Rant by Rob Meyer: Never forget

Never forget

11/30/01 10:49 AM - Wow. Check out what Enron is up to. Just a nice little reminder that companies lie. All the time. In fact, they thrive on it. Because the people who are in charge of speaking to the public, and to the company itself almost always all have something to gain by lying. Why do we have to give two weeks notice when they can terminate our employement at will? Why does upper management make somewhere between 5-100 the average worker? Why does the government have to step in and mandate things as basic as "the product has to mostly work." Most important, why do we continue to do business with companies that lie, cheat, and steal whenever they get a chance?

Remember: Companies lie. Don't be fooled.

Corollary: Your government, and the people within it lie, cheat, and steal just as often. - Rob Meyer

11/30/01 10:51 AM
I've been laughing at Enron all week... - Matthew Waterworth
11/30/01 10:53 AM
Damnit. IE6 ate my text so I couldn't fix it after notcing the preview was wrong. The broken link is supposed to go here. - Rob Meyer
11/30/01 11:01 AM
I have been refraining from saying a word for the last two weeks 'cause I know most of you already think I'm a crazy long-hair conspiracy freak, but speaking of the Gubbament lying-

Flight 587.

That's all I have to say about that. - Matthew Waterworth
11/30/01 11:03 AM
What's the conspiracy angle there? That's the recent one in Queens right? - Rob Meyer
11/30/01 11:20 AM
In my personal opinion it was not an accident, probably not the same fate as TWA800 met, but not an accident. If it was announced that flight 587 was a victim of sabotage or a missle, do you think American Airlines would have been able to avoid filing for Chapter 11? Or many other airlines for that matter. What a fortunate thing that it was a European Airplane manufacturor's plane and not one of Boeing's. Blame it on the plane itself, no harm to the United States' already fragile economy. - Matthew Waterworth
11/30/01 12:24 PM
See, I knew it, I scared everyone away... ;) - Matthew Waterworth
11/30/01 12:26 PM
OK Matt, I'll bite. Why do you think it was not an accident? - Gunnar Kramm
11/30/01 12:45 PM
Mainly because of the whole "wake turbulance" theory (following the bird in the engine theory), complete and total BS. Sure wake turbulance is a viable threat, but not over two miles away, not for a plane the size of the Airbus 300, and not when the flight paths vary as much as they did (sure the wind could have 'pushed' the wake into the path of the second plane, but that also would have greatly diminished the turbulance itself). - Matthew Waterworth
11/30/01 12:46 PM
This Enron thing sucks. They own our local utility Portland General Electric. The employees that are under 50 years old had to take Enron stock for retirement rather than a 401k. Some of these people (less than 2-3 yrs to retire) went from $400,000 worth of stock to barely $1000. Very sad that their retirment is gone. - Arron Martinez
11/30/01 12:51 PM
Nice. You know who's retirement isn't gone? The people who engineered the purchase. And the people who lied to the shareholders and investors about the company's situation. They're all sitting pretty, having taken everyone's money. - Rob Meyer
11/30/01 12:53 PM
Exactly. - Arron Martinez
11/30/01 1:01 PM
Matt, OK the turbulance theory is lousy. I agree with that. Thats why it's a THEORY. Yeah, the tail (OK the vertical stabilizer) seperated from the aircraft and so did an engine. But just becaus ther is no easy answer to why it crashed it is a long way from saying that it is not an accident. Heck that still don't know exacly why TWA 800 exploded, just that is did. - Gunnar Kramm
11/30/01 1:41 PM
A couple of points...first, the US government would jump all over a second terrorist attack inside the US. Though it would shake the economy up some (really, Sept. 11th did little to the economy), it would basically give us complete freedom to dictate how we want things to happen with little threat of the coalition falling apart. Our diplomats are working so incredibly hard behind the scenes just to get something done that is right for once and it makes me absolutely sick that they have to make deals and payoffs to get support against terrorism. So the more force the US has here, the better. Another attack in the US would make the diplomatic side easier. My second point is that the US governmwnt knows the absolute best course of action is to tell the truth about operation information right now...even if that truth is 'We are not going to discuss this'. There is an incredible propoganda war going on right now, and the unfair truth is that while everyone from the enemy to British journalists can lie all day long right now, if the US gets caught in a lie all our credibility will instantly disappear. It is a disgusting double standard we suffer from, but it would be naiive to say we don't get the better side of lots of other double standards (like economic policies!) So the US would not lie about the plane crash, and they have not. - Erik Pugner
11/30/01 1:51 PM
I feel my once mighty Erik is hiding with a blanket over his head... - Matthew Waterworth
11/30/01 2:00 PM
Yeah I`m not sure Erik,...If there was a second Terrorist attack the impact on the economy would be much, much worse than the first one. Economic Recession is fueled by uncertainty, if we had another attack what is to protect us from another or another after that and so on..If people don't feel secure the economy will not recover. The economy recovered from Sept 11, only after we went to war. This is because the public felt "protected" or at least we are doing something to prevent another attack. If we had another attack anywhere near the magnitude of Sept 11 the results on the economy would be disastrous. Recovery would be much slower, because the level of uncertainty would be even greater. If we are trying our hardest to prevent these attacks and they are still occuring, people are going to be very scared. But to adress the Rant; I personally don't feel that there is any conspiracy here. - Rashmi
11/30/01 4:03 PM
And take a look at this crap. Great; copy protected CD's that only play in certain devices, to keep you from getting your fair use rights...wait. This sounds familar...oh yeah, it's exactly like DVD. Well, let's just vote with our pocketbooks and buy our U2 CD's from the other vendor that doesn't copy protect them...oh yeah, that's right. There isn't one (or won't be one). I bet they can't wait until the technology is here to make you pay _per_ _listen_ to a song that you own. That will be loads of fun. Remember DivX? Imagine it times 1000. That's where we're headed folks. Enjoy your freedom while it lasts. We've done a good job of keeping power out of the hands of the government, and we're turning right around and putting it into the hands of corporations. At least with the government you can revolt and start a revolution... - Rob Meyer
11/30/01 4:31 PM
Man Rob, you need to lighten up, have some fun with life. We all know this copy protection fight has Nothing to do with fair use, it is 100% about getting the music for free. Period. End of Story. If we don't pay for the music, then the companies will stop selling it. And if they do, they will sell it in a way that it is protected. It is not YOUR music.

