American Airlines Flight 587

OutlawPete

Sorry if this has been covered before, I'm new here.

- -

This is one 'crash' which I have always had trouble believing was just an accident.

It happened just over two months after 9/11, right in the heart of the New York suburb of Queens.

Al Qaeda took responsibility at one point.

260 passengers were killed and yet to this day, the crash is rarely mentioned in the media.






US Government blamed Pilot trainer error and over used rudders.

Was the date and location all just a coincidence?

I myself believe it was a shoe bomber.

What says you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5beNH9EKnps

alastair

I see no evidence of a plane in those photos, and the video contains what looks suspiciously like a CGI-modelled plane. My verdict is that it was a controlled explosion in Queens, with planted 'witnesses' to distract from the truth.

Or, given that Airbus, American Airlines and the pilot's union all seem to be agreement that there were 'issues' with the tail rudder on those planes, maybe it just crashed for the stated reasons?

nullzero

US Government blamed Pilot trainer error and over used rudders.

Was the date and location all just a coincidence?

I myself believe it was a shoe bomber.

What says you?

I think that had it been a shoe bomber then there would have been reports of such.
The generaly idea of flase flag terror(the most common theme of terror related topics in CT's), is that you plan to crash the plane and then pretend there were terrorists responsible and use the reaction from the public as justification for you actions following the incident.

I think that in this case it was most probably an accident, although I'm open to correction.

I see no evidence of a plane in those photos, and the video contains what looks suspiciously like a CGI-modelled plane. My verdict is that it was a controlled explosion in Queens, with planted 'witnesses' to distract from the truth.

Do we have to see this stuff in every thread now?

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

Do we have to see this stuff in every thread now?

What? You don't like the standard CT quality of critique?

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

What? You don't like the standard CT quality of critique?

I think you're the only one laughing Alastair.
If you want to discuss that topic the thread is still there for you to do so.

alastair

I'm discussing this topic. It's you who has gone off topic, and now dragged me off too - shame on you!

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

I'm discussing this topic. It's you who has gone off topic, and now dragged me off too - shame on you!

Yeah, that's what happened:rolleyes:

drkpower

What's the problem with Alastair's explanation?

I dont see a plane in those photos. Do you see a plane? Looks much more like a controlled explosion. Also jet fuel doesnt burn with that colour. The agenda in the post 9-11 Bush administration was to keep the populus/sheeple 'on edge', fearful. This was part of that plan. I hear that the real plane was brought to a to a secret US military facility in Idaho where the passengers were killed along with the passengers in the other so called 9-11 planes.

Oh and also, that suburb in Queens where the plane crashed? You know who works there? You guessed it; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES; perfectly placed stooges who acted as 'witnesses' to the so called 'crash'. A little too convenient if you ask me.

tallus

If you watch the video, the fuselage is visible in some of the scenes.

drkpower

tallus wrote: »

If you watch the video, the fuselage is visible in some of the scenes.

Sure, but obviously the video footage was edited in realtime by the Bush Administration so as to include the fuselage. Its pretty straightforward with the right technology.

alastair

tallus wrote: »

If you watch the video, the fuselage is visible in some of the scenes.

A fuselage is shown alright (1:12), but that's after the crash, it's missing the AA livery and looks flat green in colour - just like a MILITARY PLANE.

OutlawPete

nullzero wrote: »

I think that had it been a shoe bomber then there would have been reports of such.

Well, there was this:

November 2001 plane crash (A A flight 587) Queens, NY was AL QAIDA operation

Stewart Bell National Post ( CANADA)

August 27, 2004

A captured al-Qaeda operative has told Canadian intelligence investigators that a Montreal man who trained in Afghanistan alongside the 9/11 hijackers was responsible for the crash of an American Airlines flight in New York three years ago.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents were told during five days of interviews with the source that Abderraouf Jdey, a Canadian citizen also known as Farouk the Tunisian, had downed the plane with explosives on Nov. 12, 2001.

