EMBRITTLEMENT, or: HAS THE #1 TERRORIST IN AMERICA STRUCK AGAIN???? (November 12th, 2001, American Airlines Flight 587 crashes in Queens, NYC)

To: president@whitehouse.gov
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: EMBRITTLEMENT, or: HAS THE #1 TERRORIST IN AMERICA STRUCK AGAIN????
Cc: "Governor Gray Davis" <graydavis@governor.ca.gov>, "Barbara Boxer, Senator (CA, D)" <senator@boxer.senate.gov>

URGENT

NOVEMBER 12TH, 2001

SUBJECT: EMBRITTLEMENT, or: HAS THE #1 TERRORIST IN AMERICA STRUCK AGAIN????

[NOTE: See below for new speculation based on information about the tail section, dated Nov. 13th, 14th, and 15th, 2001 -- RDH]
According to Bob Arnot, MSNBC, "these planes do have multiple redundant backup systems" -- heard live, November 12th, 2001, 12:35 pm E.S.T..

According to numerous nuclear industry spokespersons, so do our nuclear power plants.

But what they DON'T have is the ability to survive EMBRITTLEMENT.

It's like: "Your grandmother's osteo-embrittled old bones" as one metallurgist describes it.  One little hit and it shatters like glass.  And it's a lot like HIV, too, because it makes things more susceptible to everything else that might go wrong.

American Airlines flight 587 crashed just 30 miles from INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.  THAT'S THREE PLANE CRASHES WITHIN 30 MILES OF INDIAN POINT IN TWO MONTHS + ONE DAY.  And not to mention, one near Three Mile Island and one just 45 miles from Calvert Cliffs.

Sooner or later...

The engines on board the American Airlines flight which crashed in Queens, NYC this morning were manufactured by General Electric.

GENERAL ELECTRIC has, for YEARS, sold America "super"-alloys they claim are better than they really are!

The GE CF6-80C2A5 ENGINES on board AA Flight 587 to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, were made of the same alloys that NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS are made of!  Things like Hastelloy-6.

The right [NOTE: S/B "LEFT"] engine, the #1 engine, had 694 hours on it since its last overhaul.

THE LEFT [NOTE: S/B "RIGHT"] ENGINE, THE #2 ENGINE, HAD 9,788 HOURS ON IT SINCE ITS LAST OVERHAUL.  It's next overhaul would have been in just 212 hours.  Its last shop inspection was 2,887 operational hours ago.

One of these engines came off the plane: "It looked like a flaming beer can flying through the air" was one witness's description.  We don't yet know which one...

EMBRITTLEMENT IS A TRILLION-DOLLAR LAWSUIT WAITING TO HAPPEN!

GENERAL ELECTRIC, BECHTEL, AND OTHERS ARE GOING TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS WHEN THE SMOKE CLEARS FROM THIS AND OTHER ACCIDENTS WHICH APPEAR TO BE CAUSED NOT BY STINGER MISSILES OR ON-BOARD BOMBS OR KNIFE-WIELDING SUICIDAL TERRORISTS, BUT BY...


EMBRITTLEMENT.


Any lawyers who want to consider working on this GLOBAL CASE WITH FAR-REACHING CONSEQUENCES TO (HOPEFULLY) SAVE HUMANITY FROM FURTHER HORROR, for a portion of the proceeds (or pro-bono), please contact me and I will put you in touch with a metallurgist who feels the same way I do about these matters and has many decades of experience.  He is a Federal False Claims Act / Whistleblower and desires to initiate a "QUI-TAM" suit followed by a class-action suit.  He is based in Southern California and therefore greatly prefers a local attorney in that area.

Preferably, one who knows how to do lawsuits in Federal Court, to represent the plaintiff to the federal government.  One who can look into the Statute of Limitations issues too (there can be exceptions for serious situations, but these problems have been looked at and ignored since about 1978).

"3 or 4 trillion dollars at least... even just 1% would keep anyone happy for a long, long time!" says the metallurgist.

Against all the companies that make the alloys...

All the utilities...

GE, Bechtel, on and on...

If you want to take part in such a lawsuit, in any way, please contact me and I will put you in touch with the whistleblower.

Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA

[Note: At least one witness is indicating that it was, indeed, the left wing which dipped, indicating it was the left engine which failed. -- Nov. 12th, 2001 2:44 pm E.S.T.. Later: Other eyewitnesses report the right engine on fire and both engines on fire. The cockpit voice recorder has been found.]
To: president@whitehouse.gov
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Correction and additional information regarding AA flt 587
Cc: "Governor Gray Davis" <graydavis@governor.ca.gov>, "Barbara Boxer, Senator (CA, D)" <senator@boxer.senate.gov>

November 12th, 2001

To Whom It May Concern:

In my previous email today, I misidentified the right engine as the #1 engine.  The leftmost engine is normally referred to as the #1 engine on a multi-engine airplane.  The problem still appears to be related to catastrophic engine failure which could definitely mean embrittlement -- the same problem which threatens our nuclear power plants every day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a quote from a New York Times article about today's crash:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/nyregion/12CND-PLANE.html

"A CF-6 engine on a Continental Airlines DC-10 broke up on takeoff from Newark International Airport in April 2000, and in June 2000 a CF-6 on a Varig Airlines Boeing 767 broke up.  This morning, the front portion of one engine was clearly visible lying in the driveway of a Shell gasoline station in southeastern Queens. That was the fan portion; the turbine portion was not in the same location." -- Mathew Wald, New York Times, November 12th, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a quote from a Washington Post description of the Airbus A300-600 which crashed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/daily/graphics/planecrash_111201.html

"American Airlines A300-600R ... Started flying: June, 1988 ... Engine #1: 694 Hours of Service; Engine #2: 9788 Hours of Service (engines are serviced at 10,000 hours)" -- Washington Post, November 12th, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a quote from a Chicago Tribune article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-queenscrash.story?coll=chi%2Dnews%2Dhed

"The Airbus had two CF6-80C2 engines made by General Electric Co. In March, the FAA directed airlines to inspect such engines for possible cracks in turbine rotor discs. The cracks could cause the discs to fly apart and prompt engine failure, the FAA said. The alert was issued after the FAA received a report of an engine failure during a maintenance run on the ground." -- Diego Ibarguen (AP), Chicago Tribune, Nov. 12th, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was seen at the New York Post web site:
http://www.nypost.com/apstories/V0229.htm

"A law enforcement source at the scene told The Associated Press that the likelihood of a mechanical problem stemmed from the fact that flames were seen shooting out of the left engine and that witnesses reported the plane had difficulty climbing and was banking to the left." -- Diego Ibarguen (AP), New York Post, November 12th, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's some related comments published at the San Francisco Chronicle's web site:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2001/11/12/national1203EST0601.DTL

"Witnesses to the crash reported seeing an engine fall off the plane. The engines, which are located under each wing, were made by GE...GE was not aware of any recent operational problems with its CF6-80C2 engine, said Rick Kennedy, spokesman at the headquarters of GE Aircraft Engines in suburban Cincinnati." -- Richard Pyle, San Francisco Chronicle, November 12th, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the New York Daily News AP article, the right side engine is blamed:
http://www.nydailynews.com/manual/news/latest/latest10.asp

"At least one of the engines, believed to be from the right side, fell intact on a gas-station parking lot. American Airlines said the left engine on Flight 587 was freshly overhauled and the right engine was about due for maintenance after nearly 10,000 hours of operation." -- Ted Bridis, New York Daily News, November 12th, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My original letter, with a notation about this correction, is posted here:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/aa587a.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I apologize for any confusion my earlier email may have caused.  Please note that if you have written to me to help me correct the error, my ISP has been unable to deliver most emails to me today, although I understand from phone calls to friends that email is still getting out.

Two notes:  Today on CSPAN it was reported that Boeing is planning to come out with "near super-sonic" commercial aircraft soon (within four years).  Therefore we will need to completely reassess the vulnerabilities of nuclear power plants to airplane strikes again.  Second, another person, (on CNBC I think) stated today that we are as vulnerable now as we were on September 10th to an cyber or electronic Pearl Harbor attack.  I am absolutely sure he's right.

Sincerely,

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

Below is a follow-up which includes comments written Nov. 13th and Nov. 14th:


At 12:47 PM 11/14/01 , Jim Spellman wrote:
In a message dated 11/12/2001 4:49:26 PM Pacific Standard Time, rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com writes:



The leftmost engine is normally referred to as the #1 engine on a
multi-engine airplane.  The problem still appears to be related to
catastrophic engine failure which could definitely mean embrittlement --
the same problem which threatens our nuclear power plants every day.



Russ --

According to what I've heard, it was the vertical stabilizer (Tail) that may have come off -- possibly due to air vortex cause by preceding Japan Airlines 747.