The best theory I have heard about 587 is that is was a thrust reverser kicking in. At the speed it was at, it would have spun the plane like a top. That could explain the tail fin and engines falling off. As for a terroists attack, well they just don't know yet. While Erik has a point, he must also balance the Gov's wishes for the economy to rebound. Claiming Terrorism before it is 100% determined isn't required right now since we are pretty much doing what we want anyways. Flight 587 had sat overnight before the crash and apparently it wouldn't be too hard to sabatoge the thrust reverser (much easier than making a fin fall off). Notice that Bush requested a doubling of National Guard during the Holiday season. I put money the additional personel are for guarding the planes and not for the gates. - Patrick Payne
11/30/01 4:46 PM
Napster, and other music swapping services are all about getting music for free. Being able to make copies of your own purchased music has nothing to do with that.

There are a lot of good reasons to copy CD's. I've never downloaded an unauthorized song off the internet; I don't care about that. I'll pay for music if I like it. But I damn well want to be able to download my own purchased CD's to an MP3 player, since that's a way cooler method for portable music. Or use them at a party...or play them on a computer CD player, or play them in a DVD player. All of this legal manuvering is just getting us ready for the time when there's pervasive wireless networking. Now your MP3 player bills you every time you play "your" new CD. Or your DVD player bills you $4.95 for every movie you watch.

