I see..."let the experts handle it," hunh? Well, listen: if you have the necessary IQ to be an informed democratic citizen, you can think for yourself. You don't have to let government officials who claim to have "more information" than you do it---you don't even have to have aviation experts do it for you.
For the last 36 hours, before the flames were extinguished, before the black boxes were found, I've heard that this was "just an accident," that there was some bird that flew into the engine, that there was "uncontained engine failure," that the pilot had dumped fuel, that there was nothing unusual heard in the cockpit before the crash. All from government officials or their spokesmen. All later shown to be false or unsubstantiated.
And maybe you don't remember, but 60 days ago there was an aviation disaster that was due to two airliners "mechanically failing" to fly through two skyscraper towers without blowing up and destroying the buildings. And the people who caused that "mechanical failure" have announced they expect some more.
So I guess we have to part ways on this, buddy. All the tiresome sarcasm you and your codependents can muster won't prevent me from examining what the government says about this disaster with a critical mind. If that means I'm a "tinfoil hat brigadier," then I've just bought stock in Alcoa, pal.
How many EMD SD-90MACS does it take to exert that much starting tractive effort?
You probably don't even know what the hell that means.
But I guarantee, that you will be the first one here, telling everyone exactly how the next train wreck happened, before the derailed cars even come to rest.
Not because you have an ounce of expertise whatsoever, but because your total distrust of anyone in a position of authority trumps that.
What the government says is not the only thing that should be examined with a critical mind -- everything should be examined with a critical mind.