;)
|
The
Crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in Queens
Hard Scientific Evidence Proves the United States
Government is Desperately Trying to Mislead the
American Public
copyright Joe Vialls
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."
The author is a former member
of the Society of Licensed
Aeronautical Engineers and
Technologists, London
|
This page is a Mirror of the original at Joe Vialls site that
keeps being blocked by Geocities.
=================================
Item Two:
11/12 crash of
AA-587:
Mike Rivero's
letter:
-----Original Message-----
From: Dick
Eastman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> I am convinced that no
one was knowingly on a
> WTC suicide mission. The 4 planes were all
taken
> over by remote control on 9-11-10 after the
> hijackings
were begun.
I agree but I doubt remote control was
needed. The same
thing could be accomplished by a hidden program
inside the aircraft flight directors. Tell
the
hijackers to fly the planes back and forth
over
Manhatten so that they are seen and
videographed,
then as soon as the planes' GPS
systems
detect they are in the right area the flight
director takes over and flies the planes
into
the targets, before the
hijackers
realize what is going on and can stop it.
Had remote control been used, there would
have
been too much time for people on radios,
aircraft
cabin phones, or even cell phones to get
the message
out that the planes were flying themselves.
It had
to happen in the space of a few seconds.
And, having the aircraft under the
control of
the flight directors at the end explains
the
extremely high proficiency the pilots
appeared
to have in those final extreme maneuvers.
Mike
======================
Hello Mike,
On page 3A of Friday's (11/16) USA
Today
there is an article by reporter Alan
Levin
which tells us everything we need to
know:
1. A sudden swing of the rudder, far
beyond
the normal range, caused the
tail of the
Airbus A300 to tear
off.
2. The "aviation experts"
report that the
plane flew through turbulence
from another
aircraft twice. But they
don't say how they
know this unusual turbuleence
was there. I
think they are merely deducing
its existence
from the behavior of the
plane, and they are
doing that because they are
not permitted to
reach the more reasonable
conclusion. (If
the "experts" want to appeal to
catastrophe-theoretic
mathematics, which says
that a butterfly's wing flap
can, through
nonlinear complex causation,
result in a
hurricane a year later, it is
obvious they are
grasping and covering their failure with
spurious
appeals to the totally
inapplicable science.
3. But wait! What are they using
"turbulence"
to explain?
"According to the flight data
... It then
began a series of unusual
sideways movements
that slammed passengers back
and forth."
There you have it, Mike.
It all began when
the rudder began a
successession of extreme
right-left-right-left-right
etc. swings, i.e.,
yawing, but then slamming against the yaw
with
an opposite force -- the same thing you
would
do if you were trying to break
a piece of loose
metal sticking out of a wall,
i.e., push back
and forth until the molecular
bondings are
sufficiently broken and it
comes off in your hand.
The vertical fin finally just
tore off.
4. When the rudder was gone, the remote
sabateur
began playing with the flaps,
ailerons and
elevators:
"At one point it turned 10
degrees to the
left in one
second.."
Then we come to this:
"Finally the jet banked to the left, even
though data indicate the pilots were
trying
to move it the opposite
direction."
This sounds too much like the EgyptAir
pilots where were trying to do one thing in the cockpit while the plane was
being made to do something entirely different by override controls
elsewhere.
Finally the phantom controllers decided to
end the game:
"The nose dropped down, then the recording
ended, said Marion Blakey, chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB)."
Yes, of course, the NTSB. This is the
same investigative agency that insisted that the Egyptian co-pilot suddenly
decided to commit suicide while the pilot was visiting the toilet -- a story
that the voice recordings does not support (when the pilot got back both were
trying to save the plane, both were discussing the fact that the plane was not
responding to controls.
It looks like Marion Blakey is complicit along
with whoever manages her.)
Then, exactly as in the EgyptAir crash, the
voice recorder clicked off -- the evesdropping remote controller didn't need to
hear any more and didn't want us to hear any more. Both the planes power
and the self-contained battery gave out -- exactly as with the New York to Cairo
Egypt Air flight on 11/31/99.
