In context.... -- WASHINGTON BOARD

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:56:31 02/21/02 Thu
Author: Donk
Author Host/IP: 140.indianapolis-24rh16rt.in.dial-access.att.net / 12.85.15.140
Subject: In context....
In reply to: MJ 's message, "Well Well........" on 19:28:59 02/21/02 Thu

some of these events look different now. The plane that blew up off Long Island has fascinated me because all the years I was involved with aircraft fuel systems, I never knew of an intact fuel tank exploding. Much like I never heard of a vertical stabilizer breaking off because of "aggressive" rudder inputs. But that was another plane.

The reason intact fuel tanks don't explode is (thought to be) because they are heavy with fumes which exclude enough oxygen to support combustion. I have seen fuel flashes, usually near the exit of tank vents that are concerning, but I never knew one to hurt the plane or the tank. Some military planes have foam in their tanks (much like plastic scrubbing pads) to eliminate or reduce explosion if a tank is penetrated.

I guess events prove that if airplanes are being randomly targeted, the industry would collapse, so it might make some sense to conceal some facts. After all, the percentage of people lost is a small part of the total number who have traveled. In some ways, I think it is too bad that Bush chose to politicize the events of September 11. By doing so, he has way overstated the risk and dangers and practically put the whole country on its ear.

But, all those lost and the horrors of that day are still quite small compared to the number of people who are working, every day, in buildings and the number of people who are flying, every day, all over the world. I don't see how that level of incompetency can be awarded with a high approval rating.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]