(BJNews November 24, 2001)

A READER ASKS:
     Your article on the "THE MYSTERY OF FLIGHT 587" was the best possible scenario that I have seen yet. The turbulence theory is just disturbingly absurd. It would be very interesting to analyze the passenger compartment at the far ends for centrifugal effect. Is there any evidence that the tail fin was sheared by a force in the direction of the power spin? One thing still puzzles me. According to the NTSB update on 11/20/01 "The thrust reversers were in a stowed position." Can you explain this for me?... Thanks for the insight,
Bob Abbey

RESPONSE:
     Bob, excellent letter and very good questions. The statement made in the NTSB update of Nov 20 that "The thrust reversers were in a stowed position," is both self-serving and not supported by any data or evidence. Any statements made in an NTSB update are "interim" and are not final until the final report is approved by the head of the investigation team, which will be in many months or more, long after most people have forgotten about the Flight 587 accident. Thus any statement may be made in an update whether it is true or not.

     In the NTSB update section on "Aircraft Structures" it states "...readings off the flight data recorder, show that the trim setting appears to be close to neutral. The aircraft's wing flaps appear to have been retracted at the time of impact, and the landing gear appear to have been stowed, based on both physical evidence and FDR readings." Notice here the phrase is "appear to be,...based on..." but when discussing the thrust reversers in the next section on "Engines" it does not use the phrase "the thrust reversers appear to be in the stowed position, based on..."

     Instead, the flat out statement that the "reversers...were stowed" indicates this is a cover-up of the facts. Nobody at the scene, given the severely damaged condition of both engines, could have determined that the reversers were stowed either earlier in the flight or at time of impact. No Flight Data Recorder data is given to support the claim.

Part of Flight 587 Engine Near Gas Station. (AP photo)

     Most probably the sheet metal clamshells of the thrust reversers were severely damaged or completely torn off when the engines impacted the ground, so any statement about the condition of the thrust reversers in flight would need to be made up.

Flight 587 Vertical Stabilizer As Removed From Jamaica Bay (AP photo)

    About the direction of the breaking off of the tail, the failure of the carbon composite attachment points of the tail would clearly show in which direction the assembly was torn. One of the NTSB photos shows the two aft attachment points and one of the center attachment points. In Photo 9 the front of the plane is toward the upper right of the picture. The lower attachment point in the photo is on the right side of the tail. In the left center and upper middle of the photo are the left aft attachment point and the left center attachment point on the left side of the tail.

1 center and 2 aft attachment points (NTSB Photo 9)

     The importance of this photo is that both left side attachment points still have remnants of the carbon composite tail assembly with pieces of the aluminum vertical stabilizer skin still bolted to the plane, while the right attachment point has been completely torn away with only the bare bolt remaining. If there had been a strong force or blast of air from the right side of the plane then the forces on the attachment points would be upward or in tension on the right side of the tail and downward or in compression on the left side of the tail. Most materials, including the carbon composites are much stronger in compression than they are in tension. Therefore, with a blast of wind from the right, the attachments in tension on the right side of the tail would fail first. As soon as that happens the whole vertical stabilizer or tail would bend over to the left and what would break off on the left side would be the weaker bent over aluminum tail skin which is still visible with the jagged aluminum edges of both left side attachment points, as shown in the photo. Thus the vertical stabilizer was hit by a blast of wind from the right and broke over to the left. This supports the notion that a flat horizontal spin to the left, with the nose going to the left, and the tail whipping to the right, produced a strong blast of wind on the tail from the right.

     This photo in conjunction with the Flight Data Recorder information can prove one major piece of evidence. Was the source of the blast of wind which blew the tail off the plane external or internal. An external blast of wind coming from the right as from wake turbulence, would knock the tail off to the left as shown in the photo, but like a weather vane in the wind, the blast of wind would cause the the plane to turn into the wind or to the right. But the FDR data shows the plane made a sudden rotation to the left not the right. The only possible conclusion is that the force of the wind was internally caused and not due to any external forces such as wake turbulence. This completely excludes the external wake turbulence theory as the cause of the loss of the tail and then both engines.

