The DC-10 was/is also rated to fly without an engine - and note that that is a three engine plane versus the two engine plane (also rated to fly w/o an engine) we are talking about now.

In any event, I am pretty scared about all the conspiracy theorists we have out there now. Glad they aren't the ones in charge of figuring out what really happened, since the case would be closed by now, and we would never know what the real story behind the crash is. It will take time, lots of time, but the real story will be found.

The leading theory of the day, for those who care, focouses on the tail section of the plane. Preliminary results indicate the tail section broke off cleanly above the attachment points (bolts) that hold the tail to the fuselage. That leans towards a structural failure in the tail itself, which is constructed of a combination of composite materials and aluminum. This is a major failure, since the tail is a major structural piece of the plane - somewhat equivalent to a wing failing. That tends to support some type of fatigue failure. It isn't supposed to happen. It would be nearly impossible to control the plane without the tail structure. The rudder was found in a 10 degrees left application, which is a major application, indicating the rudder was is major use when the failure occured. Turbulence from the plane before it will obviously be a focous, based on the ****pit voice recorder discussions. There has been no indication of engine failures based on early investigations of the engines themselves. This comes despite the press hysteria that these engines are dangerous. It should be noted the same engines and variants are also used on many other aircraft, including DC-10's, A300's, 767's, and 747's, including the Presidents aircraft, Air Force One. Obviously, some force removed them from the aircraft, but at this time it does not appear to be the engines themselves.

My favorite quote from NTSB member George Black: "Asked if he could explain why the tail fin broke off, Black responded: "Call back in about a year and we'll tell you."". Moral to the story: be patient, don't rush to any conclusions, and the truth will be found.

 

I coudn't have said it any better 98Screamer. That is exactly what terrorism thrives on is the paranoia that they are invloved in everything.

 

yeah and TWA 800 was also accident ? yeah right!

 

I just noticed what the title of this thread was. It says "Who thinks Flight 567(or 587) was terrorist related?" The very wording itself means those who think it was an accident are excluded. This is not meant as a flame, just that it only gives one slant to the thread in peoples minds. If it was worded "Was Flight 587 an accident, or terrorist related?", it would be more open to thought. Like I said before, I'm not trying to flame the author of the thread, I'm only saying that the discussion was slanted before it began. Am I the only one thinking this way? Please continue,,,,98

 

I too agree with gopher. In some form the terrorists have won the first battle - they are making the most powerful country and also Canada, change its ways. now if anything happens that is the first thing we think of. How do we not know that it is terrorists in our own back yard? They have done it before. I think the media is creating these situation.

 

Ok, if you want to talk about facts. Someone who knows where to look see if there have been any airliners (not just Airbus 300s) that have lost first - the entire vertical stabilizer and rudder, second the right engine... and third, the left engine... all prior to impact.... ??? with the engines showing no sign of ingesting any foreign or domestic debris....

I don't recall any, and just because it never happened before doesn't mean it can't now... but makes it awful suspicious... but I guess, according to this thread, I should not form any opinions, at least not until I know the facts... which may of course be on or about some day in the year 2040 or 2050...

Having an opinion regarding the cause of the crash in no way indicates a mentality of "OMD, its them". It simply says that the current information leads someone to an opinion...

lariat4wd,

Would you stop slanting our discussions with your ludicrous subject lines...

 

Yeah lariat,,, Stop doing that,,,,98

 

It has been a couple days now and for those that don't think terrorist had anything to do with it then how come right after the plane went down they closed the airports in the NYC area and close down the Empire State building as well as tunnels and bridges and other parts of the country were doing simaler things now if it was failer of the engine or other parts of the plane why would you have to close everthing down like they did.

 

Most commercial aircraft are designed to fly with the loss of an engine, however not during takeoff- the most critical event in all flights. If the engine should fall off during this time, it seriously alters the aerodynamics of the aircraft. I believe that the latest information today indicates the tail section broke away first, again hindering the aerodynamics. In the pilots attempts to control a spinning aircraft, the engines may have seperated due to undue stress.
In addition, what the hell is OMD? ennis :-) : --8

 

When our ships sank in the North Atlantic during WWI and WWII, our fathers and grandfathers were smart enough not to blame it on the icebergs!

We are at WAR, people. Recognizing that fact does not mean 'the terrorists have won'. Instead, let it further our resolve to win this conflict (which is just beginning, BTW).

I am open to the possibility of mechanical failure or turbulence, but I refuse to close my eyes to the chance that this was caused by our enemies. It is a new kind of war, in case you haven't heard.

I may be naive, but I do have faith that the government will be honest with us about the results of the investigation. If it was a bomb, sabotage or stinger missle, I expect we will know eventually.

 

98Screamer,

Funniest thing.... I think I have you here .... here's your quotes:

I'm Not leaning either way yet, it's too soon to tell as far as I'm concerned. It was just a couple of years ago that the MD-80's had the jack screw trouble, so it seems like it could be a mechanical failure. Planes do crash, that's a given.,,,,,98

I agree with gopher
(Gopher said "Based on whats out there today, I do not feel it was a terrorist incident. ")
all the way. This crash has been over hyped as it is. I do believe it was an accident, and if it's proven to be terrorism by the investigation, I'll change my mind then. I'm not saying it wasn't purposely done, but I can wait for the truth to be found. If we panic about it and speculate, then "they" have won already.,,,,,98

First you're not leaning....Then you think its an accident.... then you're waiting for the truth. So I think in reality, you have heard the hype, formed an opinion based on what you know to be the truth at this time, or you're not leaning, I don't know which.... but that is the same thing as those who have heard what they heard and decided that it was terrorist.... what's the diff? You can do it but no one else can unless they agree with you????