Best to wait until NTSB reviews data and voice cockpit recorders and come up with definitive answers -- rather than make speculations and extrapolate them to serve your cause.

If you're proven wrong, you've only weakened your position and arguments.

~JS~

==========================================================================

To: WSpaceport@aol.com
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Re: Correction regarding AA flt 587

Date: November 14th, 2001
To: Jim Spellman, et al
From: Russell Hoffman
Re: Correction regarding AA flt 587

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your comments [shown above] and it's always a pleasure to hear from you.  But I watched a lot of "experts" on CNN, FOX, CNBC, MSNBC, etc., all do a lot of early speculation which was clearly ignoring even the facts known at the time they were speaking, and I think, based on those early speculations I was watching, that my own speculations were not out of line.

Now that interest is focusing on the tail, last night I sent out a statement about that, but didn't send it everywhere that I sent the first statement out to, and that appears to have been a mistake.  I've included the newer statement below, and here's something I wrote just seconds ago which, I think, is fair current speculation based on the facts available to date (Nov. 14th, 2001, about 1:45 pm P.S.T..  Minor changes from the original have been made at the discretion of the author.):

"They are now saying there was "just" 90 seconds between AA Flight 587 and the JAL 747 ahead of it (less than the FAA minimum of two minutes).  I find it very hard to believe that 90 seconds after one jumbo jet passes by, another one could have its tail sheered off by the wake turbulence of the first.  At this point, while it still might be metal fatigue, I'm mainly just wondering if the terrorist stayed in the tail after loosening the bolts, to avoid detection, he thought, but really because his handlers know that dead men in airplane tails tell no tales.  (He may not have started loosening things until the engines were started, for all I know.)"

Also, here's a comment related to telemetry from a letter to Arianna Huffington this morning on a related matter:

"[We should] improve the safety of our airplanes by requiring that they transmit the "black box" information in REAL TIME to ground stations which store the data continuously for all planes at all times.  There's no reason to be looking for black boxes each time an accident happens anymore!  With such a system, experts on the ground could actually see, in real time, what was happening on the plane so they could advise.  Those experts could even fly the plane from the remote site -- such a design is feasible, but no one wants to spend the money to implement it.  But all the people that have died in [or from] commercial airline crashes in the last few months in America would probably feel it would have been worth the money to implement such a system."

I haven't exactly revived the STOP CASSINI newsletter list and perhaps I should be a little more careful about how I do use it when I do so, and if I'm going to send anything, I should be more careful to send related documents that follow, as appropriate.

My apologies and I hope this explanation seems reasonable to you in this matter.  I'll add these comments to the prior document which is already posted at my web site.

Warmest regards,

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

Below:  Follow-up sent late last night, but not widely enough, I guess!:

=============================================================

Date: November 13th, 2001
From: Russell Hoffman
Re: Rudder and/or vertical stabilizer appears to have fallen off first...

Hi!

(Late note: Lou Dobbs' show Money Line on CNN just did a chilling report on nuclear spent fuel pools.  It ended on an inappropriately comforting misrepresentation, but other than that it was pretty accurate (4:00am E.S.T., Nov. 4th, 2001).)

As to the American Airlines Flight 587 status: Bombs don't shake before going off, but twice, a shaking is heard on the voice recorders before things got panicky in the cockpit over Jamaica Bay yesterday.

Why was the vertical stabilizer so intact when it was pulled out of the water?  Did it shear off in the wind all by itself or was it helped?

It's now looking to me like the "root" cause of this tragedy will turn out to be either sabotage of the rudder or vertical stabilizer (loosen some bolts would be all it would take), or metal fatigue of those same parts.  Certainly it no longer appears to be an engine disintegration.

According to information on the cockpit voice recorder, the pilots try to power up, and that's when things go really screwy.  This would be consistent with the rudder and vertical stabilizer being gone completely from the plane, because if you suddenly try to power up both engines of a twin engine jet, one engine inevitably will power up a little faster than the other (this is especially likely to be true if the two engines are at nearly opposite ends of the regular 10,000 hour overhaul schedule, as these engines were).  With a rudder and vertical stabilizer, suddenly powering up the two massive turbines is no big deal.  The plane simply yaws a little to the left or right.