     Instead the tail attachment points shown in Photo 9 along with the FDR data showing the sudden rotation to the left indicates that the only possible cause was a horizontal flat spin to the left which created a force on the tail coming from the right. If the plane had simply turned or rolled to the left and not rotated about its center of gravity in a flat spin to the left, the sideways force on the tail would be minimal. The only possible conclusion based on Photo 9 and the FDR data is that the plane entered a leftward flat horizontal spin as it slowed to the stall point.

     There are only two possible ways for a plane to enter a horizontal flat spin. First, would be the pilot purposely slowing the plane down and then at the stall point reducing the power on the left engine and increasing the power on the right engine and applying full left rudder. If some "mad" pilot had done this, then those motions of the controls would show up in the FDR data, and there would definitely be some loud comments in the Cockpit Voice Recorder reflecting a reaction to the pilot's strange behavior. Neither the FDR or CVR show such pilot actions or show the possibility that the cause of the spin could be pilot or crew error, or "mad pilot syndrome."

     The second possible cause for an internal force creating a blast of wind to tear off the tail to the left as shown in the photo, is for the left thrust reverser to actuate during flight and cause a rapid rotation of the plane about its center of gravity to the left. This is supported by the FDR data showing a strong rotation to the left just as the plane starts to rapidly drop downward in a stall and as the tail is ripped off to the left. Conclusion, the only possible cause for the crash would be the in-flight actuation of the left thrust reverser.

     Bob, If you look at the list of NTSB press releases for the year 2001 you will notice only three "updates" have been issued while the total number of press releases for the year is about 82. It would seem the purpose and use of "updates" is to cover up or explain mysterious air crashes which are "political hot potatoes." The only previous crash update was from back in January 2001 and was to quash the theories of criminal activity in the crash that killed Missouri governor/candidate Mel Carnahan, whose then opponent for a U.S. Senate seat was the now US Attorney General John Ashcroft.

     According to new rules issued by Congress in the last several years, the NTSB will be the prime accident investigator in conjunction with the FBI in cases where there appears to be possible criminal involvement in the crash. But according to the new rules, the one and only person who will determine if there is sufficient evidence of criminal action and thus put the FBI in charge of the investigation is the U.S. Attorney General, who in this case is John Ashcroft.

     The NTSB by itself does not have the ability or authority to make that decision. If the Attorney General does not rule that there is sufficient evidence for a criminal cause for the crash, then the NTSB has no choice other than to simply report facts without drawing any conclusions and continue to state there is no criminal action involved. This may include issuing "updates" which confirm the Attorney General's decision that there is no criminal involvement, even if there may be many on both the NTSB and FBI investigation teams who may actually believe it to be a criminal act. That should help clarify the strange behavior of the NTSB and their inexplicable Update Report of November 20.

     In the era of Attorney General Reno, it became common practice for the Attorney General to overrule the findings or determinations of large teams of investigators including the NTSB, the FBI and other agencies. The current NTSB procedures come from that practice. This procedure explains the strange investigation into the crash of TWA 800, where much effort was expended to show the cause was "accidental" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, with many witnesses being told by the FBI that they did not see what they saw, and many other witnesses who had evidence but simply were told they could not testify.

     The new laws require that only the Attorney General can make a determination of sufficient evidence of criminal intent in the case. Are the NTSB and FBI involved in a cover-up in both the TWA 800 and Flight 587 cases? Or are they both simply following the law until the Attorney General rules on the case? One thing most government employees quickly learn, it is not a good idea to disagree with your boss. If the Attorney General does not state the case is a criminal case, then you do not present or look for and find any evidence which disagrees with your boss. What may seem to be a "cover up" by the FBI and NTSB are simply those agencies merely following Clinton-era rules of investigation. Don't forget the FBI's middle name is "bureaucracy" which means don't upset the apple cart and don't disagree with your boss. Now you know why.

