The Crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in Queens
Hard Scientific Evidence Proves United States Government Desperately Trying
to Mislead the American Public
Joe Vialls - 14 November 2001
The author is a former member of the Society of Aeronautical Engineers and
With the American Government frantically trying to halt the slide in US
stocks and shares brought about by the events of September 11, the last
thing it needed was a large Airbus A300-600 crashing into a New York suburb.
Unfortunately, shrill government lies combined with predictably hysterical
media hype, fly in the face of hard physical evidence available on the day:
crucial evidence which proves exactly how the Airbus initially lost control
after the take-off roll from John F. Kennedy airport.
Within hours of the crash, the US Army lifted the entire vertical
stabilizer of the doomed Airbus out of Jamaica Bay, at a location halfway
between JFK and the primary crash scene at Rockaway Beach, shown on the
photos and diagrams at the top of this page. For those not familiar with
technical jargon, the vertical stabilizer is the big upright piece that
sticks up at the back of the aircraft and carries the airline logo. The
fact that the entire vertical stabilizer separated from the fuselage is
news enough, because such an event is almost without precedence in modern
Aircraft have lost rudders in the past (the bit at the rear of the vertical
stabilizer that moves left and right), and from time to time have lost a
"piece" from the top of the vertical stabilizer due to an air strikes by a
large bird, or a mid-air collision with another aircraft. But the entire
vertical stabilizer? Never, so far as I know.
Put simply, any aircraft other than a highly-specialized "flying wing" that
loses its vertical stabilizer is going to crash, because there is
absolutely no way the pilot can control it. The vertical stabilizer is the
only part of the aircraft which provides lateral stability, meaning the
split-second it separates from the fuselage, the aircraft is free to
fishtail to the left or right in a completely uncontrollable manner. For
example. if you apply more power to the left engine than the right engine,
the aircraft will attempt to make a flat turn to the right. If you try to
lower the left or right wing, perhaps in an attempt to return to the
airport, the aircraft will sideslip into a fatal dive. The only way out of
the situation is by ejector seat, unfortunately not fitted to American
Airlines Flight 587.
Claims of onlookers on the ground that "an engine came off" just before the
aircraft crashed at Rockaway Beach, are entirely believable. By the time
Flight 587 reached Rockaway it was completely out of control, subject to
almost unbelievably high lateral sheer stresses (whiplash), because the
vertical stabilizer was two miles behind the aircraft, back in Jamaica Bay.
This whiplash effect with the aircraft in a steep uncontrolled dive, would
certainly have been sufficient to shed one or both of the engine pods.
The wreckage at the primary crash site also confirms the cause of the
crash. It was from here that investigators recovered both engines, and
both black box recorders. The latter are positioned in the tail of the
Airbus A300, meaning that the entire fuselage traveled as far as Rockaway
Beach. The aircraft did not (as some media would have you believe) somehow
"break in half" before it crashed.
More interesting than these indisputable facts, are the US Government's
actual reasons for denying the public the truth. After all, the NTSC and
FAA knew all about the vertical stabilizer in Jamaica Bay at least an hour
before I did, and promptly had it recovered by the US Army. Exactly where
the Army took it thereafter is not yet clear, but pictures of this critical
artifact are now very hard to find, and I am indebted to Steve Seymour for
the one below.
What the picture shows very clearly, is that this is not a "piece" of the
vertical stabilizer, but all of it, which you can confirm for yourselves by
peering at the Airbus A300 thumbnails on the left and right. Flight 587's
stabilizer looks a lot skinnier than the ones on the thumbnails, but this
is to be expected because, as previously stated, the moveable rudder at the
rear of the stabilizer is missing. Nothing unusual about that, the rudder
is relatively lightweight, and its pieces are probably scattered around
widely in Jamaica Bay.
What cannot be explained away by the NTSB or FAA is how or why the
stabilizer parted company with the aircraft at precisely the point where it
joins the fuselage proper. Look at the enlarged photograph very carefully.
There are absolutely no dents, scratches, on the leading edge or on the
panels. This proves the vertical stabilizer was not struck by any other
object, in turn proving it was the first component to detach from the
aircraft. Trickier still for the NTSB, FAA and Airbus Industries, will be
explaining to the general public why, with prima facie evidence proving
catastrophic separation along a critical attachment line, the FAA and
Airbus Industries failed to immediately ground all Airbus A300-600 models
worldwide. This in order to conduct black light inspections of the
stabilizer spars, panels, attachment pins, bolts and other critical
Not only is grounding of this nature a normal operating procedure, it is
also a legal requirement. Most readers will remember that all Concorde
aircraft were grounded for more than a year after the crash of Air France
4590 at Paris. Concorde's grounding was based mostly on speculation, and
partly on trivial circumstantial evidence, flimsier by far than the prima
facie evidence already existing in the case of American Airlines Flight
587. In order not to ground all Airbus A300-600 series, the NTSB, FAA and
Airbus Industries would have to be convinced that the reason for the crash
of Flight 587 was strictly unique, a one-off that could not occur under
similar flight conditions to any other Airbus A300-600 worldwide. The only
reason unique enough to fit this requirement is an act of terrorism.
Currently the US Government is fixating on the co-pilot of Flight 587
noting "wake Turbulence" from a Japanese Airlines 747 ahead of them. The
media has already taken its cue and is drawing elaborate diagrams of the
Airbus A300-600 tearing itself to pieces in the "tornado-like" wake left
behind the JAL 747. This is absolute rubbish, perhaps best illustrated by
some of the higher forces all aircraft are designed to withstand.
Decades ago I flew "box" in a close aerobatics formation of four Mach 2
fighters. Basically this is a "Diamond Four", where the "boxman"
located at the back centre of the diamond, slightly behind and slightly
below the leader, with the two wingmen on either side. Though located
slightly below the leader to minimize discomfort from his wake turbulence,
our vertical stabilizer was intermittently battered by a full 20,000 pounds
of thrust from his twin turbojet engines, at a range of only 100 feet, at
speeds up to 400 miles per hour. Sure it was uncomfortable, but do you
really believe we would have done it at all, if there was the slightest
chance of the vertical stabilizer falling off?
Though wake turbulence can be hazardous at times, it really only poses a
serious threat to tiny lightweight aircraft like two-seat Cessna and Piper
trainers. The notion that the residual wake turbulence from a jumbo one
and a half miles on front of American Airlines Flight 587, could have torn
its vertical stabilizer off, is absurd. If that were even remotely
possible, most of the world's fleet of "heavy" jets would have crashed
Marion Blakey, chairwoman of the NTSB, said an initial listen to the
Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) found nothing "to indicate a problem that is
not associated with an accident." What kind of politically correct
double-talk is this? In order to include the possibility of a terrorist
act, Ms Blakey presumably requires a voice with a heavy Arab accent saying:
"I have a fruit knife in my jacket pocket Captain; crash this aircraft
immediately or I will kill you."
But what else could bureaucrat Marion Blakey say? One is reminded of the
words of George Orwell, which now seem to mock us from the grave: "During
times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."