The Command Post - Global War On Terror - Canadian Intelligence Told Montreal Man Downed Nov. 2001 AA Flight In Queens

August 28, 2004

Canadian Intelligence Told Montreal Man Downed Nov. 2001 AA Flight In Queens

This is very interesting. From the National Post:

A captured al-Qaeda operative has told Canadian intelligence investigators that a Montreal man who trained in Afghanistan alongside the 9/11 hijackers was responsible for the crash of an American Airlines flight in New York three years ago.
Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents were told during five days of interviews with the source that Abderraouf Jdey, a Canadian citizen also known as Farouk the Tunisian, had downed the plane with explosives on Nov. 12, 2001.

The source claimed Jdey had used his Canadian passport to board Flight 587 and "conducted a suicide mission" with a small bomb similar to the one used by convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid, a "Top Secret" Canadian government report says.

But officials said it was unlikely Jdey was actually involved in the crash, which killed 265 people and is considered accidental. The fact that al-Qaeda attributed the crash to Jdey, however, suggests they were expecting him to attack a plane.

"We have seen no evidence of anything other than an accident here," said Ted Lopatkiewicz, spokesman for the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. "There has been no evidence found, from what I can tell -- at least that's been relayed to us -- that there was any criminality involved here. It appears, at least the evidence we have, is that a vertical fin came off, not that there was any kind of event in the cabin."
Jdey, 39, came to Canada from Tunisia in 1991 and became a citizen in 1995. Shortly after getting his Canadian passport, he left for Afghanistan and trained with some of the Sept. 11 hijackers, according to the 9/11 commission in the United States.

Maybe it's the conspiracy theorist in me (which is small, actually), but the story of that flight going down a month after 9/11, in New York, just after takeoff, because the "tail fell off" never seemed to hold narrative fidelity for me ...

Posted by Alan at August 28, 2004 09:31 AM | TrackBack

Comments

According to AirSafe.com, the investigation that followed the loss of American Airlines Flight 587 concluded that the airplaine, while in ascent mode, came into contact with powerful vortexes from a 747 in powered ascent 5 statutory miles ahead of it. The pilots initiated a rudder movement within the turbulence that became a full rudder reversal. As a limiter was engaged at the time, it is theorized that the full rudder movement may not have been intentional but was the result of the limiter being engaged that multiplied a small force placed on the pedals into a full rudder reversal (a curious action for a "limiter"). This exceeded the structural limits of the vertical stabilizer and rudder system and the tail sheared off plunging the aircraft into Rockaway Beach.

The investigation following TWA Flight 800 in 1996 was troubling as well as it concluded, even given eyewitness testimony that a missile may have been streaking towards the aircraft immediately prior to a widely seen explosion, that fumes had built up in the center fuel tank and ignited due to a faulty sending unit.

What is lacking in each scenario is a similar incident occurring to similar aircraft in flight. The thought that a planes tail could simply fall off on a perfectly nice day, or that a jumbo jet could just blow up without warnign is troubling given the phenomenal amount of engineering and flight test that goes into certifying aircraft. How does a 747, in service for over 30 years and having logged tens of thousands of hours of flight, simply blow up? How does an Airbus A-300, which routinely takes off from congested airports around the globe, lose a tail following 5 miles behind a 747?

I agree with you, Alan. The story of Flight 587 never quite rang true. In my mind, neither does the explanation for Flight 800. But with Flight 587 it is important to note that besides a letter released to flight training schools advising caution in certain rudder movements, no change was made in establishing a new statutory distance between flight take offs in the wake of a 747 in powered ascent. The turbulent vortexes that most contributed to downing Flight 587, are theoretically still present over my head at this moment as I live in the flight path to O'Hare. Both investigations were troubling in their conclusions and the overall recommendations.

Were terrorists busy at work prior to 9-11? The answers may never be known.

Posted by: obelus at August 28, 2004 11:12 AM

At this point, if anything at all bad happens out there, it pays the Terrists to claim credit for it.

Because there will be a whole raft of folks who are predisposed to believe it.

Terrists know how to jerk chains. They do it to the Department of Homeland Insecurity regularly. For an example, look to the "alert" that discusses attacks on VA hospitals that went out yesterday.

We have No information that's being planned. Again. We do have some overactive imaginations, and a need for regular "alerts" to keep folks mildly on edge about it.

It's the orchestration of American Jitters, once again.

Posted by: Don at August 28, 2004 12:19 PM

What choice does Homeland Security have? If they don't broadcast alarms and something happens, they are considered negligent.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I get a kick of these cocktail party pundits that scoff at alarms and then quote you the 9/11 Commission's findings on all that anyone did "wrong."

Posted by: Limpet at August 28, 2004 09:17 PM