Don't think it will happen? They've already tried it with DivX. Which went down in flames only because there was a way more convenient alternative, one that big, big companies had already poured millions into. Next time we might not be so lucky. Especially as networking gets simpler and smaller, the incovienices will be become less so paying per use will become more acceptable to most consumers, especially when there's no alternative. Microsoft will love to lend a hand, already starting down that path with their digital rights initiatives, and wanting to move their software that direction. Microsoft Word, $.02 per word processed. Music, $.15 per song, per listen. Movies, $4.95 a pop. Books, $5.95 per read. And all of these preferences get relayed, in realtime, to a central clearinghouse where it's combined with your credit profile, your purchase history, address, likes and dislikes, and demographic information. Then they can sell advertising space right on your MP3 player while you work out in the gym, and you won't have a choice, other than to stop listening to music. You could drag out your old CD's, but they don't play anymore on current players without charging you, and you can't buy an unrestricted CD player anymore. Or you could just not listen to music.

Art should not necessarily be tied to constant capitalistic profit expansion. It's a slipperly slope, and one we've come a long way down already. - Rob Meyer
11/30/01 5:00 PM
Don't mind me. I'm just feeling like an agitator today...:-) - Rob Meyer
12/1/01 12:35 AM
Two words for you, Rob:
Opt Out
There are far too many people who don't want this type of system for it to succeed completely, regardless of how hard the establisment pushes it. There are far too many capable musicians who will not want to participate for this to work completely. (There already is the beginnings of a major backlash against the current dealing of record companies towards their artists.) Pervasive media and networking will actually make it easier for alternative media and artists to become known, or at least to carve out a niche. Creating an ideaological holy war over content ownership will just make it even more likely that artists who don't want to play along with the big machine will get exposure, and be able to produce music for consumption by consumers who don't want to play along with the big corporations. - Andrew Lillie
12/2/01 1:26 AM
Gotta toss in my two cents worth on the plane sub-conversation, although I'm laughing like hell at Enron. Good riddance.

Please note, I am a civil aviation buff, but not a pilot, mechanic, or what-have-you. Thus, while I'm somewhat knowledgeable, I'm not an authority. That said...

1. TWA 800. There are two theories: the official theory [static electricity built up from fuel sloshing around in a nearly empty center tank (a rare anomaly that has been documented in the past), and a fluke spark ignited the vapors, causing a catastrophic explosion] and the conspiracy theory (a wayward missile fired by an American Navy vessel on a training mission hit the plane). In my honest opinion, both theories carry the same amount of weight: not much. However, before TWA 800 happened there were three other documented cases of planes having "near-misses" with missiles along the northeastern seaboard, and the U.S. military HAS mistakenly downed passenger jets before (the U.S.S. Vincennes shot down an Iranian Airbus A300 on July 3rd, 1988, killing 290). Of two theories, the conspiracy theory actually holds more merit with me.

2. Referring to AA587: a sudden, uncommanded deployment of the thrust-reverser would more than likely not spin the plane like a top, it would simply disintegrate the aircraft in mid-air, as what happened to Lauda Air flight 004 over Thailand back in 1991. However, these tend to be very messy, and the clean edges of the sheared-off vertical stabilizer, combined with the relatively whole engine found at the gas station makes me question if this is the answer.

3. Quick corrections to a few of the things Matthew W. said: (a) yes, wake turbulence could have an effect on a plane as big as the A300, especially considering it was a much bigger B747 that took off right before it, and (b) the flight paths were only one half of one nautical mile apart, I don't believe that's two statue miles. However, that said...

4. I personally think the "wake turbulence" theory is a load of hooey, also. Looking at the flight paths jpg Matt W. linked, two things stand out: (1) the A300 used a lot less runway before rotation than the B747 did (which isn't terribly unusual given the size of the planes), and (2) the A300 had a lesser rate of climb from the get go. Compare it's climb rate to that of the 747.

This makes me think that something went wrong before the plane was even off the ground, perhaps something during the takeoff roll. The take-off is the most sensitive time in any flight: problems that would only be concerning if they happened in mid-air can become irrevocably catastrophic if they occur during take-off.

