Even if he was saying that, it makes no sense in reference to a bomb. Escape from the bomb? More like escape from the wake turbulence.
A couple of important things here. You are admitting the possibility that NTSB lied about the "Try Escape?" phrase. So we have established that NTSB is 'unreliable' as well as you seem to be so strict about with the witnesses.
"Escape from a bomb?" - Well yes! 'Escape' is the Airbus cockpit autopilot release in order to add throttle and control the aircraft. The Airbus was threatening to stall because it had gone into acceleration. 'Acceleration' is when an aircraft goes sideways from forward flight like sideslipping. The common procedure for pilots in this situation is to go full-throttle in order to stabilize the aircraft's atittude.
1/10th of a G does not throw an aircraft into the violent throws you cited from the re-animation. A shoe-bomb blasting through the side of the aircraft would. A shoe-bomb would also cause the smoke trail seen on the Bridge Authority security camera video. A shoe-bomb would also cause the Flight Data Recorder to stop functioning. A 1/10 G wake force would not.
Aviation engineers commented that it was highly unusual for a tail loss to cause the engines to both rip-off. This aircraft obviously underwent stresses far beyond a wake vortex.
US Air 427 crashed near a shopping mall and near a soccer game. Dozens, if not a couple hundred people saw it go down. They said it was in flames. We now know it wasn't. Just like the people who say that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was a 707. It was a bright day, what they saw was most likely a reflection off of the aircraft.
I haven't studied US Air 427. You'll get varying reports from any eyewitness group in ANY situation. What you are doing is making an invalid argument for the dropping of ALL eyewitnesses in ALL cases. But that doesn't hold water. If we followed your loose standard, there would be no eyewitnesses ever for anything. It's simply a foolish argument. If you research NTSB and its history, there were crashes in the past that were determined solely by eyewitness information.
You haven't adequately answered why the Bridge Authority tollbooth video camera caught a clear and apparent smoke/vapor trail coming from the aircraft? This smoke trail was corroborated by many of the eywitnesses and was detailed as having been visible while the tail was still attached. The significance being that NTSB depends on the rudder ripping off to initiate all the other events. They even said this in the NY Times article wrapping up the investigation and pinning it on Molin. They said the explosion and smoke trail was from the engine ripping off and fuel igniting. What they forgot to mention is that all of the eyewitnesses saw both the engines and tail still on when they saw those things...
Hardly. I trust the NTSB investigators, who have had years of training and experience, over a group of conspiracy theorists.
Your arguments obviously begin and end here and virtually ignore most of the significance of the evidence I've taken pains to reproduce.
Answer why NTSB would call it a mechanical failure on the evening of the crash? This was unprecedented and a violation of every known scientific investigatory rule. You seem to demand empirical proof on one hand (which you ignore) while giving NTSB free reign on the other.
Why did NTSB say it wasn't Molin and he wasn't saying "Try Escape?" when everybody else did? I trust a father knows his own son's voice? If not, the answering machine spectrograph did. Still doubting that one? Still demanding "proof"??? "I trust NTSB". Hmm...
Until you can prove to me that the rudder didn't snap off due to improper rudder use during wake turbulence, your theory will have no credibility with me.
There's enough there for any objective observer. Just what you refuse to answer says enough in itself to me. But you've said more than you realize above. You unwittingly revealed the flaw in the investigation. After all, this is exactly what the investigation did. It focused on a tail-cause and sought to dismiss all other causes. The only problem with that approach is it isn't a sound investigation. A sound investigation starts with ALL the evidence and establishes a pattern. But don't fool yourself that a corrupted agency has honestly examined all the evidence. We've already caught them trying to cover-over facts. Your assertion that they can be trusted has already been disproven above. And, as you have displayed, it can only be offered by avoiding most of the scientific forensics and credible eyewitnesses...
I'd love to see, in person, "nystate" confronting retired New York City police officer Lynch and telling him the orange/red flame ball he saw blast out of the side of the aircraft was "sunlight gleaming off the fuselage" (Lynch was on the opposite side from the sun that morning)...
This is almost as absurd as the people who think that it was a missile who hit the Pentagon...
What is absurd is name calling persons "conspiracy theorists" without checking their aviation engineering credentials or even reviewing their forensics...
[/quote]
