[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

An American Airlines 767 has crashed in the Queens borough of New York City. Thick smoke was billowing over the area, and local media reported several houses on fire.
www.cnn.com

[Raman]

Holy! Sheet! only Cnn.com has some news on it as of 8:50CST. We don't have a TV or radio at work.

Any details yet?

[Bockie]

Damnnit! Let's hope this isn't Terrorism Hits NYC, Take Two. If it is...Bring all the troops out of Afghanastan (sp) and let Ca$h have the controls of a B2.

[Raman]

http://www.flightexplorer.com/

If you anyone can find the flight # then you can see the flight path. I learned of this website from the last terrorist attacks. Post a screenshot of the path if you can.

[Millennium]

Supposedly, this one was on its way to JFK airport. That makes it plausible that this wasn't terrorism-related at all, but just a really bad coincidence.

Let's hope that's all it is.

[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

It was a flight from NY to Dominican.
And "Airbus" plane.
Crashed taking off.
4 buildings are on fire.

[applenut1]

Flight 587

Apparantly it went into flames in the air

Damn

[Raman]

Originally posted by Raman:
<STRONG>http://www.flightexplorer.com/

If you anyone can find the flight # then you can see the flight path. I learned of this website from the last terrorist attacks. Post a screenshot of the path if you can.</STRONG>

Nevermind.. I just heard that it was taking off.. Someone said that it looked like the left wing or engine ignited (blew up?) and the plane immediately went down. It was supposedly headed for the Caribbean??

[applenut1]

246 passengers, 9 in crew

[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

2 months and 1 day from Sept 11.

[theiliad]

New York has taken quite the battering...

[derbs]

doesn't sound like this was a terrorist act - bloody awful time for an engine failure.

Poor bastards... (

keep posting info please - can't seem to connect to any news sites...

[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

On a side note. www.MSnbc.com is the first site to go down from heavy traffic. Wonder what they use as servers.

[Bockie]

Rudy Guiliani (sp) is now saying there are two crash sites--the plane and the engine. This would further corroborate with the eyewitness reports that the engine had exploded and/or caught fire just after take-off.

The Pentagon says they had planes in NYC but had no notice of any irregularities in the flight. They also claim they have no knowledge of any distress calls.

[Bockie]

Secondary Thought: For those not familiar with NYC, the Queens borough is a residential area with schools and churches.

All bridges and tunnels to/from NYC have been closed. The UN has been locked-down; no people or vehicles are not allowed in or out. Sec of State Colin Powell is there with 15 other Prime Ministers were discussing the post-Taliban govt of Afghanistan.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by applenut1:
<STRONG>246 passengers, 9 in crew</STRONG>

No, that is the plane's capacity NOT the reported number of people on the plane. The FAA has not allowed the actual number or flight manifest released.

[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
<STRONG>

No, that is the plane's capacity NOT the reported number of people on the plane. The FAA has not allowed the actual number or flight manifest released.</STRONG>

" The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said the plane was carrying 246 passengers and nine crew members. "

[Matsu]

I've posted to this effect twice, so I'll just repost this message, the airline industry needs to get it's act together. The news I'm watching right now is equally disturbing: broadcasters are trying to nullify the impact by telling us about the safety of the planes in general??? Uh, excuse me but these things seem to be falling out of the sky.

Anyways, I posted this before:

You know what, the airline industry is getting it's due. Not death and tragedy, but genuine public fear. People are right to be afraid, airport security all over north america is ridiculous. For the last 20 years every industry analyst who mentioned the systemic security problems within our airports was labled a sensationalist/alarmist by the FAA, the industry, local politicians, etc...

Just in case the point wasn't made clearly or dramatically enough: ON SEPT 11, 5000 PEOPLE DIED AT THE HANDS OF MEN ARMED WITH KITCHEN IMPLEMENTS!!!

The days following the attacks saw serious delay at every NA airport. People complained. Bureacrats promised a return to convenient service. WHAT??? It should be that inconvenient (as in the days after the attacks) every single time someone gets on a plane. 2-4 hours to board a plane shouldn't be the exception, it ought to be the rule.

I guarantee you. If you look you'll find a consistent pattern of security bowing to convenience. At pattern that has been encouraged by the whole industry at large, and, in the best case, accepted by bureaucrats -- in the worst case? I'm sure a few people who knew better were swayed by all manner of professional reward, promotions, plum postings, too-good to be true job offers... I'm sure no one was acting out of malice, but the whole industry seemed to have developed tunnel vision, and as a corporate culture it rewarded those who shared that vision. Land, refuel, fly. Third rate, third-party private security? Land, refuel, fly. Understaffed, over-worked customs officials? Land, refuel, fly. Cursory or wholly inadequate security checks for groud personelle? Land, refuel, fly. Baggage check at the gate? Land, refuel, fly. Minimal holdover on connectors? Land, refuel, fly. No regular Air Marshall service? Land, refuel, fly.

Now Bush wants people to get back into a plane; to keep on doing as they have in the past. NO FVCKING WAY!!! Fix the problems the first. I don't care about the cost. Cry about jobs if you want -- I don't care. Maybe you ought to rethink some of those corporate salaries before you slash all those jobs. FIX THE PROBLEMS FIRST. You, the airline industry let this happen, fix it! Don't guilt the public: Don't imply cowardice. Acknowledge your mistakes, fix them. Don't cry about the cost, if you can't do it the way it should be done, then don't do it! Quite sadly, quite literally, we can live without you.


Maybe some one in the media will start presenting this angle.

[Bockie]

The bridges and tunnels have been reopened. The FFA has stated that this crash is unlikely a terrorist event. After all of this, I am making plans for my next trip to be in a car and not on a plane.

[DBursey]

This on the heels of Canada's 2nd largest airline going bankrupt this morning. Then there's the airport security fiasco.

It's time to seriously consider re-regulating the industry.

[Troll]

Cars are far more dangerous than planes, so about your only option is to stay home. Then again, you might be staying at home and have an A300 fall on you. Accidents happen. The chances are miniscule that you will ever be involved in a plane crash. I'm flying this afternoon!

[daimoni]

.

[daimoni]

.

[Avenir]

I have to fly just to go home whenever I do, no choice there, so I just deal with it. Cars are still more dangerous than flying, and this sound most likely like an accident that would have just gone and passed right by if not for the WTC. If it proves to be terrorist, that's one thing, but if it's mechanical failure, then I don't see any reason for people to get all worked up. Accidents happen, and tons of people like me have to just ride 'em out.

now onto class...

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Avenir ]

[DBursey]

The U.S. should probably follow the model of numerous other countries and nationalize the aviation industry. Air transportation is too vital to the nation's economy to trust to the vagaries of the marketplace; profitability should take a back seat to reliability, as it does with the military and the postal system, and other essential components of our infrastructure. Flying on such national carriers as Air France and Turkish Airways, neither terribly concerned about profits, is infinitely more safe and pleasant than on our lean, viciously mean American companies.

I absolutely agree. Our respective national governments need to seriously consider re-regulation or the industry and (at the very least) federalization of airport security. Safe and efficient transportation must be considered as an essential service.

[IUJHJSDHE]

And guess what?

Today is Nov 12th!

Two months and 1 day from the WTC attacks!

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: IUJHJSDHE ]

[Troll]

I must say though that engines don't usually fall off planes. The A300 has been around for a long time, so most design flaws would be evident by now.

[BRussell]

Given the timing, people will always wonder if this was terrorism.

A bomb brought on by a passenger?
A bomb checked into the luggage compartment?
A bomb affixed to the outside of the plane?
Some type of sabotage by terrorists in the ground crew?

Even TWA 800 still has conspiracies surrounding it, and that was over 5 years ago when people weren't even really thinking about terrorism.

[Gee4orce]

All it would take to bring down that plane is someone in an apartment block window with a Stinger missile and the intent. Curiously, Stingers are available at weapons sales in Pakistan, but of late they have been sold out...

Of course, getting the thing into the USA is another matter entirely, but by no means beyond possibility.

This may be an accident - but to be honest I think that's highly unlikely given:

1) The Airbus' reliability - one other crash comes to mind in Belgium (?) also shortly after take off.
2) Engines don't just explode...
3) ...over a densely populated area ?!

[Troll]

Originally posted by DBursey:
<STRONG>
I absolutely agree. Our respective national governments need to seriously consider re-regulation or the industry and (at the very least) federalization of airport security. Safe and efficient transportation must be considered as an essential service.</STRONG>

As someone who experiences the service of Air France on a regular basis, let me tell you that it is anything but "friendly". The problem with nationalising the aircraft industry is that it encourages people to be inefficient. The Air France workers are almost permanently on strike. They can't be fired because they're government employees and there is no motivation for them to work because they progress through the industry at a fixed pace irrespective of performance. And, because the state bails the company out whenever it goes into the red, the CEO's don't care if it's profitable or not. To boot, Air France is almost always the most expensive option.

Whoever wrote that article is ill-informed. DBursey's comment that the industry needs to be "re-regulated" rather than "nationalised" is far more intelligent.

