Talk:49 dead after Comair regional jet crashes in Kentucky

"Terrorism has been ruled out as a possible cause."?
First of all, even the 1 source which addresses terrorism does not say that at all. The FAA use the weasel words of "FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency had no indication at all that terrorism was involved."

Second of all. let's think about it; what kind of evidence would already be known so fast that would be an "indication of terrorism"...a handwritten note that survived the fire?

Thirdly, do you really think the Bush admin wants to crush domestic air travel and the US economy by ever admitting this was caused by terrorism if it were to be the case? Remember "National Security" trumps truthtelling every time.

Fourthly, the airplane was "largely intact"...it's hard for me to believe noone got out unless it was an onboard terrorist started fire exactly like the ones that the London guys were allegedly planning.

Fifthly; I simply can not believe this article was published saying "Terrorism has been ruled out as a possible cause." when there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the sources to justify that rank falsehood. Neutralizer 16:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree that your edit to remove the assertion that terrorism was ruled out was appropriate, I suspect the FAA spokesperson had information on the most probable cause and this would not be revealed ahead of crash investigators completing a preliminary analysis. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added a source for the statement about terrorism and added it back to the article. I live in Lexington, and so that statement was based on local news broadcasts; I didn't realize it wasn't mentioned in the sources.--128.163.247.197 17:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Article looks pretty good now, as it has had publish on it since about 2pm wiki time I'd suggest that future developments go in new stories unless it is something like the survivor dying in the next 6-8 hours. Breaking should probably be removed on the same timescale. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand. What is the reasoning for the especially early(for us) edit cut off regarding this story? Neutralizer 22:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The point was to avoid a date bump. There was enough material to do the initial report of the accident with casualty figures and a more in-depth article with the initial analysis from the black box plus details of passengers.  We do have those two articles now, but the first one is buried in the history now instead of being a separate story on the 27th. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Title is ambiguous, it could mean one crash or more than one.
The phrase "jet crashes" is ambiguous, because it means different things depending on whether crash is a noun or a verb. "jet crashes" could mean "a jet crashes" (verb) or several "jet crashes" (noun). I suggest a clearer title is "Many dead after jet crash in Kentucky" or "Many dead after a jet crashes in Kentucky." TRWBW 19:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems confirming the crash site with Google Earth
1; Live TV is showing the plane carcass nestled next to a forest. The only forest I see is at the end of the longer runway

2; Why are there no crash scene photos online that actually show the plane carcus? They just show cars (NOT EMERGENCY VEHICLES) parked around some buildings.

3; The one CNN crash photo(click on gallery is terrible and but it does show a forest which google earth does NOT show at the end of the shorter runway.

I would simply like to see a crash scene photo with perspective to the runways; can anyone find one? Neutralizer 21:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

4; This photo showing an emergency vehicle going up a road toward the crash site; Google Earth shows a road like this near the long runway but not the short one. Neutralizer 21:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind Google Earth photos are offten 10+ years old, alot can change in that time. --Cspurrier 22:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All I want is a photo of the crash scene with the runway(s) in the background or an overhead shot showing the runway(s) and the crash scene. If the crash happened just at the end of the runway, that shouldn't be too hard to find on the internet but I can not find it. Neutralizer 22:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, this photo shows a hill which I don't see anywhere near the short runway and the curvey road in the photo looks older than 10 years to me. Neutralizer 22:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Short Runway
Here is a source from Canada.com: ''The burning plane was just off the end of the airport's 1,066-kilometre-long general aviation runway, an unlit strip built at a V shape to the longer main runway. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, it would have been too short for the CRJ-200 jet.'' Jason Safoutin 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is another source from the Houston Chronicle: The plane crashed in a field just beyond the airport's shorter, 3,500-foot runway, not typically used by commercial planes. Everyone else aboard the plane died in the fire, Fayette County Coroner Gary Ginn said. Jason Safoutin 22:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why the early edit cut off? Rezilartuen 22:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but it just shows how screwed up the major reporting is. The canada.com link says; "The burning plane was just off the end of the airport's 1,066-kilometre-long 1,066-kilometre-long general aviation runway." 1,066 kilometers is 662 miles. The crash scene on live TV looks nothing like the terrain at the end of the shorter runway as shown by google earth. Also the buildings shown in the news reports photos do not exist near the shorter runway on the google earth zoom. All I want is to see a crash scene photo with the runways in the background before nightfall. Neutralizer 22:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Google earth images can be 10yrs plus old or more. Jason Safoutin 22:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Another source at the Times Online UK. Jason Safoutin 22:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

National Security Directives
I believe the President can issue these instructing US citizens and/or companies to lie about or cover up something or go to jail if they don't comply. Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong about that. I am very suspicious that the google earth views of the buildings and terrain at the end of the shorter runway do not match at all the live tv shots I saw earlier of the crash site. Neutralizer 22:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I realise you're just trolling...but did you ever think that possibly you're putting a tiny bit too much reliance on Google Earth's data?69.221.248.212 00:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Article talk pages are for the creation and collaboration of news related to the article. Personal attacks like calling someone a "troll" also violates WN policy WN:NOT. Please have personal conversations on user talk pages. Jason Safoutin 00:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I caught them
Have a look at and go to the   Raw video of crash site  Via WHAS-TV helicopter. This was taken from a local helicopter early this morning while the plane was still burning. Pull up the Google Earth view and notice just west of the short runway a big white circle in the ground and the road running north of it as landmarks. The helicopter's camera is facing directly over the white circle in the ground from North of the road as they discuss the fire and the camera is facing throughout the broadcast directly south toward end of the longer runway. You can even see the longer runway in the distance as well as a couple of buildings near the end of the long runway which you can also see on google earth. Also, were the camera, from any spot north of that road and circle aiming toward the alleged crash scene at the end of the short runway you would be able to clearly see the short runway with the airport in the background which you never see in the WCPO broadcast. You will also notice that right in the middle of this big news broadcast the helicopter gets a call from the station ordering it to shut down the broadcast and land the copter. Neutralizer 03:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are multiple published photos which show the skid marks and fence damage caused by the landing gear and resulting from the plane's abortive attempt at takeoff from the short runway. The NTSB has confirmed that the flight data recorder shows a heading of 260 degrees. Let's not start conspiracy theories before 49 people are buried. That's not reporting, that's rumormongering. FCYTravis 03:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment; I am anti-theory. So far government officials have offered a rainy weather theory, a taxi route changed theory and short runway thepry while handy experts have offered a resource management theory and engine trouble theory. Then there is the the not-terrorism theory. I am opposed to any and all of these theories being published in Wikinews except in quotes deemed very necessary to the articles as none of the theories are really news and all are conspiracy theories imo. Neutralizer 19:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutralizer: the talk page is for discussion to improve the article. It does not appear that your research is attempting to do this. Please desist. -  Amgine | m 03:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

first reports
I think we should mention in the article that first coments by the FAA blamed the accident on the non-existant rain. "crashed in a rural farm field at 6:07 a.m. shortly after taking off in rainy weather" and handy experts blamed engine trouble; "the crash was probably engine-related" with no mention at all that the crash was at the end of the shorter runway which should have been immediately obvious. I would also like to find another incident (to use as a related article) anytime in history where 2 commercial pilots took off in darkness from an unlit runway instead of an available lit runway. This article should also include some information about the video camera record of the airport tarmac that must surely exist in this post 9/11 environment. Where is that video? The video will show which runway the plane took off from.Neutralizer 13:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft model
It was a CRJ-200ER, not a CRJ-100. See: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=431CA&cmndfind.x=0&cmndfind.y=0 Look at the engine model which shows it has the newer engines, making it a CRJ-200.
 * Does that effect it's ability to take off from the smaller runway? Neutralizer 19:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

editprotected
editprotected Please add Category:Bombardier Canadair Regional Jet

64.229.100.45 (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ pending deletion request — μchip08 08:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)