The source claimed Jdey had used his Canadian passport to board Flight 587 and "conducted a suicide mission" with a small bomb similar to the one used by convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid, a "Top Secret" Canadian government report says.

But officials said it was unlikely Jdey was actually involved in the crash, which killed 265 people and is considered accidental. The fact that al-Qaeda attributed the crash to Jdey, however, suggests they were expecting him to attack a plane.

"We have seen no evidence of anything other than an accident here," said Ted Lopatkiewicz, spokesman for the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. "There has been no evidence found, from what I can tell -- at least that's been relayed to us -- that there was any criminality involved here. It appears, at least the evidence we have, is that a vertical fin came off, not that there was any kind of event in the cabin."

Jdey, 39, came to Canada from Tunisia in 1991 and became a citizen in 1995. Shortly after getting his Canadian passport, he left for Afghanistan and trained with some of the Sept. 11 hijackers, according to the 9/11 commission in the United States.

He recorded a "martyrdom" video, but was dropped from the 9/11 mission after returning to Canada in the summer of 2001. The planner of the World Trade Center attack, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, claims Jdey was recruited for a "second wave" of suicide attacks.

The FBI issued an alert seeking Jdey's whereabouts in 2002. John Ashcroft, the U.S. Attorney-General, told a news conference in May that Jdey was one of seven al-Qaeda associates "sought in connection with the possible terrorist threats in the United States."

The information on Jdey's alleged role in the plane crash is contained in a memo on captured Canadian al-Qaeda operative Mohammed Mansour Jabarah. The Canadian government memo was written in May, 2002, and was based on information provided by a "source of unknown reliability."

Jabarah is a 22-year-old from St. Catharines who allegedly joined al-Qaeda and convinced Osama bin Laden to give him a terror assignment. He was tasked with overseeing a suicide-bombing operation in Southeast Asia, but was caught and has since pleaded guilty in the United States.

The report, which was sent to the Philippine National Police intelligence directorate, recounts what Jabarah said he was told about the U.S. plane crash by Abu Abdelrahman, a Saudi al-Qaeda member who was working for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

"In discussions, Abu Abdelrahman mentioned AL QAIDA was responsible for the assassination of Massoud, the Northern Alliance leader," the report says. "According to the source, Abu Abdelrahman added that the 12 November 2001 plane crash (btb American Airlines flight 587) in Queens, New York was not an accident as reported in the press but was actually an AL QAIDA operation.

"Abu Abdelrahman informed Jabarah that Farouk the Tunisian conducted a suicide mission on the aeroplane using a shoe bomb of the type used by Richard Reid .... 'Farouk the Tunisian' was identified from newspaper photographs as being identical to Abderraouf Jdey, a Canadian citizen who had resided in Montreal."

Jabarah was initially suspect of the claim about Jdey, but he later believed it after he saw the same information on a "mujahedin Web site," the report says.

drkpower

OutlawPete wrote: »

Well, there was this:

Yeah right; there is no way that a bunch of guys in a cave could have organised this attack. Open your eyes.

OutlawPete

drkpower wrote: »

Yeah right; there is no way that a bunch of guys in a cave could have organised this attack. Open your eyes.

They are open. I find it hard to type when they're not.

alastair

drkpower wrote: »

Yeah right; there is no way that a bunch of guys in a cave could have organised this attack. Open your eyes.

Oh, I dunno:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMEuEF9-UbU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MymrYhNxJKE

nullzero

I don't see a conspiracy here as I said earlier, but the replies have been for the most part taking the piss. It's a poor reflection on those posting.

TalkieWalkie

Perhaps there were several free thinkers on that flight.

drkpower

nullzero wrote: »

I don't see a conspiracy here as I said earlier, but the replies have been for the most part taking the piss. It's a poor reflection on those posting.

Hey you can continue to be blind if you want, be one of the sheeple who just does what they are told. Its pretty obvious this was an INSIDE JOB; the evidence is all there; all you need to do is look at it.

nullzero

drkpower wrote: »

Hey you can continue to be blind if you want, be one of the sheeple who just does what they are told. Its pretty obvious this was an INSIDE JOB; the evidence is all there; all you need to do is look at it.

Why are you posting that nonsense?
Are you really that bored?

drkpower

nullzero wrote: »

Why are you posting that nonsense?
Are you really that bored?

You may feel that the possibility of AA Flight 587 being planned by the Bush Administartion is 'nonsense'. I would ask you to consider why there has been no full independent public inquiry into this incdent; why Bush & Cheney havent been called to give evidence to such an Inquiry; why we have NEVER seen the video footage of the plane crashing (I mean there must be tons of CC footage of the moment of impact - but noone has released the image; NOONE).

If you are happy to accept what the Goverment and media are telling you on this, that's fine, but my eyes are open and I can see what's going on. Do you have any answers to the questions I have posed above? Didnt think so....

nullzero

drkpower wrote: »

You may feel that the possibility of AA Flight 587 being planned by the Bush Administartion is 'nonsense'. I would ask you to consider why there has been no full independent public inquiry into this incdent; why Bush & Cheney havent been called to give evidence to such an Inquiry; why we have NEVER seen the video footage of the plane crashing (I mean there must be tons of CC footage of the moment of impact - but noone has released the image; NOONE).

If you are happy to accept what the Goverment and media are telling you on this, that's fine, but my eyes are open and I can see what's going on. Do you have any answers to the questions I have posed above? Didnt think so....

So are we to believe that you've gone from being a sceptic to a full blown tin foil hat wearing "CTer"?
Or are you just being sarcastic?

OutlawPete

This is also quite interesting:

FLIGHT 587 WITNESSES BLAST FEDS January 7, 2002

-- New Yorkers who believe they saw American Airlines Flight 587 explode in flames before its tail sheared off have accused crash investigators of ignoring their eyewitness accounts and prematurely ruling out a terrorist attack.

Six witnesses, including a recently retired police lieutenant, an FDNY deputy chief and a former firefighter, have written to the National Transportation Safety Board, demanding they be called to testify at a public hearing.

Tom Lynch, 59, a retired firefighter, said he had also spoken to 18 other people who saw the Airbus A300 flying on fire before it crashed into houses in Belle Harbor, Queens, on Nov. 12, killing 265 people.

"The NTSB is not publicly acknowledging the many eyewitness accounts of the in-flight fire or explosion, many from people who are adamant that the fire occurred before any tail or engine breakups," he told The Post.

Lynch, who organized the letter, said he was standing on Rockaway Beach Boulevard when he saw a bright orange ball of flame streaming from the right side of the plane. Two or three seconds later, he said, he saw a larger eruption of flames consuming the entire right side of the plane's fuselage.

"There were no falling parts until the second explosion of flames - I'll go to my grave with that," he said.

The witnesses said they were surprised NTSB Chairwoman Marion Blakey was able to say, only hours after the crash, that all indications pointed to an accident, rather than a terrorist attack.

"How could that statement be made while the flight-data recorder had not been recovered, the crash-investigation team had not yet showed up and initial eyewitness reports included many accounts of one or two explosions in flight?"

Lynch said. Another witness not involved with Lynch's group, Michael Benjamin, said he saw a huge orange fire engulfing the front third of the plane's right side while he was driving along Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn with his wife and two children. Benjamin, who works for the Oversight, Analysis and Investigations Committee of the state Assembly, said he had attempted to contact the NTSB but had not received a return call.

Preliminary reports written by the NTSB have not mentioned in-flight explosions, but have focused on air turbulence, the composite materials used to build the jet's vertical tail, and sudden rudder movements.