[Gee4orce]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>
Even TWA 800 still has conspiracies surrounding it, and that was over 5 years ago when people weren't even really thinking about terrorism.</STRONG>

TWA 800 was caused by - of all things - an empty fuel tank which couldn't absorb the heat from air conditioners like a full tank, coupled with a short circuit in the low voltage line for the fuel level meter.

An incredible combinations of events, but still...nothing sinister.

The front section of TWA 800 fell off - the rest of the jet carried on flying until it stalled, and crashed 50 seconds after the explosion.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
<STRONG>All it would take to bring down that plane is someone in an apartment block window with a Stinger missile and the intent. Curiously, Stingers are available at weapons sales in Pakistan, but of late they have been sold out...
</STRONG>

I don't want to scare anyone, but what I was eluding to earlier has now been said by Gee4orce. To take that further:

1) The reports say one of the engines came off (right off!).
2) The engines are the hottest part of an airliner.
3) Anti aircraft missiles are generally heat seeking.
4) Planes are sitting ducks for ground attacks during takeoff. They are at close range, moving slowly and making lots of heat.

The only flaw I could see in the missile theory is that missiles usually explode when they hit the target destroying the rest of the plane. Still, if the range was very close, the velocity of the missile might rip the engine off. I doubt this could happen in NYC without eye witnesses. Let's see what they say ...

[Gee4orce]

[ul][*]August 2000: Gulf Air A320 crashed in Gulf off Bahrain[*]January 2000: 169 killed when A310 crashed off Ivory Coast. [*]February 1998: 197 killed when A300 crashed in Taiwan. [*]September 1997: 234 killed when A300 crashed in Indonesia. [*]July 1994: Seven killed when A330 crashed in Toulouse, France, when crew were testing simulated engine failure. [*]April 1994: 259 killed when A300 crashed in Japan. [*]March 1994: 75 killed when A310 crashed in Siberia. [*]September 1992: 167 killed when A300 crashed in Kathmandu, Nepal. [*]July 1992: 113 killed when A310 crashed in Kathmandu. [*]January 1992: 87 killed when A320 crashed in Strasbourg. [*]February 1990: 90 killed when A320 crashed in Bangalore. [*]June 1988: eight killed when A320 crashed in Habersheim.
[/ul]

[Gee4orce]

Originally posted by Troll:
<STRONG>

The only flaw I could see in the missile theory is that missiles usually explode when they hit the target destroying the rest of the plane. Still, if the range was very close, the velocity of the missile might rip the engine off. I doubt this could happen in NYC without eye witnesses. Let's see what they say ...</STRONG>

Not so - you don't need much of an explosion to down a plane. You just need to do enough damage to create a propogating faliure (if you rip panels of a jet, the wind speed will basically do the rest for you, and tear the jet to bits).

I don't know how much explosive a Stinger packs, but I doubt it would blow an airliner straight out of the sky. You're right about the missle seeking the engines though, and the ease of hitting a plane at take off. This is when:[*] The plane is lowest[*] The place is slowest[*] The engines are pumping out most heat

It doesn't get any easier than this

[Troll]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
<STRONG>[ul][*]August 2000: Gulf Air A320 crashed in Gulf off Bahrain[*]January 2000: 169 killed when A310 crashed off Ivory Coast. [*]February 1998: 197 killed when A300 crashed in Taiwan. [*]September 1997: 234 killed when A300 crashed in Indonesia. [*]July 1994: Seven killed when A330 crashed in Toulouse, France, when crew were testing simulated engine failure. [*]April 1994: 259 killed when A300 crashed in Japan. [*]March 1994: 75 killed when A310 crashed in Siberia. [*]September 1992: 167 killed when A300 crashed in Kathmandu, Nepal. [*]July 1992: 113 killed when A310 crashed in Kathmandu. [*]January 1992: 87 killed when A320 crashed in Strasbourg. [*]February 1990: 90 killed when A320 crashed in Bangalore. [*]June 1988: eight killed when A320 crashed in Habersheim.
[/ul]</STRONG>

Just to be clear G4orce, this list includes models other than the A300. If you put Boeing's track record (all models; 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777) next to this, I would think Airbus looks relatively safe.

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Troll ]

[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

I don't think it was terrorists. I think it was some sort of engine failure, who knows, it could have even been a bird that flew in there.

I can't see how a missile shot from the ground could have done it.

[Millennium]

This seems unlikely to be a terrorist act, from all indications. Possibly a bird got sucked into the engine.

In terms of federalizing airport security, I think this would me a mistake, for all the reasons outlined above. I'd prefer to see it privatized but strictly regulated. This allows for the standardization (at least for minimal security policies) of federalization, but the flexibility and adaptabilty of private industry. The best of both worlds, found in a balance between the two.

