Posted on 08/19/2005 5:27:07 AM PDT by Libloather
Interesting...
Agreed, and no one will ever change my mind on this!
Your writing is tickling my memory...
Early on, the Clintons went around the national media and had little soirees with hometown newspaper reporters, wowing them with all of the glitz and glamour of the White House. The national media was furious and frustrated. (I think its in Ambrose Evans what's-his-name) After these smacks on the nose, it wouldn't surprise me if the Clintons let it be known that they would include them in the future, but only IF they toed the Clinton line.
Just like interviewers are afraid to ask Hillary the hard questions, because they fear they'll have no future access if she were to be president because they pissed her off.
Washington is full of wannabes. And they can't be A List if they don't get access. How Conveeenient for the Clintons.
Thanks for the reminders.
Pinz
The tanks aren't pressurized when they are empty. Nor when they are full.
Because they didn't need the fuel so why carry "deadweight" at the expense of revenue generating passengers?
All commercial flights have to land with one hour's worth of additional fuel on board or they are in trouble with the FAA, so you can be sure the plane had what it needed, but there is no point in carrying any more, The additional fuel tank would be used on long haul flights over the Pacific.
Hmmm. Good point.
No, of course not.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Doesn't sound right.
One theory is that one of our own missles hit it. I haven't heard much about that theory lately though.
The NTSB set up tests over in England, conveniently out of sight, where they tried to recreate the fuel explosion scenario. They failed. Eventually they had to fake them in the the manner of the GM truck fiasco to get any results that they could allude to.
Jet A is like kerosine, it vaporises at about 185 degrees and even then does not explode like gasoline.
I'm not familiar with aviation practices, but you are saying can't be true.
Even your car has a pressurized fuel tank, and for good reason. Otherwise all that would be left after a few months of non-use would be a sludgy-sticky liquid that would clog the injectors. Pour a little gasoline in an open dish and leave it outside, in the shade, for a few hours to see for yourself.
An unpressurized fuel tank at 30,000 feet would lose many of the key fuel ingredients within a few minutes, leaving behind a low grade fuel.
I’m not a chemical engineer either, but my guess would be that the fuel would be closer to a diesel fuel grade (energy wise) after an hour or two at 30-35,000 feet than even a gasoline grade, and certainly not something that would burn efficiently in a jet engine. It probably would clog the fuel system even before it got to the engine itself.
Bottom line, the tanks are probably pressurized to at least sea level.
It would be helpful to get someone with aircraft experience to chime in.
Good thing GOD won't give him a pass. He has a lot to answer for.
Changes were made to operating procedures to address the "found" (or fabricated) cause of ignition. I don't recall exactly what the changes were, but may have been to never have an empty center fuel tank.
I heard a while back that people thought it could have been one of our own missles (Navy 'wargames' going on nearby) that shot it down. Of course they want to cover THAT up.
Exactly! It's been reported that there was an Iraqi involved with McVeigh and could very well have been behind this terrorist attack as well.
read "THE 3RD TERRORIST" amazon.com
"Why would a plane bound for Paris have an empty fuel tank?"
Shhh...you're ruining it. Only a minute percentage of NYT readers would catch that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.