An NTSB spokesman said more than 200 eyewitness accounts had been recorded and were being considered as part of the investigation. But he said if the NTSB decided to conduct a public hearing, it would most likely seek opinions from air-safety and aeronautical-design experts rather than witnesses.

The people who signed the letter, in addition to Lynch, are retired NYPD Officer James Conrad, FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, retired transit cop Richard Kvies, sales manager John Power and food-services manager Ellie Scholfield.

drkpower

nullzero wrote: »

So are we to believe that you've gone from being a sceptic to a full blown tin foil hat wearing "CTer"?
Or are you just being sarcastic?

You can believe what you want.
Just because you are blind to the truth of this INSIDE JOB doesnt mean you can attack me for not being like you and the rest of the sheeple.

My name is URL

Get over yourselves.. seriously. If ye can't discuss things on their own merit and are only interested in 1-upping each other then piss off to the Thunderdome.

The OP stated that this is the first time he's posted here.. if your wish is to put everyone off posting in this forum then carry on.. I don't know what you'll expend your energy on once that happens mind.. maybe get a parrot and argue with that all day?

nullzero

My name is URL wrote: »

Get over yourselves.. seriously. If ye can't discuss things on their own merit and are only interested in 1-upping each other then piss off to the Thunderdome.

The OP stated that this is the first time he's posted here.. if your wish is to put everyone off posting in this forum then carry on.. I don't know what you'll expend your energy on once that happens mind.. maybe get a parrot and argue with that all day?

Nail on the head there.
It must be disapointing for the OP to have a smart ass reply staright away and then see almost the entire thread be chocked full of smart ass youtubes clips etc....
This forum was going great for a long time, it doesn't seem to be the case at the moment though, mores the pity.:(

Jeboa Safari

nullzero wrote: »

Nail on the head there.
It must be disapointing for the OP to have a smart ass reply staright away and then see almost the entire thread be chocked full of smart ass youtubes clips etc....
This forum was going great for a long time, it doesn't seem to be the case at the moment though, mores the pity.:(

It was going great when everyone was agreeing with each other and thanking everyone for the latest crackpot theory, but then when conspiracy theorists are challenged to provide evidence its not the case anymore?

nullzero

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

It was going great when everyone was agreeing with each other and thanking everyone for the latest crackpot theory, but then when conspiracy theorists are challenged to provide evidence its not the case anymore?

Not what I was saying.
Sceptics are a good addition to the forum.
As long they don't constantly derail threads and treat other users like something they stepped in.
This thread is a joke.
The OP posted a topic that warranted serious discussion, and straight away your friend Alastair started taking the piss and talking about other threads in an attempt to belittle and undermind the OP.
This whole thread has been a series of back slapping smarmy in jokes for the sceptics (at least the daft ones).

Jeboa Safari

nullzero wrote: »

Not what I was saying.
Sceptics are a good addition to the forum.
As long they don't constantly derail threads and treat other users like something they stepped in.
This thread is a joke.
The OP posted a topic that warranted serious discussion, and straight away your friend Alastair started taking the piss and talking about other threads in an attempt to belittle and undermind the OP.
This whole thread has been a series of back slapping smarmy in jokes for the sceptics (at least the daft ones).

I thought if was funny
Maybe the conspiracy theorists could learn from it, and do some actual research into their claims instead of just calling everyone who doesn't believe it and sheeple and telling them to wake up

The worst thing is, even though they were taking the piss, they were more convincing than some theories posted here :eek:

gerrycollins

if it were a shoe bomber why the cover up. The bush adminstration would have milked it for its "war on terror"

I believe it was a genunie crash

nullzero

I thought if was funny

If what was funny?

Maybe the conspiracy theorists could learn from it, and do some actual research into their claims instead of just calling everyone who doesn't believe it and sheeple and telling them to wake up

Perhaps the sceptics could see beyond the ends of their noses on some topics as well.

The worst thing is, even though they were taking the piss, they were more convincing than some theories posted here

No it's not. Then worst thing is that the piss taking was allowed to happen in the first place.
If you've got such a problem with people having different opinions that you feel don't make sense, the problem is really with you than the CT crowd.

Jeboa Safari

If what was funny?

I thougth it was funny I meant to say

Perhaps the sceptics could see beyond the ends of their noses on some topics as well.

Maybe they could if conspiracy theorists provided some evidence or proper thought out theories, instead of a random youtube video that your a sheep if you don't believe.

No it's not. Then worst thing is that the piss taking was allowed to happen in the first place.
If you've got such a problem with people having different opinions that you feel don't make sense, the problem is really with you than the CT crowd.

Don't have a problem. The burden of proof in on the person providing the theory. The posters with a sense of humour have gone up in my book. Sounds as much like you have a problem with people disagreeing if you can't handle a bit of sarcasm.

drkpower

nullzero wrote: »

No it's not. Then worst thing is that the piss taking was allowed to happen in the first place.

So you want to silence people from voicing their opinions on what the ELITES are up to? That's typical of the attitude of the sheeple; just listen to what you are told, do what your told and silence those who disagree with you. Good little sheeple.

Podman

OutlawPete wrote: »

Sorry if this has been covered before, I'm new here.

- -

This is one 'crash' which I have always had trouble believing was just an accident.

It happened just over two months after 9/11, right in the heart of the New York suburb of Queens.

Al Qaeda took responsibility at one point.

260 passengers were killed and yet to this day, the crash is rarely mentioned in the media.

<>

US Government blamed Pilot trainer error and over used rudders.

Was the date and location all just a coincidence?

I myself believe it was a shoe bomber.

What says you?

Before I watched the video I was thinking it was pilot error around the rudder situation. Perhaps leading to a computer failure, as nobody knows what an Airbus's flight computer will do once it loses it's rudder or gets confused. Would have to watch the video for more info.

Then as the video started, I realized I was watching another pro-war production.

The video starts off by saying...

September 11th 2001. Al Qaeda Operatives hijack and crash four US commercial planes, bringing down the World Trade Center towers and damaging The Pentagon.

This automatically creates a link to 911 for people. Notice the use of scary music and "terror" sound effects alongside the propaganda at the beginning.

I say Propaganda because the same argument is used to justify an expensive war. The US authorities say they have the whole case signed, sealed and delivered, despite no official "investigation" starting until over a year later.

Once "reportage" has this propaganda slant, it cannot be taken seriously by any thinking person.

They go on to say...

Just two months later, it appears that the unthinkable happens again.
November 12th 2001, American Airlines flight 587 mysteriously falls from the sky shortly after leaving JFK airport. It crashes into a residential neighborhood in Queens, New York. All 260 passengers and 5 people on the ground are killed.

This tells people that they are not longer safe in their homes, and compounds their reliance on the government even more. This device is one of many still used by the US government to terrorize it's own people, first making them afraid, then relieved but still suspicious and filled with anxiety, and all the while being told it's "normal". There is only so much horror a person can stand, Those living conditions are unsustainable and so the people hand over their faith to uncle sam to fix it, who then sends their kids off to war.

Even after they reveal the "mechanical failure", the music and sound effects continue, along with the presenter's "dramatic" narrative.

Total manipulation.
I'm really disappointed that, if it was pilot error, that the crash should be spun as another "terror attack", and associated with the images of the wtc implosion and the pentagon. That those people at the crash site died, and all their government would do was tell the survivors to be afraid, be very afraid. Vulnerable Americans were stabbed in the heart again, by their own people.

As far as timing goes, If this plane crash was an accident then the date and location was coincidental, obviously. But I think if it was, then it was picked up and used by the war machine, to induce local paranoia and serves to keep people afraid and surrender their liberties in favour of a police state.

By "local" here, I mean bringing terror to people's homes and neighborhood, aswel as the business district.


