|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 11/17/2001 : 22:12:37 [Permalink]
|
GN:
quote:
I find it difficult to believe that an airbus would fall apart as described.
I find it easy to believe that it was either shot down or a explosion of some kind was set.
Your first response to this thread. How is this not to be read as terrorism? Don't tell me what I am not seeing.
Your ad hominem attack here is utterly uncalled for. I was not answering just your post, but there were several. You assumed that it was your post to which I was responding as my post followed yours.
Someone brought up fuel. My apologies if I mistakenly thought it was you.
You imply that metal can't just fall apart - more than once. Well, it's called *shear force* and *metal fatigue*. These could be the primary contributing factors to 587.
quote:
But since I placed a low probability on it being an accident(which is YOUR belief) you felt offended. This offense cuased you to overlook the clearly stated "not arguing for terrorism".
I am not offended by your thinking it's terrorism. If your reading that I am offended that is your problem not mine. What I find offensive is the assumption that somehow explaining how an aircraft can fall apart is a personal attack against you. Sorry I've seen aircraft fall apart - I was almost hit with fiberglass falling off an F-14 flying over the flightline when we had A6s turning.
quote:
It also cuased you to displace your behavior onto me in regards to "mis reading".
How the fuck do you misread: I find it difficult to believe that an airbus would fall apart as described. I find it easy to believe that it was either shot down or a explosion of some kind was set.? Pardon me if I read that as: Gee, I cain't see how a plane kin fall apart so it musta been a bomb 'er sumthin' and that means terrorists.
Nothing I've ever pointed out was directed at your posts specifically in my second post - that I'm aware of. You on the other hand came back spouting about how it couldn't be this that or the other thing from the post I made. Well, those were only examples supporting the fact that fuel can be ignited by a small seemingly insiginificant spark. You then procede to take every example I put forth from there as an explanation of what happened with 587. When it was just an example. So, yes, you misread and took my second post as a personal attack against your pet theory. However, I will point out that after the wash and the FAA releases it's final findings on 587, the causes probably will read something similar to: turbulence coupled with metal fatigue caused the craft to experience catastrophic airframe failure.
Easy to believe - kinda like religion huh?
(And yes I am fully aware the greater part of this post is very much an ad hominem. Get off your high fucking horse GN - before you hurt yourself.)
Added:
quote:
Well, short circuits in airplanes don't make it to the fuel when millions of dollars are spent on engineering to prevent that from happening.
No. I can't easily accept that a spark from a short circuit caused the fuel to ignite. That doesn't even happen in 1500 dollar honda scooters.
Do you accept that it happen in an airplane?
Nor do entire engines just "happen" to fall off of airplanes by "accident".
Nor do airplanes just happen to have an explosion by "accident".
It's very interesting how it was assured that no evidence lead to terrorism or foul play but every sure thought the evidence pointed toward an accident.
Yeah...that's it! Lets say it was an accident!
This was BEFORE my post on fuel. Gee - who the fuck brought it up. Read your own fucking shit before going off on me GN.
quote:
Your entire position seems to "me', to be showing what I say or the lack of saying, is absurd. Yet, you imply the possibilities of other absurdities as alternatives.
Exactly how is Engineering absurd? It's not what you want to hear and therefore it is absurd? Can't come up with proof attack the person huh? Typical Conspiranut reaction.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain
Edited by - Trish on 11/17/2001 22:18:06 |
 |
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 22:18:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I am not offended by your thinking it's terrorism.
Now you are willfully being pigheaded, and please don't talk about ad hominems with your behavior.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 22:19:24 [Permalink]
|
Look at thine ownself in the mirror first my friend.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 22:22:31 [Permalink]
|
You look first, then I won't have to, my straw man fighter and habitual misreader.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 23:54:35 [Permalink]
|
Ad Hom alert:
GN, you're a nutjob...
You've taken a simple discussion and taken it as some sort of personal attack. You are being completely irrational.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2001 : 00:32:53 [Permalink]
|
@tokyo,
I can ignore your misuse of ad hom, and simply, point out that you've made an internal attibution of an event that never occurred.
In your mind, I bet you accept your statement as true to the point of not reveiwing the thread objectively.
