posted on November 16, 2001 11:16:56 PM
They found another perfectly readable passport in Arabic in the wreckage of 587, and it's in the same name as was the one found (Viola!!) at the WTC.
posted on November 17, 2001 12:50:27 AMChococake, I couldn't find anything specific about security clearances for airline mechanics at the FAA site (which might mean that each airport/airline/aircraft repair facility handles security differently). I did find out that the basic requirements for becoming an aircraft mechanic are:
a) high school diploma
b) ability to read/write/speak english
(Many airlines "outsource" their maintenance; IF that Airbus A300 *was* "tampered with", it didn't necessarily occur at JFK airport, or a facility currently under the same scrutiny as an airport.)
"They found another perfectly readable passport in Arabic in the wreckage of 587, and it's in the same name as was the one found (Viola!!) at the WTC."
I bet there are millions of passports in "the same name" as the one on mine. Probably at least a thousand in "the same name" as the one on yours.
Here's a list of the passengers and crew of Flight 587:
posted on November 17, 2001 01:01:29 AM
What's my point? You must be kidding! That passport, or rather a facsimile of it, you may not know has been found at the site of every major terrorist accomplishment in the last ten thousand years. When the name is translated by the ancient republican scholars each time, it has been found, after years of study, to be Old Testament Farsi and says "Clinton did it".
posted on November 17, 2001 01:11:17 AM"I did find out that the basic requirements for becoming an aircraft mechanic are: a)high school diploma b)ability to read/write/speak english"
This affrontery is misleading at best. Though those may be part of the basic requirements for beginning training for airframe & powerplant aircraft maintenance certification, they in no way are determinate of qualification for the job. The licensing which such people are required to maintain is difficult to obtain and maintain and the people who do that work are continually subject to review for ability as well as are required to upgrade and keep current their skills in order to preserve employment. On top of that every task performed is made to undergo technical review and approval by even more experienced and highly skilled personnel.
posted on November 17, 2001 01:35:40 AM
You'd think so, but there are varying skill levels involved, wildly varying payscales involved, and some of the reported incidents of mechanics doing "stupid" things would keep many people from ever flying again. Go play hide-and-seek at the FAA or NTSB websites -- half the fun is figuring out how to get the code to read the document(s) that they've chopped into segments on multiple pages, requiring one to open about five windows simultaneously, because by the time you eke out a report, you've forgotten the FAA lingo it's written in, and whether or not this is an accident or an incident you're reading about.
posted on November 17, 2001 02:21:15 AM
Oh? You have finally set down to read those sites, one of which I had posted for your responsive guffaws? Good.
There's a great deal of information available, enough to confirm the fatalism of anyone who would venture onto any commercial carrier. The stories related to accidents with eventual findings are sometimes applaling to me in their descriptions of irresponsible agency regulation and the subsequent lax action of the airlines. Especially so to me, I guess, because I was a helicopter crewchief-a product of the army aviation training center and the common caution for all of us was that if you fix it you go on the test flight. I'm sure that that sort of personal viability for a person's work would be nigh impossible to apply in commercial aviation today and that lack makes the need for sure processes of technical review much more important. Yet the airlines are in effect allowed to continue with their costsaving and dangerous practices so completely that when one of the planes goes like a dart to the ground they get away with a relatively paltry fine and an "Oops, I goofed" apology in the form of undisclosed insurance rate increases for payouts to the families of their dead.
posted on November 17, 2001 03:32:42 AM
I laughed, dear boy, because you provided a front-door link when citing a specific crash, knowing all too well what mazes the FAA/NTSB/DOT sites are, and I was amused that you hatched such a ruse to rid yourself of me
One of the airlines -- maybe it's Southwest, not certain -- did and/or does require the senior mechanic in charge to be aboard for the test flight following a major overhaul. On the other hand, Southwest racks up scads of security fines every quarter
THOSE reports are interesting, (so are the "runway incursion" logs) but they never show up as official violations because the FAA has a friendly policy of not wanting to bog down the court system with costly trials, and the airlines get to negotiate the fines down to levels they're comfortable with. And, with that fifteen billion dollar balloon they've been handed, WE'RE paying the @#$% fines, anyway!