So in the end, It could very well have been pilot error or some other anomaly, but because it works so well as a "war device", I would have to question it's accidental nature.

nullzero

I thougth it was funny I meant to say

Well it wasn't...

So you want to silence people from voicing their opinions on what the ELITES are up to? That's typical of the attitude of the sheeple; just listen to what you are told, do what your told and silence those who disagree with you. Good little sheeple.

...and still isn't.

Maybe they could if conspiracy theorists provided some evidence or proper thought out theories, instead of a random youtube video that your a sheep if you don't believe.

I'd love to see where somebody actually called you a sheep for not agreeing with them.
I certainly don't go around doing things like that myself.

Don't have a problem. The burden of proof in on the person providing the theory.

Not really true is it?
It is possible for a discussion to take place without have to prove or disprove everything in every thread. I'm sure a lot of forums on this site manage to function perfectly well without people looking for proof all the time. Thats not to say that theories shouldn't be questioned, it would be nice for those doing the questioning to treat others as equals as oppossed to treating them like filth.

The posters with a sense of humour have gone up in my book.

What has gone on in this thread has nothing to do with having a sense of humour and everything to do with having no respect for others, being condescending and belittiling others.
If people who behave that way go up in your books, then I'd have to wonder what sort of person you are.

Sounds as much like you have a problem with people disagreeing if you can't handle a bit of sarcasm.

I've got no problem with people disagreeing with me.
I do have a problem with what has happened in this thread, which is a long way from a bit of good humoured fun.

alastair

Humour's subjective, but can we at least try to keep the typos down? Illiteracy isn't cool, kids.

Jeboa Safari

Well it wasn't...

...and still isn't.

Well thats a matter of opinion then, I thought it was

I'd love to see where somebody actually called you a sheep for not agreeing with them.
I certainly don't go around doing things like that myself.

Either that or wake up or something similar, theres plenty of examples on this forum

Not really true is it?
It is possible for a discussion to take place without have to prove or disprove everything in every thread. I'm sure a lot of forums on this site manage to function perfectly well without people looking for proof all the time. Thats not to say that theories shouldn't be questioned, it would be nice for those doing the questioning to treat others as equals as oppossed to treating them like filth.

Well yeah thats fair enough, but some threads on here are just some far out theory without any real merit, and if you don't believe it your blind. If it warrants discussion and the op actually wants a discussion instead of everyone agreeing with them and thanking their for his great find.

If people who behave that way go up in your books, then I'd have to wonder what sort of person you are.

Someone wrote something I consider funny and my opinion of them changes, hardly the biggest crime against humanity now is it?

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

Humour's subjective, but can we at least try to keep the typos down? Illiteracy isn't cool, kids.

Humour's fine as long as it isn't to the detriment of the entire thread.
No one here is illiterate, that's another example of you're condescending attitude. I've seen you mis-spell a good few words it doesn't make you illiterate or stupid.
I really couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks or believes, you're your own person, you're entitled to your opinions more power to you.
I am however sick of your attitude towards other users here, you're not a nice guy at all, not that I'd expect you to give a toss about that anyway.

alastair

I believe they found this at the crash site in Queens.

WakeUp

alastair wrote: »

Humour's subjective, but can we at least try to keep the typos down? Illiteracy isn't cool, kids.

:rolleyes:

WakeUp

alastair wrote: »

I believe they found this at the crash site in Queens.

:rolleyes:

humanji

Alastair and Drkpower banned for a week for trolling. The rest of you, if you've a problem with someones posts, you report them, you don't argue them.

amen

just noticed this thread but

that there were 'issues' with the tail rudder on those planes

not true.

Issue is with tail rudders on ALL planes Boeing, Airbus etc.

In this case there was repeated full left/right deflection over a very short time period which lead to rudder failure.

Both Boeing/Airbus planes affected.

Attributed to the pilot training which over emphassised rudder use.

Captain is heard asking the copilot on the CVR if has it and is he ok?