Only a blind person would think that the last few replies to me were NOT personal attacks. Maybe someone that didn't read them biasly.
An objective mind wouldn't be fooled by the consensus.
Now if you don't mind, please discontinue attacking me.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2001 : 00:42:01 [Permalink]
|
These are all of GNs posts on this thread. I am rereading these to see if there is somewhere that I may have misread or misinterpreted what I was reading. I will be adding emphasis where I feel it is necessary, additionally my comments will be throughout the text in italics. GN claims that this is not terrorism, but not a freak accident either. Well, then what is it? If it is not an accident and not an act of terrorism - then what? Since, by his posts you can not claim that the engineers may have made a fatal design flaw.
My position the whole time has been that the crash could be the result of metal fatigue coupled by the turbulence encountered on take-off. (The last peice of information has been added since this thread was originally started and is an entirely plausible contributing factor in the catastrophic failure of the airframe.)
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
9 Posts
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 05:35:35
I find it difficult to believe that an airbus would fall apart as described.
I find it easy to believe that it was either shot down or a explosion of some kind was set.
It appears to me here, that GN does not understand the stress applied to airframes everyday when taking off and landing. The aircraft experienced unusual stress during this take-off, increasing the potential for some type of *fatal flaw* in the original design to cause a catastrophic failure. This is a lack of understanding on his part of the manner in which aircraft are designed and the way material deteriorates over time.
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts
Posted - 11/16/2001 : 12:44:56
Well, short circuits in airplanes don't make it to the fuel when millions of dollars are spent on engineering to prevent that from happening.
This again, reinforces my opinion that he lacks an understanding of the engineering process.
No. I can't easily accept that a spark from a short circuit caused the fuel to ignite. That doesn't even happen in 1500 dollar honda scooters.
I will have to look into what type of fuel is used by commercial airliners. However, I doubt that it is a more stable fuel like JP-5 and perhaps a *hotter* fuel like JP-4. The Honda scooter is a strawman. The cost of the design has nothing to do with whether something will cause fuel to ignite or not. It is rather the design itself. I would ask are wires running through the fuel tank? I think with the scooter no, with the aircraft, yes. It's is a part of the airframe and is in some designs a necessary risk.
Do you accept that it happen in an airplane?
Nor do entire engines just "happen" to fall off of airplanes by "accident".
Nor do airplanes just happen to have an explosion by "accident".
Again, this demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding metal fatigue and that these airframes are in excess of 20 years old. These things, though rare, do happen. There are ultimate causes behind them, generally explained by investigators. The majority of which are probably engineers of one form or another.
It's very interesting how it was assured that no evidence lead to terrorism or foul play but every sure thought the evidence pointed toward an accident.
This assurance was not made immediately. It was only made after examining the *black box* that was recovered from the site of the crash. This does not include what the politicians said, only the FAA.
Yeah...that's it! Lets say it was an accident!
It would appear that GN is already predisposed toward not reading this as an accident. If evidence of residual explosives are found, I will change my opinions regarding possibly poor maintenance practices in the civilian airline community and the age of the airframe being the primary causes.
Edited by - Grand Nubian on 11/16/2001 12:49:38
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 04:53:33
@trish,
I appreciate your insight on how fuel burns. However I wonder why you addressed it to me since I didn't mention any thing concerning the mechanics of fuel ignition.
I pointed out that Planes are designed, like every public utililty using fuel to prevent the ignition of fuel.
I would refer the reader back to the second post by GN. This precedes my posts regarding the conditions under which fuel will ignite. Fuel ignition is questioned here as a reason for an aircraft exploding.
Again, the design process can lead to inherent problems with a product.
Security is design to prevent terrorism, however, unlike a million dollar design on an airplane, humans are the security.
I read this as a statement that designs in aircraft are not capable of being flawed, because somehow human error is removed from the design process. Humans are responsible for creating and checking the design. Human error is still a relevent cause when looking at a catastrophic failure.
So, I seriously donbt that the fuel ignited in the engine that fell off and didn't have one "burn" sign on it at all.
This is probably in response to my discussion regarding how fuel ignites. At no time in that post did I claim that fuel ignition was the cause of the AA587 crash. I was simply pointing out that it is entirely possible for fuel to burn, since that is it's primary form for releasing energy.
