Posted on 11/12/2001 5:30:38 AM PST by Attila_the_Hun
AA Passenger plane has crashed in Queens, live video on Fox News... Developing!
My post to you somehow disappeared; pardon me if this is a repost.
802.1X/RADIUS is a IETF network standard, it is not originated from Microsoft, but XP implements it. So do some network switches (Cisco).
Routing control packets to the right tower along the flight path is, of course, no problem.
They'd better not be allowing departures just yet. Anyway, my station is saying that the NY airports are closed.
If we hear shortly that all airports are closed again, I won't be surprised.
Intuition works best in times like these; summing up a scenario from a fast integration of the sensed, the subconsciously sensed, and intellect.
Barring any capability for that, assume the worst, and disprove it. It's a better way to guard.
Awfully confused right now, I suspect the WH should keep its mouth shut if they did, in fact, say anything. But given that they've got the plane and engine on land, a prelimary cause should be found (relatively) soon as aircraft investigations go.
Yeah, we wouldn't want to defend ourselves.
Tell me, do you lock the door of your home? Of your office? Of your car? Yet you want your country's doors to remain open and unlocked.
Why do you protect yourself but not your country? Has it occured to you that you are part of your country, and that if something happens to your country, it happens to you?
First unlock all your own doors and leave them open, then you can tell your country to leave its doors unlocked and opened.
Wrong on about four counts.
#1. Early eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence in any investigation.
#2. There is no "strongest part of the plane." Each part is designed to do a job, within certain stress and load ranges. The wing SPAR is very strong. It connects the two wings and transfers the load and weight to and from the fuselage to and from the wings.
#3. No wing, or any other part "falls off." Detatchment has a cause. It can be breakage, a lose screw, metal fatigue leading to fracture, etc, airload overload, over loading the aircraft is manouvers, etc. Nothing "falls off." There is a reason for everything.
Fuselages do not fall off wings, nor do wings fall off fuselages. They may seperate and if they do, plane will crash, but there is no "falling off." <#4> There are numerous reasons a wing spar and therefore wing will fail causing total loss of A/C. The disintegration of the first stage impeller disk on an engine, and failure of the containment shroud is the most likely, especiually considering engine placement on Airbus 300.
A midair or bomb are very unlikely causess. They are certainly not the only reason A/C would crash.
Wrong on about four counts.
#1. Early eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence in any investigation.
#2. There is no "strongest part of the plane." Each part is designed to do a job, within certain stress and load ranges. The wing SPAR is very strong. It connects the two wings and transfers the load and weight to and from the fuselage to and from the wings.
#3. No wing, or any other part "falls off." Detatchment has a cause. It can be breakage, a lose screw, metal fatigue leading to fracture, etc, airload overload, over loading the aircraft is manouvers, etc. Nothing "falls off." There is a reason for everything.
Fuselages do not fall off wings, nor do wings fall off fuselages. They may seperate and if they do, plane will crash, but there is no "falling off."
#4 There are numerous reasons a wing spar and therefore wing will fail causing total loss of A/C. The disintegration of the first stage impeller disk on an engine, and failure of the containment shroud resulting in foreign object penetration of the wing spar is the most likely, especiually considering engine placement on Airbus 300.
A midair or bomb are very unlikely causess. They are certainly not the only reason A/C would crash.
Sorry if I'm being ignorant, but there is no school on Veterans Day? I thought there was...
No pelicans in Jamaica Bay. However, it bears to KIM that this was an old Airbus and it did crash shortly after takeoff. At this point I vote for non-terrorist.
One such site was carved into a mountain side. Upon landing, the pilot immediately hits the brakes to avoid hitting the mountain side.
For takeoff, they pushed the aircraft backwards against the mountainside and revved the engines to their max while holding the brakes. At the last possible second, the brakes are released and the craft heads for the edge where it falls off downward in a steep dive to acquire enough speed for lift after which it then levels out and begins climbing to avoid the surrounding mountains.
It requires a LOT of faith to be a missionary considering the risks they are exposed to. Ignorant people often consider missionaries/preacher/evangelists as being somewhat less than brave, but that doesn't reflect the reality of their commitment.
I was once in a plane that hit one of those legendary clear air turbulances. During that incident, I had to reach down and pull myself back into the seat because I was floating in the air. Afterwards, the pilot announced that the plane dropped 2000 feet from the encounter.
I'd hate to experience a drop like that every time I took off in a plane. It would definately fill me with fear knowing that I was going to experience the equivilent of a parachuteless free fall.
It took twenty five years before I got on a plane again, and to make matters worse, it was on a business trip to New York that I couldn't avoid and it was on the day after the Challenger explosion.
Perhaps we had a 'Sky Marshall' onboard and he was able to report in before the crash, indicating an explosion and/or more.
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.