Purpose is Economic Devastation
Reader comment on item: Why Did American Airlines 587 Crash?

Submitted by Barbara (United States), Aug 31, 2004 at 18:13

I've considered the crash of AA 587 the result of terrorism ever since it occurred (along with TWA 800). At the time of the AA 587 crash there were computer models that demonstrated that a shoe-bomber sitting in the same seat that Richard Reid occupied in 12/01, would cause the same situation in terms of the aircraft's destruction and disintegration, as what actually happened to AA 587 on 11/12/01. A string of "mysterous" crashes, via shoe-bombs, could have been the planned "second wave" of attacks and was probably aborted only by Richard Reid's failure and exposure.

As for questioning "the efficacy or purpose of violence that is so obscure it is interpreted as a transportation accident," it's obviously economic. Isn't it obvious that the crash of AA 587 added to AA's devastating economic burden, and that it further fueled the public's fear of flying on any airline (including and especially AA)? The dismal economic decline that had already begun was disastrously escalated by 9/11 and furthered by AA 587. It seems apparent that terrorists consider ANY significant economic damage a "success," whether the event is "credited" or "attributed" or not. But, of course, no government would want to attribute the AA 587 crash so soon after 9/11 to terrorism if they could possibly avoid doing so!

BB

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.