What if Flight 587 had been an act of terrorism?

[s4]

The airplane crash in NY early this week caused people a sense of worry and upset thinking that it could have been caused by terrorists. It is now widely speculated that a failure in the plane caused the problem.

I was thinking. What if it had been an act of terrorism? How much different would the world be as of today if it had been? People would be feeling more insecure thinking that a heightened sense of alertness didn't work. What could have been done that isn't being done? The US and its' allies are already trying to rid the world of terrorism. Can the US really afford any more terrorism?

I bring this up because I think people have begun to relax again and not worry. I think people should remain on alert even though the NY crash was not terrorism. WE as a people cannot let our guard down. There are still plenty of those people that have the finances and ability to carry out terrorism. Let's be vigilant in not letting those terrorists do more by not relaxing and thinking everything is okay. We as a people should not ignore terrorism thinking it won’t happen again. It very well could.

 

[Gonzo]

I already look at it at as act of sabotage, if not outright terrorism. Having the tail section fall off, especially so early in the flight is highly suspect. Then you throw in, not one, but both engines disengaging from the wings AND a wing coming off too? To damned coincidental for my tastes. Even in the event of 747 vortices that were outstandingly mean.

My X-Files theory-right now, they may not know the exact cause of the "catastrophic mechanical failure", and if they did it would be CLASSIFIED. In the event that this is a man-made disaster, instead of an ultra-huge coincidence, they'd not say a word until 11/26/01 or later. Why?, you ask....because Thanksgiving is the busiest travel weekend in the United States. In the event that this is sabotage & it gets out, there goes American & United into the bankruptcy courts, as well as killing or mortally wounding several other airlines as people say "Hell no, we won't go" on an airplane.

then again, maybe not

 

[stumble biscuit]

*Agrees with Gonzo*

 

[Huge]

I'll offer my opinion after chatting about this with my bro. If indeed it was aircraft wake turbulence that caused this crash, why hasn't it happened sooner? There are hundreds, if not thousands of major airports with flights taking off all the time. After 10 gajillion flights, this is the first "known" case of wake turbulence?

I didn't exactly enjoy flying before 9/11; I definitely don't like it now.

 

[Q]

There is no way this happened because of turbulance....and even if, by the remotest chance, it was...which it wasn't , I can't see where they think the flying public is supposed to reassured.

*Come fly with XYZ airlines, where you will not die in a crash due to terrorists...our crashes are strictly limited to a mechanical nature!*

 

[HomeLAN]

This isn't exactly the first time wake turbulence has been blamed for a crash.

http://aviation-safety.net/events/wxx.shtml

In at least one of those cases, wake turbulence wasn't just the primary cause, it was the sole cause.

Also, this same aircraft encountered severe turbulence from a wake in 1994. God only knows what kind of structural weaknesses could have resulted from that which were never discovered.

The horizontal stabilizer didn't look blown off, it looked sheared off, and they're pretty sure it was the first thing to go.

Now, I'm waiting to see what specific evidence they present, but I'm not discarding the current theory out of hand.

 

[s4]

Exactly Q.

As HomeLAN said, we'll just have to wait to find out for sure.

 

[Huge]

Originally posted by HomeLAN
This isn't exactly the first time wake turbulence has been blamed for a crash.

I figured as much; my bro would know much more about this than I ever would.