posted on November 17, 2001 06:41:23 AM
What "get rid of you"?? I've yearned for you desperately all of these long years, but that wasn't a trick. I've often used links that required some work just to see if anyone reads them, or rather, explores them in the hope that they might become somewhat versed in the subject of their inquiry and thus less so everlastingly tedious.
posted on November 19, 2001 06:47:11 AM
It seems that there are videotapes which show this plane in takeoff and might settle the question of an explosion which has been reported by several eyewitnesses. Your friendly FBI is sitting on the tape(s).
posted on November 19, 2001 07:30:32 AM
We should be encouraged to believe that this crash was an *accident* because that's good for the economy. It took less than 30 minutes for the White House to make this decision.
posted on November 19, 2001 11:11:02 AM
I haven't flown in ages. I worked in a aircraft engine repair shop for years and that was enough for me.I've always been surprised at how many manage to stay in the air.
This plane crash does not look like an accident and it did seem like they [TPTB] rushed to call it one. It was a little too coincidental that it happened on Veterans Day and almost exactly two months to the day of the WTC attacks.AND we were told that airplanes were going to fall from the sky in that little pep talk by our Taliban buddies. On the other hand ~It does seem like we would have heard a "bragging" speech from one the terrorist spokespersons. Also the plane was said to be delayed for 38 minutes at the airport. If it were a something like a bomb in the baggage compartment then it would have been set to go off somewhere over water. Not the usual terrorist M.O.
The accident credibility test for myself will be if we have more similar plane "accidents" in the next few weeks.
posted on November 19, 2001 03:19:49 PMPLSmith What is this "Make a shorter link" place and why haven't I heard of it sooner??
The article is written by a Paul Cheney...are you sure it's a credible source?
I really hope that that is the case, not that it makes any difference to the people killed or their families.I just prefer to think that the terrorists aren't as busy as they would like us to believe.
posted on November 19, 2001 03:47:34 PM
"Also the plane was said to be delayed for 38 minutes at the airport. If it were a something like a bomb in the baggage compartment then it would have been set to go off somewhere over water."
Not necessarily, Rawbunzel. Timing devices aren't the only means of detonating a bomb. The Unabomber rigged one of his earlier bombs with a household barometer to act as an altimeter. When American Airlines Flight 444 reached a certain altitude, the device completed an electrical circuit that ignited a mass of gunpowder. (Fortunately, he wasn't terribly good at bomb-building and the black powder meant to explode simply smouldered in the hold, enabling the pilot to make an emergency landing. No one was killed.)
Terrorists don't always claim credit for their actions. The FBI (and several other agencies) spent EIGHTEEN YEARS looking for the Unabomber, and only "found" him because his own brother turned him in.
The FBI/ATF's not doing too well in the hunt for suspected bomber Eric Rudolph, either.
(Yeah, that link site is handy when youwant to send a long clickable URL in email, too.
posted on November 19, 2001 04:00:44 PM
He developed into a fine bomber. That was one of his very first efforts. But in all of the movies the bombs which are detonated by pressure sensing (barometric) igniter fuses are set to go when a plane descends because it first must go up to set the device at a given pressure and then will go off when that pressure is exceeded. In other words, a presure bomb would not normally be fused to ignite with a lessening of pressure since hat could be met with accidently by changes in ambient temperature say in the trunk of the car on the way to the post office. You want the guy to go off when it detects a return to mormalized barometric pressure to avvoid any chance of ignition somewhere besides the cargo hold of an airplane and besides this has been reported to have had an explosive impression in the armpit between the fuselage and the wing theres no cargo hold there so the plane was shot down by a missile intended for kabul.
posted on November 19, 2001 04:03:27 PM
PLSmith, Yes, that is very true about the way a bomb can be made to detonate.
No ~ terrorists don't always claim responsibility for their actions however ~ I believe that this particular batch of terrorists wants us to be terrorized and the only way for that to happen would be to claim responsibility for the plane crash.It's not quite the same as a bomb blowing up in your face.That's too obviously a terror attack.
