I will try this again as the first time apparently didn't go through. Hopefully this won't appear twice! Do you think the plane crash today in NYC was an act of terrorists???

-- Barb (bjconthefarm@yahoo.com), November 12, 2001

Answers

News reports say an engine 'fell off'and was found 4 blocks from the wreckage so unless someone put a bomb in the engine it could likely be a case of turbine failure. Remember, planes used to crash before Sept 11th.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), November 12, 2001.

Very true, John, there have always been plane crashes. I just find it strange that this happened 2 months almost to the day after the 9/11 attack and on the official Veteran's day and in the same area as the WTC attacks. I honestly do pray that it was "just a crash" and not a terrorist attack.

-- Barb (bjconthefarm@yahoo.com), November 12, 2001.

IMHO: it doesn't really mattter whether or not the plane fell because of terrorists. There is no good time/place for an airline accident, but this is about the worst imaginable scenario for one given the circumstances.The effects will be practically the same. Since American was one of the airlines victimized by the Sept. 11th attack, I unfortunately expect they will be out of business before a year is up. It would surprise me if United survives that long, just by virtue of 'guilt by association'. Since this happened a bit more than a week from Thanksgiving, I suspect there will be A LOT of changes to travel plans; causing an already struggling industry further towards the brink of bankruptcy. This will naturally cause the airline industry to be further 'federalized', if not taken over altogether, to keep it from dissolving away altogether.

As a side note, AMTRAK was recently told that it had to begin plans for liquidation. Lessee here: No planes, no trains and an increasing trend to put video cameras on interstates. Hmmmm. You draw your own conclusions.

Again, just my .02

-- StevenB (Thicketyrowfarm@aol.com), November 12, 2001.

Judging from the stock market reaction when they thought it just "might" be a terrorist attack, my question would be, will they tell us if it WAS a terrorist attack??? Yes john hill, planes did crash before the 9-11th attacks. How could we NOT wonder if this was another terrorist attack?? Perhaps if you lived here you might understand that we have all just been waiting for the other "shoe" to fall.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), November 12, 2001.

It also matters because it somehow seems like a fluke if it was an accident. But if it was deliberate, more people(like me) begin to wonder if we should still keep those holiday flights. How many more shoes can we expect to drop? I've listened to the cases made for both scenarios, seems now like it could easily be either. But you gotta admit, it being an American, in NY, at this time, does make it seem more suspicious.

-- mary (marylgarcia@aol.com), November 12, 2001.

Yes Dianne I am sure that if I lived there I would have a different opinion on this and quite a few other matters. For one thing my information sources and world experiences are quite different to yours.

However I did not say it was not a terrorist action but I do think it unlikely on the scant information I have seen so far. An engine 'fell off', this could have been due to a bomb in the engine or engine turbine failure. Turbine failures have happened before.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), November 12, 2001.

Yes john, I'll bet your news reports are quite different than ours. I usually listen to the BBC twice a day and it was preempted because of the crash so couldn't hear their take on it. So ironic that it would happen today, on our Veteran's Day. Didn't mean to sound so ouchy, but when I checked in here it was right after listening to them (news people) speculating on it being shot down by a missle launcher and just how that would look. Until I read my responses on some of these threads I don't realize just how badly my trust in my government has disintegrated. Yikes!!!! Quite obviously we will never be quite the same here.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), November 12, 2001.

Hello Folks, Since 9/11 everything that ends in tragidy will be first thought of as a possible act of terrorism. Some people with "gripes" about FBI,Government, etc. will believe that there is a cover up. I personally, think that it was a plane crash, period. Sincerely, Ernest

-- http://communities.msn.com/livingoffthelandintheozarks (espresso42@hotmail.com), November 12, 2001.

At first I thought it was an accident, then when I saw the pictures of the tail section being removed from the bay in a nearly pristine condition and I heard the various folks say how they looked up and saw flames on the wing and then "lots of debris" and THEN saw the engine fall off I said to myself, "hmmm." With our reknown security systems still in place as far as not judisiously checking baggage in the hold, etc....how difficult would it have been for someone to place a device inside a suitcase,detonated from an observer on the ground, or timed to go off after the flight was in the air for an hour (remember it was delayed ).....After 9/11, I am more suspicious of everything than I ever was before in my entire life. The sheer coincidence of another fully-fueled jet aircraft plunging into New York city limits in eight weeks is astounding. Calculate the odds of that type of thing happening in the same city from different causes..bet it is mathmatically way up there.......

-- lesley (martchas@bellsouth.net), November 12, 2001.

It seems terrifically sad to really be hoping that it was just a massive series of mechanical failures, but that is what I hope.

The one thing that struck me as very odd that hasn't been discussed yet, were the reports of the plane dumping fuel prior to he"explosion" some have claimed.

Dunno. I don't trust the government, but just plain old horrific accidents do happen. I really feel for these people in NYC....ow.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), November 12, 2001.

Personally, I doubt we will ever fully know the truth on this one!

-- Barb (bjconthefarm@yahoo.com), November 13, 2001.

