To: zeestephen
You see these trains all the time around metro Seattle.
But not in the rivers!
To: zeestephen
A new, and expensive, way of testing fuselage water tightness.
4 posted on
07/06/2014 10:31:22 AM PDT by
upchuck
(Everyday, Joe Wilson becomes more correct!)
To: zeestephen
6 posted on
07/06/2014 10:37:22 AM PDT by
A. Morgan
(Ayn Rand: "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.")
To: zeestephen
If we only had high-speed rail, as the LibTards want, things like this would NEVER happen...as the cars would be empty of passengers AND cargo!
*SMIRK*
7 posted on
07/06/2014 10:54:22 AM PDT by
Diana in Wisconsin
(I don't have 'Hobbies.' I'm developing a robust Post-Apocalyptic skill set...)
To: zeestephen
Not only expensive but will set back production by at least a couple of years.time to buy stock in malox
8 posted on
07/06/2014 11:10:40 AM PDT by
HANG THE EXPENSE
(Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
To: zeestephen
It reminds me of that Fugitive Guy movie where the plane hits a train and ends up in a river.
To: zeestephen
How would you like to find out that the aircraft you are in was once in the river?
To: zeestephen
Boeing said the train was carrying six 737 fuselages, fuselage panels and a lower lobe for the 777, and a leading edge flight surface for the 747.
12 posted on
07/06/2014 11:36:20 AM PDT by
jpsb
(Believe nothing until it has been officially denied)
To: zeestephen
Yeah, I was not far from there when the derailment happened last week, BUT I DIDN’T CAUSE IT!
13 posted on
07/06/2014 11:44:02 AM PDT by
steve86
( Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
To: zeestephen
Sounds like a case of sabotage, to me.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