However, I do recognize that planes falling off in the air in huge chunks of plane, is "a" sign that it was attacked in some fashion.
GN assumes that there is no other explanation than an attack. If it is an attack against a civilian target, is it not then considered terrorism? Material gets old, as it ages it fatigues, it is entirely possible that the material, (aircraft skin and frame in this case) was old enought to experience a great amount of fatigue coupled with additional stress from jet wash.
So, I nada talk about how fuel ignites, but again I appreciate you sharing that with mw.
The only think I can say to this is nada means nothing. However, yes, GN did bring up fuel ignition. Refer to GNs second posting.
@tokyo,
It appears that you have some research of your own to do. THanks for breaking up the flow of this thread. good job.
quote:
I've heard reports of engines falling off of planes on the runway. Something about the titanium used in airplanes becoming brittle, but I've nothing concrete, just vague recollections.
IMHO, this comment to TD was without cause and is specious. TD, this is an avenue worth researching.
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 07:27:12
@trish,
Your entire position seems to "me', to be showing what I say or the lack of saying, is absurd. Yet, you imply the possibilities of other absurdities as alternatives.
Hmm, this has absolutely nothing to do with your position. Should you care to look, I put forth this hypothesis (for lack of better terminology) before your initial post in this thread. Despite that, I would ask you, is it only "other absurdities as alternatives" because it does not follow that there had to be outside influence in the crash?
That is the whole gist of this argument. Understanding what will be examined by the FAA and looking for rational explanations without screaming conspiracy are what I am doing. There is nothing absurd in well understood metalurgy and engineering, IMNSHO.
No one is is speculating about your expertise, what ever it may be. I'm |
|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2001 : 01:04:51 [Permalink]
|
I appreciate that you reveiwed the posts, but you didn't do it objectively. You did it with bias and intent to show something.
You want to make phrase like "easy to believe" mean "I belive".
Plus you start out with a false statement that contradicts everything you've said about me thus far.
quote:
GN claims that this is not terrorism, but not a freak accident either. Well, then what is it?
After readin this statement, I find it difficult to give you the benefit of the doubt that the rest of your posts doesn't contain more willful falseness.
Make up your mind what claim you want me to have.
1-I believe it was terrorism
2-I "claim" it wasn't terrism
When you reconcile this problem with your position then you will have acheived a great deal.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2001 : 01:37:23 [Permalink]
|
GN:However, I do recognize that planes falling off in the air in huge chunks of plane, is "a" sign that it was attacked in some fashion.
Trish:It appears to me here, that GN does not understand the stress applied to airframes everyday when taking off and landing. The aircraft experienced unusual stress during this take-off, increasing the potential for some type of *fatal flaw* in the original design to cause a catastrophic failure. This is a lack of understanding on his part of the manner in which aircraft are designed and the way material deteriorates over time.
GN:I'm not arguing for terrrorism as a cause, but I'm arguing against a freak accident. (Post dtd 11/17/2001 : 10:23:23)
My statement above is clipped from my direct response to the portion of GNs statement that says *easy to believe*. No where do I imply in that response that I took easy to believe to mean believe. I refer to his preference for attack as an explanation throughout the rest of the post without further clarification.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2001 : 01:38:39 [Permalink]
|
trish you will be in quotes:
"You never mention what exactly your position is,"
"Well, according to you it has to be an attack of some type."
"No you argue for an attack."
"GN claims that this..."
"You never mention what exactly your position is,"
From GN: I look forward to more evidence that it was indeed an accident, since that is the only thing that could have happened.
"Hmm, it was an attack since I can't see how it was an accident because planes don't just fall apart by themselves - but it wasn't terrorism."
It's clear that you are willing to change what "I" claim in order to justify your behavior. You are unwilling to admit that you made a common message board mistake.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2001 : 01:50:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's clear that you are willing to change what "I" claim in order to justify your behavior. You are unwilling to admit that you made a common message board mistake.
No, it's clear to me that you enjoy taking things out of context when you have no position to support. It is my contention that you started with no clear cut idea of your position other than to claim that the crash was not the result of an accident. Then you claim it's not terrorism, then you claim that it had to be an attack.