Levin has more on this:
"Later in the recording, data about the
rudder became 'unreliable,' Blakely said, possibly indicating the moment when
the tail shook loose. Shortly afterward, an even more intense sideways
movment was recorded. Within 2.5 seconds, the jet began spiraling to the
left, and the recorder stopped...."
Oh, wow! In other words, Mike: 'If
the data doesn't fit the pre-determined conclusion, just throw it
out.'
The "experts" claim some kind of metal
fatigue on the "composite-materials" alloy in the tail assembly, and so the
Federal Aviation Administration will now require new inspections to make sure
that turbulence from nearby Japanese flights will not tear off any more
tails. [Yet, from another article on the same page, we learn that the
National Transporation Safety Board doesn't know what it is talking about.
" 'The board has no real expert in composite materials,' says Greg Feith, a
former NTSB investigator who handled hundreds of of incidents and accidents
during more than 20 years with the safety board." And from an other
article we learn that Marion Blakey is now to her job, being "a career
Washington bureaucrat and lobbyist" (for whom?) she is getting her "on the job
training" with total authority of these critical investigations -- and newsgroup
hecklers have called you unqualified, Mike, when you were right all along
about the missile that brought down TWA ###. And little Marion gets
closure and will probaly have her story told in Readers Digest. The
establishment gets closure. The phantom saboteur remains scott free and
unintimidated by Maion Blakey. (Ever been in a bureaucracy with lots to hide,
Mike? I have.)
Unwilling to draw the forbidden conclusion
Blakey claims that the data recorder simply does not indicate what caused the
jet's tail to break apart or the craft to suddenly enter a steep dive, or
to send its engines flying off. Yet isn't it obvious?
Consider:
The "phantom" (i.e., remote)
controller first started controlling the rudder, back and force,
continuous extreme stresses on the tail, force in one direction followed by
force in the opposite direction, until the tail fell off. Then they played
with the ailerons for a while and then they put the plane into a dive. And
while the plane was diving at full throttle, they put the flaps and ailerons
both down putting such drag on the plane that the engines, still pulling
hard, just snapped the bracking of the engine pods.
The article even quotes NTSB's deputy chief
admitting that the turbulence waves encountered were "relatively minor" --
in other words, they are grasping at straws, Mike, at catastrophic
butterflies!
Clearly it was just was coincidence that
the puffs of turbulence from the nearest plane were sensed by the recorders
when, as
"the data suggests .. the jets rudder, a
panel at the rear of the veritcal tail fin that pilots use to turn the jet's
nose right and left, began moving dramatically after the second [puff of
turbulence]."
Yet the story reveals multiple slams from
the rudder in different directions
.
" 'This is really slamming things around
sideways," said John Purvis, a former accident investigator with
Boeing.
"The movement of a rudder
is one of the few things that can trigger such a force on a jet."
Now read carefully this next paragraph from
Levin's story -- see the spin and look for the source:
"It is possible that pilots made the rudder
move intentionally or by accident. Once source familiar with the
investigation said that preliminary evidence from the data recorder suggest that
one of the pilots pushed the pedels that control the rudder.
But aviation
experts say they doubted that pilots would do such a thing. At that point
in the flight, pilots rarely move the rudder at all, they said."
[Mike, I must acknowledge that
Alan Levin is a fine reporter and it shows here -- Levin didn't
contradict the unnamed source who was trying to put official spin on the story
-- but Levin did balance it with some objective reporting of his further
investigative digging. Cudos to Alan Levin!]
NOW GET THIS --THE FROSTING ON THE
CAKE:
Levin ends his story with this account of
the history of another A300 episode with unaccountalbe rudder problems. Tell me
if this doesn't sound like a test run of the saboteur's remote control-capture
system:
"The rudder on an A300 owned by American
Airlines moved several times during a flight in 1999, causing the jet to move
'side to side' as it prepared to land in Miami, according to a report by the
NTSB. The rudder movements were 'extreme,' the report said, but the pilots
landed safely....
"The NYSB has yet to determine what caused
the rudder problem in 1999. It's unclear whether such a malfunction could
have caused the problem on Flight 587."
Come again? What malfunction?
No malfunction has been identified, no explanation given for either plane.