So what happened? Witnesses report that the plane struggled to stay aloft for several seconds, then plunged straight into the ground without variation. My take is that some sort of mechanical failure occurred, perhaps compounded by poor judgement or outright pilot error (it's not uncommon for the co-pilot to be commanding the jet during take-off, and if the co-pilot was new or merely new to the plane type, one bad decision could have compounded the problem beyond repair). I honestly, at this point, do not believe it was terrorism or sabotage (perhaps incompetence: failure to follow proper maintenence procedures by AA mechanics led to the crash of AA191, which I linked above).

Two sites you should visit:
AirDisaster.com - great site the has tons of documentation and photographs of aviation catastrophies.
Airliners.net - another superb site; tons of actual commercial pilots frequent the message board, a great place to go an ask questions. - Kevin Pogue
1/18/02 12:35 PM
OK, I know you already think I'm an Oregon-longhair-conspiracy-freak, so without any further adieu, please check this out. A friend at work who knows my oddness freaked me out with it a few minutes ago. - Matthew Waterworth
2/26/02 7:08 AM
A new article that I think you might want to check out Kevin (or anyone who is not tired of my raving). Read it close. This guy really found something I think and he is making really valid points. - Matthew Waterworth
2/26/02 10:48 AM
Oh, I don't know, Matt. I'm not an aviation "expert", but I've done a decent amount of business travel in the last few years and listened to enough of the "cockpit channel" that several airlines offer to feel pretty secure in saying that the "uh" uttered by the pilot before confirming his heading is not terribly out of the ordinary. Trying to use it as some indicator of an event on the aircraft seems dubious at best.
I also don't hear the "out of control" / "losing control" the guy supposedly hears on the tower tape. I mean, I can hear it, but I don't think its actually a communication from the crew. It's just a trick of the ears.

Sorry to be a nay-sayer. It's just what I do. - Andrew Lillie
2/26/02 11:03 AM
No love for Taco... - Matthew Waterworth
2/26/02 10:24 PM
Ironically, the facts the guy in the second article provides virtually disprove the theory in the first article, and many of the points made in the second article are specious at best.

15:37 - The airplane may or may not be on autopilot at this time.
63 seconds after rotation? I'm thinking not. Besides, I don't think commercial aircraft are allowed to be on autopilot while climbing to/descending from their allotted flight path.

16:04.5 - FDR shows lateral acceleration increases to 0.8g, yaw rate of 10 deg/sec.
If this is the correct info taken from the flight data recorder, it practically disproves the "bomb" theory all by itself. The yaw rate (when the nose and tail of the plane move in opposite directions) is very high and indicates rudder problems. A bomb in the center of the plane would not cause the plane to start spinning like a top.

16:04.5 - left bank through 25 deg. with pilot applying right wheel
That's one of the freakiest stats provided: the pilot is pressing the plane to tilt to the right, but it's tilting to the left, and pretty hard at that. It sounds as if there was a serious problem with the slats (retracting, maybe?) or the flaps on the LEFT wing. It's banking left, so the right wing is obviously getting an unbalanced amount of lift beneath it.

16:04.5 - pitch down to -30 deg.
Yowsers! Was that intentional or not? Basically, that pitch reading means the plane is coming back down to Earth in a hurry. Did the crew realize they were screwed and try to nose-dive the plane to spare as many lives on the ground as possible?

The stats put out by the flight data recorder, upon review, look to be awfully severe to simply be "wake" or even "clear air" turbulence: they are more along the lines of windshear or some other violent atmospheric disturbance. But the sky was clear. So I started thinking about it, and here's my theory... hydraulic failure. Why? How? I don't know. But this flight went to hell in a hurry, and the odd bank/yaw/pitch readings plus the sheared off rudder/stabilizer would all be feasible (even likely) in some sort of massive failure of the hydraulic systems. - Kevin Pogue
2/26/02 10:26 PM
I do agree with the guy on one point, though: the NTSB tends to ignore, discredit, or otherwise mangle witness accounts if they don't coincide with the NTSB's version of reality. The way NTSB handles witnesses to a disaster is absolutely atrocious. - Kevin Pogue

Would you like to add something useful or insightful to this discussion? Go for it! If you're already a member, just log in. If you're not yet a member, then submit an application, and you too can join in the fun.

top of page - front page