Barbara... I don�t think much of a response is necessary, other than, if you prefer, some form of acknowledgment. My reaction, beware the remarks which come anonymously with a pre stated disclaimer and boarder on the sensational. In time the truth will surface. Best regards. C
Posts: 58 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002
Cecil, But if you look at this post the person did also include his email with his name...Also all that he posted did make sense and is consistent with many of the things we already know. I really appreciate that this poster had the courage to post this because I'm just not sure we will ever hear this directly from the TSB. The thing is that before the final report can even be released the manufacturers etc. get to review and comment before we even see it. I just hope that we get the truth until all that is said and done.
Barbara
Posts: 2583 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002
But if you look at this post the person did also include his email with his name...
Barbara...Good point. He may have had an opportunity to see a TSB report, but have they been released to the manufactures yet? Perhaps you should query him a bit and see if he will offer any information, particularly as to his source. Of interest of course, are his comments "his" statements, someone else's facts, or just speculations?
Posts: 58 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002
Cecil, He claims to have gotten this information from someone that was involved in the reconstruction of the cockpit/1st class cabin of the aircraft. Much of what he says rings true and is consistent with information previously obtained. I think what he has said makes a great deal of sense and can't think of anything he has to gain by speaking out complete with his name on that information. As far as the manufacturers go, my understanding is that once each group involved in the investigation completes their report and submits it, then the manufacturers, all parties involved (not the families) get to see a copy and submit their comments and concerns. I don't even think from what I've heard that the first phase of this is completed yet. I would assume that the concerned parties could hold this information up for quite a while. I think the family members should be privy to this information.
Barbara
Posts: 2583 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002
When I say each group for example one might be involved in the human factors involved in the crash, etc. If I remember correctly there are at least 4 such groups studying this tragedy.
Posts: 2583 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002
Thinking through what this individual has said, I am more convinced that this message was a hoax. This individual does not know what he/she is talking about.
If Beanspiller is is really who he says, the fact that a few details are off does not invalidate the story. He does not claim to be an expert, but rather is reporting info that he received from a friend. The 3000 degree issue doesn't tell us anything. I think that it's likely that some extremely high temperatures existed at or near the source of ignition and / or arcing. It would be easy for someone with a limited understanding to be confused regarding the difference between temperatures in the cabin, cockpit, galley or whatever versus highly localized high temperatures near the source of ignition.
The exact location of the first class LCD screens is equally irrelevant. Perhaps Beanspiller isn't intimately familiar with the IFEN installation in the fist class cabin and assumed that they were in the headrests. His comment about conduit may reflect an incomplete understanding of A/C wiring practices, but he doesn't claim to be an expert.
I have heard that there *was* IFEN equipment located near Galley 8, as Beanspiller says (which is not to say that Stuart is wrong, since the IFEN is a distributed system with components in multiple locations). If Beanspiller is right on this point, I think it lends a degree of credibility to his post.
I believe that Beanspiller is right that the IFEN caused the crash given the information we have on that energy sucking monster, but that some of his facts maybe off. A couple of them may be accurate however which could be very telling. As Mark says, he doesn't claim to be an expert but says he got information from a friend who was involved in the reconstruction of the aircraft. Mark and I don't feel that his post is a hoax but agree that some of the information may be inaccurate.
Barbara
Posts: 2583 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002
Barbara...this post looked pretty authentic to me and I think it would be wise to follow up on it.If what this person is saying is accurate I think it took alot of courage to come forward!
Terri, It is authentic and may be the closest we ever get to the truth about sr111. I hope I'm wrong about that but do have concerns about the official explanation we will be given. Again I commend this person's courage for speaking up which I wouldn't do if it were a hoax.
Barbara
Posts: 2583 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002
Barbara,I am happy and sad at the same time regarding that information! I am happy that he came forward,but sad about what you and Mark and anyone else whose family member was in 1st class had to hear. My family member was in Business class (Row 14E)but now I am concerned that she was aware the whole time.Theres no good news regarding this.Thank you Beanspiller for caring...
quote:Originally posted by BF: [qb]I believe that Beanspiller is right that the IFEN caused the crash given the information we have on that energy sucking monster, but that some of his facts maybe off.
Barbara[/qb]
Barbara, I agree on the IFEN. Not only that it it was 'an energy sucking monster' and should not have been installed for that reason alone, but to tap it into the energy source, the electrical design philosophy was violated. Or in short, they raped the electrical system. Add to that the poor and shoddy craftsmanship, it was a recipe for and invited desaster. I do not believe, that no-one at Swissair had been fully aware of it. Why had they kept their own technicians away during the install? Did they fear someone would raise an alarm? Someone wanted to have that infernal system on board badly, at all costs. It sure was not one from the Swissair Technics, as those would have recognized the danger and threat of the IFEN install posing to the aircraft and its passengers. Several deliberatedly took the risk to put life into harms way. Not only those who made the decision to install it, but the ones who designed it, certified it and supervised the installation.
Posts: 22 | Location: Nieuwenrode, BE | Registered: Thu April 11 2002
"Several deliberatedly took the risk to put life into harms way. Not only those who made the decision to install it, but the ones who designed it, certified it and supervised the installation."
I agree Hank and therefore that would make those involved in this clearly criminals. They make Enron look like a tea party. 229 people lost their lives because of their abject greed. It's despicable. I have major concerns though that the TSB won't name this as a cause because of the following statements:
