Article

2004-08-27 Home Front: WoT

Cdn. AQ operative caused downing of AA flight 587 on 11/12/01

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by rex 2004-08-27 12:53:32 PM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Boasting with no merit to the claim or is it the truth?

Does it matter?

Posted by Rafael 2004-08-27 1:08:48 PM|| 2004-08-27 1:08:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Boasting, with no merit to it.

According to the "Plane Crash Info" aviation accident database:

Three minutes after taking off and while in a climbing left turn, at 2,800 ft., parts of the plane, including the vertical stabilizer and rudder, fell from the aircraft. The crew soon lost control of the plane which nose dived and crashed into a residential neighborhood. After flying into the wake turbulence of two aircraft about two minutes into the flight, investigators believe a series of quick rudder swings by the copilot whipped the tail so severely that the fin broke off.

Posted by Mike 2004-08-27 1:10:01 PM|| 2004-08-27 1:10:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 I would like to know the degree of accuracy of anything else that came out in the friendly QandA. That would help me decide whether or not to believe it.

Posted by Victory Now Please 2004-08-27 1:17:49 PM|| 2004-08-27 1:17:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 That's when your luck is really crummy, when you get on a plane to boom it, but it crashes before you get the chance.

Posted by Fred 2004-08-27 1:19:20 PM|| 2004-08-27 1:19:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Or maybe he was making a dry run that turned out better than expected.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-08-27 1:26:55 PM|| 2004-08-27 1:26:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Since this would suggest that Jdey, who is on the priority watch list, died three years ago, either the source is trying to kick up sand, or somebody seriously screwed up. I mean, why are we looking for Jdey if he hasn't been heard from in three years?

Posted by Mitch H. 2004-08-27 1:27:48 PM|| [http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2004-08-27 1:27:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 The more reason to be looking for him, if you don't know that he's dead. Foopie hadn't been heard from for about three years, either.

Posted by Fred 2004-08-27 1:31:27 PM|| 2004-08-27 1:31:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Was he on the plane? Were there unidentified remains?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-08-27 1:34:58 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-08-27 1:34:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I mean, why are we looking for Jdey if he hasn't been heard from in three years?

To play the devil's advocate...maybe to confirm a suspicion that our own gov't has that perhaps Jdey indeed did down the plane. If we find him, obviously the claim was false. If we do not find him, then there might be some merit to the informer's claim. Perhaps there was some uncertainty about the cause of the plane crash, but coming so soon after 9/11, it was prudent economy wise to present an official cause of the crash as being "accidental."

Posted by rex 2004-08-27 1:37:24 PM|| 2004-08-27 1:37:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 ...I say we believe them.

Nuke someone now.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-08-27 1:40:32 PM|| 2004-08-27 1:40:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 #2 Mike

The site makes a good point, but this wouldn't be the first time that authorities have bent over backwards to state for the record ANY possibility other than terrorism for various "accidents" worldwide.

I'm not saying that this is the case here (I have no evidence either way of course), but it's well worth considering. Example: The Russians have been working themselves into a pretzel over the last week trying to pin their multiple plane crashes as something other than terror, only to be forced back into reality by the most recent evidence.

Posted by Chris W. 2004-08-27 1:46:14 PM|| 2004-08-27 1:46:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 If I recall correctly, there were photos or videos showing the plane dropping out of the sky missing its vertical stabilizer. Hard to cause that to happen from your seat inside the cabin. More to the point, if it were a terrorist attack, I doubt you could have kept that fact secret had you wanted to. (And why would you want to?)

Posted by Mike 2004-08-27 2:00:33 PM|| 2004-08-27 2:00:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Robert C:
My thoughts exactly. If it had been a Richard Reid-type operation, don't you wish the story had told us if this guy was in the wreckage? Or the fact this info was omitted means that we're supposed to infer he wasn't? Please help us, Mr. Editor.

Posted by chicago mike 2004-08-27 2:04:06 PM|| 2004-08-27 2:04:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Like I said here a couple of days ago, I believe it was a bombing. I don't think this is idle boasting.

Furthermore, I believe many of the mysterious refinery explosions and wildfires are caused by AQ as well. And I don't beleive their claims of causing the blackout are idle boasts, either. But what the hell do I know?

If you need another example of the gov't bending over backwards to deny a terrorist event, search the rantburg archives for a bombing and a later shooting at a Texas BASF plant.

Why would they want to deny it? Because it's the official position of the Bush administration that we're all a bunch of children whe need to be shielded from the truth. After 9/11 Bush told us to go shopping.

Posted by Pete Stanley 2004-08-27 2:13:11 PM|| 2004-08-27 2:13:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 And, just so everyone here thinks I'm off my rocker, I also believe the gov'ts initial impulse on 9/11 was to cover it up. That's why Bush stayed in the school after the first plane hit. They already knew it wasn't an accident but they were trying to pretend that it was.

You remember that odd facial expression he had after Card whispered in his ear? It wasn't shock and surpise, was it? I think it was, "Oh, s**t, what are we gonna say now?" Because at that time, with the second plane, he knew they couldn't write it off as an accidient.

Ditto with the Russian planes. If it had been just one, it would have been blamed on some arcane mechanical faliure. But one that doesn't necessitate grounding the entire fleet!

Posted by Pete Stanley 2004-08-27 2:24:28 PM|| 2004-08-27 2:24:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Lookee dat! A Serbian Lop-Eared Troll! And aww, isn't that cute, he's got a conspiracy theory, too. Haven't seen one of those since the Army of Steve chased Boris out.

Posted by Mike 2004-08-27 2:49:22 PM|| 2004-08-27 2:49:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 " I also believe the gov'ts initial impulse on 9/11 was to cover it up. That's why Bush stayed in the school after the first plane hit.

Pete, you are indeed off your rocker.

Just because Michael Moore sez it's so, and thousands of partisan hacks leap to echo him, does not make it true.

Posted by Carl in N.H 2004-08-27 2:50:36 PM|| 2004-08-27 2:50:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Pete Stanley - you are a fu@king genius! I think you may have hit the nail on the head. I have long held that the Gov's MO in the war against Muslim fanatics was to try and rob them of credit for attacks. See OK City. See TWA 800. See anthrax attacks. See LAX El Al ticket counter attack. For some reason I had not made the connection to the 7 min gap in visible reaction form the Prez. but that fits.

By the way, while I do think that the MO of robbing the muslims of credit for their attacks led to one the size of 9/11, I am not sure that it was wrong to try. It may have been wiser to get Americans fighting this war out in the open, prior to 9/11. Although that would have required leadership, something neither party was exhibiting prior to 9/11.

I know that it is supposed to be about not letting the muslim terrorists have the power to change our way of life, but somehow we defeated fascists and communists, and manage the changes those wars brought about. Usually, we adapt pretty damn well. The Gov needs to have more faith in the people. They need to ask us to sacrifice (war bonds and the like) for the war effort. They need to publicize the allah damned war effort, and trust that we can handle it. After all, being American and enjoying the American way of life is not solely defined by my freedom to consume. It is defined by my desire to sacrifice to defend my right to consume if that is what the hell I want to do with my FREEDOM.

Posted by Victory Now Please 2004-08-27 2:51:56 PM|| 2004-08-27 2:51:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Listen, jerk, I'm not a troll, and I resent the accusation. I read Rantburg alot but I rarely post. I've been trying to crack some of these problems for over a year, and my progress has been frustrated by the reality distortion field set up around people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

I'm trying to get to the bottom of a very murky topic. I don't mind intense criticism. Sometimes I take wild guesses and I'm wrong, but you've got to use your imagination here, because ALL of the sources we have to work with have lies impregnated in them. But I am not a troll.

And if you think I'm suggesting the US gov't was responsible for 9/11 then you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. It's just that the Bush administration thought they could finesse it with technology, but the bad guys beat them. Badly.

Posted by Pete Stanley 2004-08-27 2:59:08 PM|| 2004-08-27 2:59:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 You remember that odd facial expression he had after Card whispered in his ear?

You mean the one that conveyed calmness and not panic? Cool and collected under pressure? Yeah I remember that. It was awesome.

Posted by Rafael 2004-08-27 2:59:36 PM|| 2004-08-27 2:59:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 I will not be posting any further today, as I have to work until 1 am. Good day.

Posted by Pete Stanley 2004-08-27 2:59:58 PM|| 2004-08-27 2:59:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 I will not be posting any further...

Alright!

...today

Damn!

After 9/11 Bush told us to go shopping.

Yes. Not because he thinks we're children, but because the primary target of 9/11 was our economy. "Going shopping" meant we kept the economy rolling, instead of staying at home in fear and letting them achieve their goal.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-08-27 3:10:25 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-08-27 3:10:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Which was good for me, 'cuz I really needed some new dish towels.

Posted by Seafarious 2004-08-27 3:15:13 PM|| 2004-08-27 3:15:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Look, Pete, all flippancy aside, your theory just doesn't hold up. There's a lot of reasons why:

1. The cause of the crash is well-documented: the plane lost its rudder due to structural failure. There are pictures of the plane falling out of the sky sans rudder. Airbus 300s have a weakness in this area, and this is, unfortunately, not the first time this has happened.

2. How does a guy sitting in the main cabin detonate a bomb and make the rudder fall off? If a bomb detonated in the main cabin, it would split the fuselage in half. The fuselage was intact before the plane hit the ground.

3. I wish we had a government that could cover things up that well--because that would mean it would be a hell of a lot more effective at other tasks--but we don't. If it had been a bomb, and the FAA were trying to pretend otherwise, all it would take to blow the cover-up is for just one of the hundreds (if not thousands) of people who would have had to be in on the conspiracy to leak it to the press. And don't for a moment think the press wouldn't run with it. But no leak, no alleged leak, nowhere, not even (I think) in fever swamps like Indymedia.

4. Al-Qaeda did not crow about the "great victory" of flight 587. Say one thing for the enemy, they're not shy about taking "credit" for what they do.

5. Our policy pre-9/11 was not to try to deny the islamofascists credit; it was to treat the terrorism as "crime" rather than "war."

6. Given that our policy post-9/11 is to treat terrorist attacks as acts of war, and to activelky invade terror-sponsoring states with armies and depose governments, how does it advance that policy to cover up a terrorist attack?

Posted by Mike 2004-08-27 3:18:36 PM|| 2004-08-27 3:18:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Whatever...it will be only a matter of days before some enterprising attorneys get wind of this story and file a brief in court to have the events of the AA disaster re-investigated. Consider that we taxpayers generously made instant millionaires out of the families of 9/11/01 victims. But the families of the 11/12/01 crash victims of AA fight 587 were not accorded the same taxpayer largesse. As soon as this story gets more exposure, lawyers will be tripping over each other to "uncover" the truth "on behalf of" surviving families. You betcha.

Posted by rex 2004-08-27 3:19:29 PM|| 2004-08-27 3:19:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 I dunno,sea, during WW2 we managed to do without everything from dishtowels(?) to new cars. The economy was sustained by the war effort - in fact it came close to overheating. Meanwhile weve been shopping for three years, and we cant manage to fully arm the Iraqi police, or to put marshalls on every flight, or to expand the army beyond 10 divisions. I dont follow the conspiracy stuff above, but this ISNT a serious way to lead a war for the survival of civilization.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 3:20:08 PM|| 2004-08-27 3:20:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 I have always believed that buying new dishtowels is one of the cheapest ways to raise your standard of living.

Posted by Sharon in NYC 2004-08-27 4:12:10 PM|| 2004-08-27 4:12:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 It's too bad that TV cameras weren't there live when Roosevelt was told of Pearl Harbor...

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-27 4:18:09 PM|| 2004-08-27 4:18:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 It's too bad that TV cameras weren't there live when Roosevelt was told of Pearl Harbor...

From what I read in Churchill's History of WWII, if there had been cameras on him when HE was told of Pearl Harbor, he would be one of the biggest villains in American history.