If these parts are missing, however, it can have a nearly instantaneously catastrophic effect on the attitude of the plane.  In other word's, the pilot's only hope -- and it would be an extremely small one, anyway, in the event of a loss of the rudder and vertical stabilizer -- would be to NOT suddenly accelerate the engines.  But that's exactly what they did.  It is fair to say this only quickened their demise.  A computer-controlled plane might be able to fly without a vertical stabilizer, on a really calm day, with lots of luck and some amazing programming already written into the system for just such an eventuality, but no human could be expected to do it.

Under the circumstances, I now believe that metal fatigue is right now the long shot as the cause of this particular accident, based on the circumstantial evidence of the location, the timing, the airline which was attacked, etc. etc..  On the other hand, if the airline industry as a whole is more careful these days than they used to be to protect us from terrorists, then one can think that it was not a terrorist act, which leads us back towards metal fatigue.

Hopefully, time will soon tell.

Sincerely,

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad CA


=============================================================

To: WSpaceport@aol.com
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Re: Correction regarding AA flt 587
Date: November 14th, 2001 (followup)
To: Jim Spellman, et al
From: Russell Hoffman
Re: Correction regarding AA flt 587

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your comments.  An NTSB news conference shown live just now pretty much eliminated the possibility of wake turbulence (although the NTSB spokespersons didn't seem to realize it).

If their plot of the paths of the JAL 747 and the AA Airbus are reasonably accurate, the 747's track was significantly downwind of the Airbus's track.

Case closed on that being the cause.  It was a weak case to being with, IMHO.

Next?

Regards,

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

====================================================================

To: WSpaceport@aol.com
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: NEW FOLLOW-UP -- MAYBE JIM HAS A POINT
Date: November 14th, 2001 (new followup)
To: Jim Spellman, et al
From: Russell Hoffman
Re: NEW Correction regarding AA flt 587

Hi Jim,

Maybe you have a point.  I reviewed the tape of the NTSB conference that just concluded and the JAL plane was indeed UPWIND, not DOWNWIND of the AA plane.

While I still find the wake turbulence theory utterly preposterous, it's does pay to back off and be careful, you're right.

My apologies to all.

Regards,

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
========================================================

Below is a follow-up written Nov. 15th, 2001:


To: president@whitehouse.gov,  "Governor Gray Davis" <graydavis@governor.ca.gov>
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Airplanes and nuclear power plants: a mix that just doesn't work!
Cc: oreilly@foxnews.com
Date: November 15th, 2001

From: Russell D. Hoffman, Concerned Citizen

It now appears that multiple problems contributed to the crash of American Airlines Flight 587.  A combination of inadequate inspection procedures, an incident 13 years ago that may have led to a "delamination" of the composite material the tail was made of, and wake turbulence from a Japan Air Lines 747 which took off prior to the AA Airbus A300-600 all may have played a part, along with a Clear Air Turbulence incident last year [note: 1994 is the correct year this happened -- rdh] in which about 30 passengers were injured (four sued the airline).

The bolts and mounts for the tail, the NTSB has already said, were not loosened or missing, so terrorism now seems unlikely.  Nor was the cause related to embrittlement of any metals.

However, no one should take any comfort from this, as far as I'm concerned.  For one thing, terrorists now know (just in case they didn't already) that a relatively small bomb in the tail section of a plane will bring it down.  If you can get in there, that's much easier than a big bomb in the belly of the beast.  And for another thing, these souls are just as dead as the 5000 who were killed on 9-11.

This plane could have fallen anywhere.  On a nuclear power plant, for instance.  The pilots were powerless to guide the plane away from houses and into the nearby bay or ocean.

Humanity's trust in technology has been shaken once again.  That feeling is entirely appropriate, since society has been way too trusting thus far.  We have been pretending that many technologies are far less dangerous than they really are.  Sure, people like Bill O'Reilly (FOX NEWS) can say he's a "fatalist" and he can just figure, as he put it on an MSNBC interview recently, that when it's his time to go, it's his time to go, but the rest of us can face reality, fasten our seatbelts and slow down this foolish technological juggernaut we are on, and try to replace it with safer, more benign alternatives, such as ground-based transportation systems and renewable energy resources, to replace airplanes and nuclear power plants, a mix that just doesn't work.

Sincerely,

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
11th hour protest against nuclear power:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/11thhour.htm
For more information please visit:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/index.htm

Learn about the effects of nuclear weapons here:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/tenw/nuke_war.htm
This web page has been presented on the World Wide Web by:

The Animated Software Company
http://www.animatedsoftware.com
Mail to: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
First posted November 12th, 2001.

Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman