The witness reports of an in-flight explosion and fire were previously covered in one of the earlier threads on the AA587 crash. (Sorry, I am too weary to go back and search which one.) Some of these same witnesses were quoted in a story by a New York Post columnist. The Post has now apparently editorially decided to resurrect the story and move it from op-ed gossip to news.
This seems to be a case of not letting facts stand in the way of personal conviction. Even better, some would have the NTSB prove a negative before proceeding to determine the true cause.
The Post article itself reveals contradictions in the witness reports. One witness on Flatbush Avenue, probably 4 miles from the crash, states that the whole front third of the plane was engulfed in flame. Other witnesses state flame appeared only on the right side, or that flames were visible before the vertical stabilizer came off.
How to reconcile these witness reports with what is known about the crash?
1.) The takeoff and initial climb were videotaped by a worker at JFK. Nothing out of the ordinary can be seen. (He stopped taping before the crash, and resumed it on seeing the smoke.)
2.) Supposedly, one or more flight crew on either taxiways or the departure runway at JFK observed the entire flight of AA587, and there has been no indication that they saw any explosion or fire.
3.) Both engines have been examined, and there is no evidence of an explosion or malfunction. The FDR shows both operating normally.
4.) The vertical stabilizer and rudder were found in Jamaica Bay, between JFK and the crash site. The vertical stab is not scorched or smudged; it is described as being in nearlu pristine condition.
5.) The CVR records two episodes of a rattling sound. There is no sound of an explosion on the CVR, nor any remarks or exclamations by the crew indicative of an on-board explosion or fire. In this instance, are not their voices and statements the best testimony to an on-board event?
6.) Aside from the two engines, the vertical stab, rudder, and a very few other small pieces found distant from the crash site, there is nothing in the distrubution pattern of the wreckage even suggesting a catastrophic explosion/fire caused this accident. As there is no sign of an explosion in the parts mentioned above, then any explosion must have occurred on some other section of the plane. But if there was such an explosion, why weren't pieces of fuselage skin, insulation, etc. scattered over Belle Harbor?