[GK]

A senior Bush administration official told CNN initial indications are that there was an explosion aboard the plane, an Airbus A300, but that the source of the explosion is unknown.

CNN.com

[TheJoshu]

I think the most likely cause was a member of the al Qaeda terrorist network accidentally getting sucked into the engine.

[Nile Crocodile]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>This seems unlikely to be a terrorist act, from all indications. Possibly a bird got sucked into the engine.</STRONG>

They test the engines by throwing frozen turkeys into them while they are running. So they are made to survive large birds. Even large frozen birds.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Nile Crocodile:
<STRONG>

They test the engines by throwing frozen turkeys into them while they are running. So they are made to survive large birds. Even large frozen birds.</STRONG>

Well that's good to know. Neven know when a large frozen turkey is gonna come out of nowhere at 30,000 feet.

[pscates]

At 30,000 feet, a turkey probably IS going to be a bit frosty. That's the airlines thinking ahead and using their noodle...I like that!

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
<STRONG>


Not so - you don't need much of an explosion to down a plane. You just need to do enough damage to create a propogating faliure (if you rip panels of a jet, the wind speed will basically do the rest for you, and tear the jet to bits).

I don't know how much explosive a Stinger packs, but I doubt it would blow an airliner straight out of the sky. You're right about the missle seeking the engines though, and the ease of hitting a plane at take off. This is when:[*] The plane is lowest[*] The place is slowest[*] The engines are pumping out most heat

It doesn't get any easier than this</STRONG>

Me loves rumors

The stinger missile has 6.6 pounds of explosive. It isn't going to knock an engine off. The most a stinger missile could do to a large aircraft is turn it into a ballistic object, but in doing so it will not rip off an engine.
Military aircraft are much smaller and that's why the explosion can severely damage them.

[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

A bird flying into the engine could easily cause a chunk of the blade to come off. It would then act as a projectile and puncture the fuel tanks in the wing. Then BOOM, the engine comes off.

Why would anyone sit in the suburbs with a stinger missile and shoot down a plane headed for the Dominican? You think they would rather use it on Airforce one.

[grand illusion]

how many bolts hold the engines on to this model aircraft?

remember oh maybe 15-20 years ago when an engine fell off a commercial jet? and the NTSB figured out it was likely the inproper mounting of the engine after scheduled maintenance that caused it to fall off...

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: grand illusion ]

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by Immortal K-Mart Employee:
<STRONG>A bird flying into the engine could easily cause a chunk of the blade to come off. It would then act as a projectile and puncture the fuel tanks in the wing. Then BOOM, the engine comes off.

Why would anyone sit in the suburbs with a stinger missile and shoot down a plane headed for the Dominican? You think they would rather use it on Airforce one.</STRONG>

Ok everyone, here's the deal.
SAY IT'S A BIRD.
No matter what, blame a bird.
That way not as many people will be screaming terrorist.

Repeat after me.

A bird was sucked into the engine. It's that fault of a bird.

--Scott

[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

Maybe the bird was a terrorist.

[anarkisst]

Ugh. This is terrible. I haven't turned on the TV yet...don't really want to...

Terrorists or no...most airlines are running on nickels and dimes right now...skeleton crews and staff...in all probability this was either a terrorist or more likely the economic ramifications of the Sept 11th attacks...

All I can say is....the War must go on.

[DoctorGonzo]

Why would anyone sit in the suburbs with a stinger missile and shoot down a plane headed for the Dominican? You think they would rather use it on Airforce one.

Because Air Force planes carry anti-missle systems, while commercial aircraft do not. Unless you're flying El Al.

Ugh. This is terrible. I haven't turned on the TV yet...don't really want to...

Terrorists or no...most airlines are running on nickels and dimes right now...skeleton crews and staff...in all probability this was either a terrorist or more likely the economic ramifications of the Sept 11th attacks...

All I can say is....the War must go on.

I suppose I shouldn't bother confusing you with facts, as you have already made up your mind with no information at all.

Good for you.

[anarkisst]

Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
<STRONG>

I suppose I shouldn't bother confusing you with facts, as you have already made up your mind with no information at all.

Good for you. </STRONG>

What's your point Doc? You know it all? What? Whatever...

Well, I'm watching the news...I see the families at the Kennedy Airport and the Dominican Republic airport weeping and screaming in pain and loss. That's real. The families who died in their houses in Queens. The people on the plane who died. That's all the information I need to say that this is another tragedy...my sympathies go out to all.

We'll get a lot of information from this accident (ACCIDENT)...eyewitnesses, debri, flight controllers and other evidence...this was an accident.

Of course I could be wrong...Doc Gonzo knows everthing under the Sun.