     And Bob, about the investigation into the appearance of the passengers at both ends of the plane to determine if there was evidence of large centrifugal forces to show the plane was in a flat spin -- that actually can be proven by other means which are already available. The best is the statement in the BBC News accident report showing that the plane crashed into a house about mid-block "... leaving bodies strewn on the road."

     If the plane had nose dived into the ground, all the bodies would be compacted into the region of the impact hole where the nose hit the earth. But in this case there was almost no impact hole. If the plane were in a flat spin, the bodies in the front and back of the plane would be "strewn" all around by centrifugal force, while those passengers in the nearly intact center of the plane would remain in place as was the "man still holding a baby." Thus obviously the plane was in a flat horizontal spin at impact. Otherwise, how did all those bodies get strewn on the road. Bodies don't just bounce on impact and land 200 feet away on the road.

     And Bob, if you want to confirm that, ask any skyjumper whose parachute failed how far he bounced. Better yet, ask any of those who leapt from the flaming World Trade Center on 9-11 how high and far they bounced on impact with the earth. I think you get the point.

     The BBC report also has a nice set of graphics and maps of the accident. A most important graphic is the map on page 4 showing the position of the tail in Jamaica Bay and the impact locations of the main fuselage and the two engines. Assuming the plane followed a more or less straight line from where the tail was found to where it impacted the ground, how did both engines fall off and both land on the same left side of the line of travel about 250 yards away?

Map of Flight 587 Impact Area in Belle Harbor, New York (BBC graphic)

     If the plane were rolling in a nose dive there would be almost no lateral forces on the engine pylons and they would probably never have broken off in the first place. And would probably land almost directly under the line of travel of the plane. If the plane were in a flat spin, the huge centrifugal forces would rip the engines outward away from the pylons. And depending on exactly when they broke off during the spin, they would land in random directions around the plane some long distance away from the line of travel of the plane. Since the full-power engines were accelerating the flat spin, this would account for why both engines are so far away and on the same side of the path of the plane, and why the second engine is slightly farther than the first to drop.

     Even more telling is the position of the second engine. The path of the plane in the picture is from north at the top toward south at the bottom, generally along the line from the impact of the tail fin in Jamaica Bay to the impact point of the main fuselage. If the plane had been in a barrel-rolling nosedive then the engines would have dropped off and fallen below the plane's path and hit the ground behind the plane or to the north of the impact point of the fuselage. Note that the second engine is almost a 1/4 mile southward or ahead of the plane. Engines when breaking off from an airplane do not fly on their own little wings to travel farther than the plane from which they came. So how did the second engine get so much farther south than the Airbus? It could only have been thrown so far southward ahead of the Airbus by the strong centrifugal forces created by a horizontal flat spin as a result of a thrust reverser actuating in flight.

     So, Bob, which is more scary? That Airbuses can simply fall apart in flight from some small structural failure? That American airplanes are so easily brought down by terrorist sabotage? Or that the American government would cover up the facts of the case for whatever reason? The only person in the U.S., according to the new laws, who can decide that for us is U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. I have presented evidence, in fact, more than sufficient evidence, to show that the crash of Flight 587 was due to criminal action and not internal structural failure or external wake turbulence. That is all that is sufficient for the Attorney General to give the case to the FBI as a possible or probable criminal case.

     And who could have committed the crime? Was it a disgruntled American Airlines employee who wanted to get back at his boss? Was it a competitor of American Airlines who wanted to put American Airlines out of business? Was it a terrorist saboteur, either homegrown madman or foreign terrorist connected with the World Trade Center attack? I can't answer that. The FBI is the only agency which has the authority, responsibility, and means to answer that question. But as I said previously, the FBI will never find the terrorist who caused the crash of Flight 587, if they are not looking for one.

     Despite the clear evidence, will the Attorney General still continue to have this case handled as an accident? Will John Ashcroft risk losing his credibility as the top lawman in the country? And even more, risk losing the credibility of the Bush administration as a "government of laws not of men." There is very much more at stake for the future of America in the case of the Mystery of Flight 587. The ball is now in John Ashcroft's court.

     Bob, I hope that helps answer your questions.