We can understand NOW why it made his day, but at the time his reaction would not have been taken well.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-08-27 4:53:56 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-08-27 4:53:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 but you've got to use your imagination here, because ALL of the sources we have to work with have lies impregnated in them. But I am not a troll.

Im hear with ya buddy most things are lies we just havent found out about them yet i am still wonder about this grants tomb affair i mean it could be lee grant does anyone have anyfirst hand info? if they say they do they either lying because people dont live to be 111 or then messing in places where they ought not to be all information is invalid unless i believe it and i dont so there

Posted by Half 2004-08-27 5:14:07 PM|| 2004-08-27 5:14:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Drunk as a lord 'e was.
And dancing and be o so joyful!

Posted by Churchills Parrot 2004-08-27 5:15:51 PM|| 2004-08-27 5:15:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#32

Our policy pre-9/11 was not to try to deny the islamofascists credit; it was to treat the terrorism as "crime" rather than "war."

You are first wrong and secondly right. They were doing both. The attitude was that these 'slims didn't have the power to make war against us, AND that we would deny them credit where we could. Again, see OK City. See Anthrax. See TWA 800.

Posted by Victory Now Please 2004-08-27 5:49:24 PM|| 2004-08-27 5:49:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 From what I read in Churchill's History of WWII, if there had been cameras on him when HE was told of Pearl Harbor, he would be one of the biggest villains in American history.

Robert - I think Churchill wrote something about sleeping very well that night. ~I slept the sleep of the Saved~ or somesuch.

Posted by Laurence of the Rats 2004-08-27 6:17:31 PM|| [http://www.punictreachery.com/] 2004-08-27 6:17:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Mike, I'm not defending Pete's larger theory, if only because I never attribute to malevolence what can be attributed to simple incompetence. However, that tail section did not come off because of some "TopGun jet wash." If so, those sections would be popping off like champagne corks all around the world. The tail came off after the crew went full opposite rudder to a spin, induced by... would it be that engine with the air brake fully open? Note that they went full opposite rudder after increasing to max thrust in the engine opposite the spin--which was the engine with the brake full open. So essentially the plane was like a St Catherine's wheel, with two engines pushing the plane in a circle around it's center of lift, creating a flat spin. Full opposite rudder is called for, but that rudder is pushing against the full thrust of both engines. Small wonder there was a structural failure of tail section, but that failure wasn't the cause of the crash. As to what caused the failure of the brake without any cockpit indications to the crew, it can be simply accomplished (I am told) by a crimp in the hydraulic lines. As the fluid drains, the system will no longer hold back the brake, which then deploys as the aircraft accelerates and climbs.

Sorry to seem as if I'm jumping on you. I do think that terrorism is still a possibility for AA 587, not to be discarded easily. However, this sounds more like a red herring intended to throw us off Jdey's trail

Posted by longtime lurker 2004-08-27 7:16:55 PM|| 2004-08-27 7:16:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 The one thing that Troll, Pete is right about is the LAX El Al ticket counter shooting. That was terrorism and it was swept under the rug. I have never seen the media deny terrorism like they did in that case. As for AA 587 and the Anthrax letters: I don't know what happened.

Posted by Kentucky Beef 2004-08-27 7:58:52 PM|| 2004-08-27 7:58:52 PM|| Front Page Top

15:25 Liberalhawk
15:25 Liberalhawk
15:10 Liberalhawk
15:10 Liberalhawk
14:00 Liberalhawk
14:00 Liberalhawk
14:00 Liberalhawk
14:00 Liberalhawk
14:00 Liberalhawk
14:00 Liberalhawk
22:32 Atomic Conspiracy
20:55 Shipman
18:12 Lil Dhimmi
18:05 Shipman
18:02 Shipman
17:58 Lil Dhimmi
11:47 Gentle
10:51 Mike Sylwester
09:35 badanov
09:14 Frank G
09:13 Gentle
09:10 Frank G
09:06 Mike Sylwester
03:16 Gentle