Come back when you have something you can support besides - I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, but I'm damn sure gonna make it look like no else does either so I don't look so damn silly here.
Oh, and don't bother responding to this, because I could really give a shit what you think since it's apparent to me and a monkey with half a brain cell you have no clue what your position is here. Additionally, I won't respond to any of your inane posts, it's not worth the energy of trying to explain things to a conspiranut who doesn't want to look like one.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2001 : 02:34:39 [Permalink]
|
from trish::
"You never mention what exactly your position is,"
from trish:
I am not offended by your thinking it's terrorism.
From trish:
It is my contention that you started with no clear cut idea of your position other than to claim that the crash was not the result of an accident.
From trish;
Then you claim it's not terrorism,
From trish
then you claim that it had to be an attack.
Again from trish:
I am not offended by your thinking it's terrorism.
Again, from trish:
"You never mention what exactly your position is,"
And just when most began to think that trish is being honest and consistent she says this:
quote:
No where do I imply in that response that I took easy to believe to mean believe. I refer to his preference for attack as an explanation...
quote:
How the fuck do you misread: I find it difficult to believe that an airbus would fall apart as described. I find it easy to believe that it was either shot down or a explosion of some kind was set.?
Pardon me if I read that as: Gee, I cain't see how a plane kin fall apart so it musta been a bomb 'er sumthin' and that means terrorists
Of course if we reveiw it we find:
quote:
No where do I imply in that response that I took easy to believe to mean believe. I refer to his preference for attack as an explanation...
Again, from trish:
"You never mention what exactly your position is,"
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2001 : 08:28:10 [Permalink]
|
I'm not sure if I want back into this or not.......
Oh well. Unfortunatly, the hunt for ObL seems to have taken over the news and there's been little on plane wrecks, that I've seen. But I'll buy metal fatigue. It seems to me that commercial aircraft construction is a fine-line trade off between strength and weight. The lighter it is, the more freight it can carry. But also, the sooner it 'wears out'due to normal and sometimes abnormal stresses. How soon this happens depends the trade-off.
Which brings us to the question of the basic design and how many hours of service were on the air frame.
I would think that metal fatigue can easily be confirmed or ruled out by Xray and possibly even dye testing, and also a study of the plane's design.
f
The more I learn about people, the better I like rattlesnakes. |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2002 : 15:07:46 [Permalink]
|
According to new NTSB findings, the vertical stabilizer (tail fin) on large jets is vulnerable to failure if there are large rudder inputs.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20020206/ts_usatoday/3831792
It's not yet certain that this is what happened on AA Flight 587, but the black box does show such large rudder motion just after takeoff. A possible scenario is: the plane hit turbulence from the 747 that took off ahead of it; the pilots attempted to keep the plane under control using the rudder; the large stresses that resulted caused the stabilizer to break off; the plane became uncontrollable and crashed.
quote:
The jet's rudder places enormous stress on the tail if the rudder moves sharply in one direction and then rapidly back the opposite way, according to Mark Drella, an aerodynamics professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Jet designers understood this problem, but they assumed that pilots would never make such drastic rudder movements. Extreme rudder movements would toss passengers about violently. Except for small movements to maintain passenger comfort, rudders are designed for use mainly in case of an engine failure or severe crosswinds. Pilots rarely move the rudder during routine flight.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2002 : 16:32:19 [Permalink]
|
No *real* sources for this yet, however, should be out by the FAA soon.
The airbus verticle stabilizer is made of a composite material. (Read it's plastic basically.) There was damage to the composite material and instead of replacing the verticle stab, inaccordance with instructions from the manufacturer, the maitenance crews decided to patch it instead. Because of stress from the 747 that took off just prior to the airbus and combined with the patched verticle stab the verticle stab ripped from the aircraft at which time the craft went out of control.
Comments from pilots: it's amazing that the pilot manhandled that thing as far as he did after loosing the stab.
The aircraft went down due to poor maintenance practices, air turbulence, and resultant stress from the air turbulence. From a pilot who has seen photos of the craft, there is no hole ripped between the fuselage and the verticle stab which would be required to be consistent with an act of terrorism. I, personally, happen to trust this pilot with this type of info. Until the FAA releases it's findings this is just an anecdote.
---
There is no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've known. Sagan |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
