Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (10675)	11/17/2001 11:25:08 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Pearly Button; Re the A300 tail separation and misleading the public. It is kind of odd. This is the first time a modern airliner has broken up in the air, other than bombings or excessive speeds. On the one hand the government is trying to convince us that this was an accident. On the other hand, they're not bothering to ground the remaining aircraft. A recent article in New Scientist says that they rudder was being used by the pilots: ... During its swing from right to left, the rudder experienced forces in the range of 0.8 G before breaking off - Blakey says 0.4 G is a "very significant lateral acceleration". ... newscientist.com I wonder why you'd need so much rudder action as a result of turbulence. Most rudder activity on a jetliner would be rather sedate, I'd think. Maybe .8 G is enough to break one off. (Not the acceleration itself, of course, which is less than the acceleration due to gravity, but aerodynamical forces or the sudden stop when the rudder reaches its stop.) Perhaps one of the experienced pilots will comment. My speculation is still that it was a bomb on board. -- Carl

To: maceng2 who wrote (10675)	11/17/2001 5:42:12 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 281500

<<The Crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in Queens>> I just had coffee with a guy who is really into airplanes and asked him what he thought happened. His opinion was that the composite material holding the stabilizer on had been damaged in a prior accident of some sort and it tore loose in the turbulence. He said there wasn't a way to sabotage the plane to have it come off in that manner that wouldn't be noticed immediately.