Me thinks the picture in this thread is becoming clearer.... you can't believe its an accident or terrorist until you know the truth... so, I haven't really seen anyone on this thread that has done that yet... posted.... "I believe nothing until further proven!"

Darn you lariat 4wd.... see what you have done!? :-D

 

98screamer -my thoughts exactly. Just the title itself begins to imply a bias one way or another. An impartial title would have been somethign along the lines of "What do people think was the cause of the flight 567 or 587 or whatever accident?" Of course, once the first Genie is out of the bottle, a bias is formed the rest of the way. Of course, this also isn't a scientific poll, so none of that matters anyway! After reading the title I couldn't resist posting after reading a few of the posts!

jrayger, I can't recall any exactly similar crashes, either. Again, that doesn't make it impossible. The lack of a prior episode doesn't mean there isn't any possibilty of it occuring today. All sorts of machines find neat and unique ways of destroying themselves in ways that no designer would have ever thought of - thats why they fail!!

hmustang - its called a knee jerk reaction. Nobody knew anything at the time, and based on recent history, the immdiate thought was terrorism, lets go into protection mode. I won't argue with the actions there. However, the actions in themselves do not mean that terrorsits were involved. Instead, they were logical reactions to an unknown situation at the time.

fourhour, I had the same understanding that a large commercial plane could fly without an engine, but not during takeoff. Takeoff is the time where each engine is putting out nearly its full capabilties with a loaded plane. The loss of one would be very hard to overcome, as there simply isn't much time (altitude) to correct any problems before gravity does its thing.

Dirt Bike Dave - I agree that it would foolish to entirely rule out terrorism at this early point. At the same time, it isn't wise to immediatly glom onto the terrorism theory without looking at the evidence first. Based on what I have researched, I don't feel at this time that it was a terrorist incident. That could change in a heartbeat should there be appropriate information.

Gotta say I am enjoying this discussion, and glad we can all agree to disagree on good terms!

Oh, other tidbits others may find interesting: The same plane was involved in an earlier incident in the mid 1990's with heavy turbulence. 47 passengers were hurt in the incident over the Carribean. NTSB has cofirmed that information. Early info indicated that the flight was about 2:20 behind a 747 takeoff, standard spacing is 2:00 to allow for wake turbulence to dissapate to acceptable levels. Information now seems to show that 2:20 was the spacing between clearances for takeoff. The 747 takeoff was slow, and the actual inflight spacing was closer than originally believed, closer to 1:45 seconds. Impact on wake turbulence to the doomed A300 remains unclear at this point.

Good night...

 

Keep one thing in mind people...the govt. can hide ANYTHING they want to and we would NEVER know. Why would they do this you ask? Simple...just imagine the fear that would take over this country if they came out and said..yeah this was terrorist/sabatoge related. I feel that no matter what they say..this was terrorist related and they will hide it. I have two reasons for this....1. no plane has ever just totally blown apart like that (ex.the vertical stabilizer wing) and 2. dont you find it kinda eerie that this happened on Veterans day..almost exactly 2 months after 9/11?

 

First you're not leaning....Then you think its an accident.... then you're waiting for the truth. So I think in reality, you have heard the hype, formed an opinion based on what you know to be the truth at this time, or you're not leaning, I don't know which.... but that is the same thing as those who have heard what they heard and decided that it was terrorist.... what's the diff? You can do it but no one else can unless they agree with you????

Did you take into account the time between each post? New information has come out several times since my first post. Because I now believe it was an accident, I'm not allowed to change my thinking when new info comes to light? Get real, lol. My first post was before anything was announced at all. Now that I've heard the latest news, I think it's an accident. If I had contradicted myself in the same post, now that would be cause for ridicule . They are seperate posts, with time between. Time did not stop while this thread was growing, hehehe Is it okay for me to believe it was an accident, but still listen to the latest news for the "truth"?,,,,98

This is all in good fun, please don't take it wrong. I'm not

 

according to my colleague at work (same one as before multi eng license). being able to fly with only one eng means just that. they are able to climb to flying altitude and continue on their merry way if they so desire.
as far as the added stress to the tail assy from flying with only one eng. this is also engineered into the craft. no sense saying it can fly if the components can't handle the added stress.
i don't think anyone here has gone off the deep end with any of their opinions, be it acc. or terr. just what their thinking.
also i was very surprised to see that turbulance from a plane taking off almost 2 minutes before could affect this planes take off. i wouldn't have thought it would last that long.
i would also like to know as was stated above what is "OMD".
as far as them winning that's only if you alter your life because you believe they did this. why would the gov't hide it, simple if it happened again the airline business would be flat broke.
don't get me wrong i'm not saying i'll never believe it was an accident, just that it seems peculiar.