All that this new information does is discount the turbulence theory and the
pilot error theory.
(I'm going to share our letters. Hope
you do the same.)
You are the man who, by your example,
showed me the possibilites of newsgroups, a few years back and I have never
thanked you.
With gratitude,
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every
man is responsible to every other man.
In the
above reference is made to this letter:
From: Dick Eastman
Subject: The sabotage of New York-Cario flight
EgyptAir flight 990, on 11-31, 1999.
The hijackers, never suspecting a suicide mission, were
"stung," by (CIA?, Mossad?, renegade Mossad?, Mafia?) infiltrators posing as al
Qu'eda field leaders on a mission under orders from bin Ladin. It was
infiltrators of al Qu'eda who gave the long-waiting Qu'eda moles the right
activation passwords and a set instructions to set a hijacking in
motion -- but later, when the ordered hijacking was underway the
infiltrator handlers on the ground (offshore?, in an AWAC?)took remote control
of the planes, turning them into cruise missiles. (The infiltrators
were most likely Mossad and not CIA because the the Israeli government has told
us that the U.S. has no infiltrators in Central Asia and is dependent upon
Mossad for all of its on-the-ground intelligence there.
I am convinced that no one was knowingly on a WTC suicide mission. The 4
planes were all taken over by remote control on 9-11-10 after the hijackings
were begun.
The FBI has uncovered letters of the hijack suspects indicating that they
were expecting to be arrested following the hijacking, that the hijacking was
understood by the "set-up" hijackers to be a relatively harmless operation to
draw attention to some cause.
But the hijackers themselves were being misled as part of a grand
counter-espionage sabotage frame-up sting. They were not aware that they
were taking orders from Mossad agents and not Qu'eda (some even suggest
that the bin Laden himself may be a double agent in his own organization, based
on his prior CIA ties and the current economic ties of his family with both
Presidents Bush.
Crashbombing by Remote Control
And this was not to be the first time that a passenger jet was crashed by
remote sabotage --
EgyptAir 990 was crashed in a "test" for the WTC operation, on
Halloween morning, 11/31/99.
On November 31, two years ago, , EgyptAir flight 990, a giant Boeing 767
took off from New York's JFK Airport bound for Cairo Egypt with 100 Americans
and 87 Egyptians aboard.
The takeoff had been successful and routine, but at one half hour into the
flight, at 1:48:30 ----at a moment when the pilot left the controls for a
trip to the toilet and the co-pilot was left in the cockpit alone -- an
English voice can be heard on the black box recorder saying "control it" (the
co-pilot was Egyptian and had not been speaking English with the pilot that
morning) -- when suddenly, one must conclude, control of the plane taken
from him,i.e., the cockpit controls were bing overridden. -- After some
seconds the co-pilot, reacting to his losse of control to a phantom controller,
says, "I'm trusting you Jehovah" (or "I'm in your hands, Jehovah") - "Tawakkalt
ala Allah.")
The co-pilot then attempted to disengaged the auto-pilot to restore
control. Control was not restored. The co-pilot again reacted with
this prayer exclamation as the elevators dropped putting the plane into a
dive. After sixteen seconds of this dive the Captain returned to the
cockpit asking "What happening? Whats happening?" Now captain and
co-pilot were presumably working to pull out of the dive, but the controls were
not responding and now the throttles turned up to full forward -- at which
point the co-pilot cut the fuel lines. Then by phantom control the
right and left elevators each moved all the way in the opposite directions and
the ailerons on both wings both went fully up. The pilot cried
"Get away in the engines! Shut the engines!" To which the co-pilot
replied, "It's shut." The last words are those of the captain
frantically instructing "Pull! Let's pull! Let's pull!" At
this point something shut off the instrument recorders (or they were later
erased).
The American investigation said that the co-pilot committed suicide, with
the Egypt AIr and the Egyptian government insisiting that that is an impossible
interpretation of the audio message. The Egyptians -- who understand the
language -- insist that that is an impossible interpretation of last moments of
conversation recorded or of the earlier conversation at takeoff, and that the
co-pilot gave no evidence of emotional
instability.
================================