If the powers that be really thought that it was a mechanical failure, why did they not immediately ground all the planes just like it as they have done for years following a major accident? Remember, when they KNEW that the attacks on the WTC were terrorist attacks, they still waited several hours to ground planes. There are too many reports, as someone else said, that the plane was coming apart in the air with flames streaming from it. The plane had been kept at the airport for over an hour before takeoff. Some reports say it was grounded due to mechanical problems, others say it was for security reasons. I've not heard anyone come up and officially admit that it was grounded. Anyway, the government will not admit it was terrorism even if they know it was for a fact. The entire airline industry worldwide is in extreme economic trouble. All it would take for it to collapse is another series of attacks, or possibly even just one attack. The media has just spent weeks telling us how important the airline industry is to the economy of the entire nation. If it goes down, the hotel and recreation industry will suffer terribly. I've forgotten what percentage of the economy is now tourism based, but it is around 25% I think. If that part goes down, it is likely the entire economy will drop like a rock in a well. And don't forget the mail system. It is already suffering from the anthrax scare. So much of the mail is transported by air now instead of by rail or truck as it was just 20 years ago, if the air system goes down I don't know if the mail system could survive either. Think of the economic consequences there too. Given the circumstances, I'm not sure I'd acknowledge terrorism either.

-- Green (ratdogs10@yahoo.com), November 13, 2001.

Barb, the truth of this tragedy will almost certainly be revealed eventually. The investigation and reporting of civil aircraft accidents is very thorough and eventually reported in full, of course you will never know this if you only read the more sensational reports and conspiracy stories.

Green, of course they reacted immediatly and closed the air space, at that time noone had any idea if it was an accident or terrorist attack.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), November 13, 2001.

Green....did you mean to say this??? "Remember, when they KNEW that the attacks on the WTC were terrorist attacks, they still waited several hours to ground planes."

One of the things that was totally amazing to me was that we were 15 miles away when it happened. By the time we had gotten home the air was EMPTY and we live on a major air traffic lane. I believe that they could never have responded one minute faster than they did to the terrorist attacks as far as emptying the skies.

That said, I still have a hard time believing that this was an "accident".

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), November 13, 2001.

John, I guess it depends on which media you consider sensationlists. I personally do not believe 1/2 of what I hear on NBC, CBS, ABC or CNN. Try reading World Net Daily for a change and get the other side of the story before you make up your mind.

-- Barb (bjconthefarm@yahoo.com), November 13, 2001.

World net daily? You mean Paranoia Net Daily?

JOJ

-- joj (jump@off.c), November 13, 2001.

JoJ, I guess it's a matter of opinion. God bless you.

-- Barb (bjconthefarm@yahoo.com), November 13, 2001.

No Barb I hardly ever watch those particular channels, for one thing they are not available free to air in my part of the world although I have been known to watch a bit when travelling and they are the only things in a language I can understand. I am not sure about World Net Daily, still heavily US based IMHO.

If I want to read about causes of air accidents I refer to something like the ICAO Journal partly because it comes free to my office.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), November 13, 2001.

Diane, I did mean to say that. We also live under a major air traffic flight lane. There are seldom less than 12 jets visible at any given time. The air traffic did not stop until around noon. The second plane hit the towers about 3 hours before that.

And John, the grounding I was referring to was the story that the plane that actually crashed was supposed to have been grounded for 74 minutes before it was allowed to fly. Some reports have said it was for mechanical, some for security. Now those reports seem to have disappeared completely. Like witness reports have a habit if doing whenever there is a crash coming out of JFK.

-- Green (ratdogs10@yahoo.com), November 14, 2001.

Well Green, I have always thought that the south, particularly Texas, was a little slow on the uptake. Now I have proof positive!!! ;>)

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), November 14, 2001.

I do not believe that the government would ever admit that this was a terrorist attack unless those responsible called a major news outlet an gloated, sharing how it was done. Think of the reprocussions as someone mentioned above.....This plane was only 13 years old..I keep coming back to that tail section...it looks like it just came from the factory, so why did it simply drop off????? Tails do not just drop off airplanes. Here's another question from the person who is NOT a conspiracy-theorist...has anyone else noticed that only recently have the "black boxes" been damaged so they could not be read clearly?????? Oh, sorry, the flight recorder could not be read and had to be sent back to the manufacturer......here is a country that has the capability of counting change in someone's pocket who is strolling along a sidewalk in Beirut while the observer is in an office in DC, the electronic capability of government agencies is frightening in its' vastness, yet they have to send a flight recorder back to the shop???????? For years, every box on land was amazingly recovered and immediately analysed without a problem...we were always told they were constructed to withstand fantastic impact, horrendous jet fuel fire temperatures, etc. etc....now it seems that any crash which is questionably a terrorist act has defective. damaged boxes....I wonder what they really do with those things at the "factory".......?????

-- lesley (martchas@bellsouth.net), November 14, 2001.

The most recent reports talk of a 'rattle' sound in the cockpit voice recorder and also there has been mention of wake turbulence from a 747. Whatever happened it was very severe to shake an engine off.

Age is not so important when talking about well maintained aircraft, there is an old saying "Of course it is safe, how do you think it got to be so old?"

I see nothing sinister in the black boxes going back to the factory for reading.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), November 14, 2001.