosion of that magnitude would be on the tape too.

OTOH, I've hit wake turbulence a few times. Bouncy and uncomfortable, sure. Rip off the vertical stab? Nah, no way I'm buying that, at least on a "normal" vertical stab.

I do wonder about the "aircraft rattle" noises on takeoff. Have they said anything more definitive about those?

And if that stab truly was delaminating...

Aircraft rattle on T/O with a delaminated vert stab... would point me a little more towards accident.

Still, it's too early. Let the NTSB folks finish.

Dinger · « **Reply #66 on:** November 18, 2001, 02:02:00 PM »

Another way to put it:
There is no such thing as a "normal" airliner crash. They all involve freakish circumstances. That's why we fly.
Yes, the US does have reasons why this shouldn't be terrorism, but this is not how a cover up is done. A coverup would be "uncontained engine failure, followed by separation and crash". That's believable.
Vstab shearing clean off? That's just weird. Wake Turbulence won't be the cause of this any more than cold weather was the cause of the Challenger explosion.

SOB · « **Reply #67 on:** November 18, 2001, 05:49:00 PM »

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: SOB ]

Eagler · « **Reply #68 on:** November 19, 2001, 09:12:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad:

I do wonder about the "aircraft rattle" noises on takeoff. Have they said anything more definitive about those?

Wonder what explosive bolts sound like on a voice recorder when they go off in the stern of an airplane ...
If it's that sophisticated, I don't think we'll be told, not anytime soon anyway.
Sorry just my paranoid self thinking out loud again...

indian · « **Reply #69 on:** November 19, 2001, 10:07:00 AM »

Hangtime the seperation was less then 2 minutes. The planes rudder shows rapid movement before the tail seperation. The Airbus A300 has a history of rudder problems. Wake turbulence was a sart to the crash at most, engines were running until they left the airplane. The photos released so far show a massive failure of the Vertical stab, they broke just above the mounts. Who knows when the rudder left the airplane no record or devices to show that. Dont think its been found yet.

Toad · « **Reply #70 on:** November 19, 2001, 12:24:00 PM »

Eagler, #1, the bolts are still in place and they run through the composite tabs which are still in place. The composite tabs broke above the attach point.

#2, explosive bolts??? Fer gawd's sake guys! Get a grip! Do you even know how those work? You think THYE sneakily replaced the normal bolts with radio-activated explosive bolts??? Who are THEY? When did THEY have time to disassemble the tail of an aircraft that is in DAILY service, replace the bolts with explosive bolts capable of remote activation, reassemble the tail... all without the normal maintenance guys noticing anything out of the ordinary?

You know the maintenance functions are closely tracked and carefully scheduled right?

Jeez, lookout! There's black helo's over your house RIGHT NOW! Aggggh!

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #71 on:** November 19, 2001, 12:31:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad:
Well, that's news to me. I don't know of any controlled way to jettison an engine.

It's done automatically. It's a system my cousin told me about when he worked at Boeing plant in Seattle. This was about 6 years ago.
-SW

Eagler · « **Reply #72 on:** November 19, 2001, 12:35:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad:

Jeez, lookout! There's black helo's over your house RIGHT NOW! Aggggh!

No there isn't, I just checked

Yes, paranoid - bolts are extreme but something is fishy. We'll see or maybe we won't. Really no sense in worry about it, we all gotta go sometime....

Toad · « **Reply #73 on:** November 19, 2001, 12:53:00 PM »

SW, there isn't an "automatic" jettison.

The engines and mounts are, however, designed so that catastrophic damage and/or fire will most likely allow/cause the engine to separate before it burns into the wing structure.

It's not a "jettison system". It's intelligent design.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #74 on:** November 19, 2001, 12:58:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad:
SW, there isn't an "automatic" jettison.

The engines and mounts are, however, designed so that catastrophic damage and/or fire will most likely allow/cause the engine to separate before it burns into the wing structure.

It's not a "jettison system". It's intelligent design.

Maybe that was it, 6 years is a lot of time for words to get replaced in your memory. :-)

I knew it was something along those lines though.
-SW