Swissair111.org    forums.swissair111.org    Discussion  Hop To Forum Categories  SR111 Messages    Reasons this was not a terrorist act

Moderators: BF, Mark Fetherolf
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Reasons this was not a terrorist act
 Login/Join
 
posted
A very wise person who I have often turned to for information regarding this crash, has given me the following reasons as to why it is unlikely that this 'new' information would prove that swissair was brought down by a terrorist. As to the claims:



Regarding the presence of magnesium:

Boeing has apparently used magnesium in a number of their commercial aircraft (small wing components, parts of doors, rivets, etc on B707, B727, B737, and B747), and military planes.

It seems that magnesium is no longer used in main airframe structures, but for their research for the Fifth Estate, they should have enquired with McDonnell Douglas to see how much magnesium was used in the manufacture of SR111 (HB-IWF, S/N 48448, manufactured in 1991).

The point is, it might not be uncommon for there to be significant amounts of magnesium on an airplane.



Regarding the degree of fire:

In September 1996, following several MD-80 and MD-11 ground fire incidents involving insulation blankets with Metallized PET (MPET) cover material, McDonnell Douglas advised operators to discontinue the use of this material. Boeing also informed operators that it was currently installing non-metallized PET cover material in production aircraft.


A year before the crash of SR111, the FAA had established a working group to look into the flammability of insulating blankets.



Following the crash, in May 1999, the FAA conducted a series of flame propagation tests at its William J. Hughes Technical Center's Fire Safety Section, located at the Atlantic City International Airport.


They went so far as to build a fuselage crown, similar to the MD-11, and then set the insulating blankets on fire.



Looking at the pictures, a fire in the insulating blankets above the cockpit ceiling is hardly insignificant.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BF,
 
Posts: 2533 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
This person also made the following point:

There is a concise record of transcript between the flight crew and tower pertaining to smoke in the cockpit leading up to the crash.

Think about it, how many in-flight bombings resulting in complete destruction of airplane have been preceded by a 25-minute smoke buildup in the cockpit?
 
Posts: 2533 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
And this:

Had there been an explosion at altitude, they probably wouldn't have ever found the flight recorder.

And there was a reported witness at Peggy's Cove. She was the last one to see that airplane as it passed low overhead with fire inside the cockpit. Rob Gordon probably knows about that.

Be it the gradual buildup of smoke, and growing emergency within the cockpit, or the size of debris field, this is where a terrorist bomb theory has to be continuously modified in order to counter known facts, or unrealistically broaden the coverup.
.
What I see are three professionals with different areas of interest and expertise. One has concerns about the scope or direction of the crash investigation, one looks at politics or incompetence in the RCMP, and the third investigates the growth of terrorism and gangs.

I'm not sure what they have that's compelling them to create a hybrid theory. The component that makes the least sense is a terrorist bombing, yet it's the most sensational.
 
Posts: 2533 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Why would they want to spend 5 long years putting extraordinary effort into their investigation, including bringing in experts, exhausting all kinds of resources? Does that really make any sense?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BF,
 
Posts: 2533 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Just look at the accident history record of the MD-11 aircraft. It's unbelievable. I doubt terrorists caused all these disasters:

http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm

And why didn't the terrorists bother to take credit for this disaster? Isn't that the point? To bring attention to their 'cause'?
 
Posts: 2533 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
One of the lead investigators Larry Vance, said that there are high concentrations of magnesium in sea water.
 
Posts: 2533 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
-Vance said there would have been much more damage in the cockpit had there been a bomb.
 
Posts: 2533 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
The FBI was involved in the early days of the investigation, and found no evidence of a bomb or incendiary device.

ETA: The RCMP spent many months examining every piece of evidence from the plane and found no evidence of a bomb or incendiary device.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BF,
 
Posts: 2533 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
The lead event was found to be arcing on an entertainment system wire.
 
Posts: 2533 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
The shame of this 'terrorist' theory is, that it would let the real thugs off the hook. The investigators were serious, focused and extremely thorough in their review of the tragedy. Why would anybody believe someone that shows up 10 years later with no real physical evidence of the theory they are expousing? I sure don't.
 
Posts: 2533 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
About 10 years ago, someone from Canada kept posting terrorist nonsense on this site. I finally had to delete the entire thread, as it was very offensive. I wonder who was posting that stuff? Also got a call from some crazy woman (from Canada) who was staying in Hawaii at the time, that also was pushing this terrorist theory. She was really, really creepy. She would call in the middle of the night. So was the guy who was posting. Wonder who they both really were. They didn't give their names... Wonder if they have any connection to the CBC 'information'?
 
Posts: 2533 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

Swissair111.org    forums.swissair111.org    Discussion  Hop To Forum Categories  SR111 Messages    Reasons this was not a terrorist act

© YourCopy 2002