46 injured in balloon explosion in Turkey (hundreds of ballons expode at political rally)

Ananova ^ | 4/27/02 | Staff

[boris]

P.S. Your "I think" applied to the flashpoint of hydrogen. The rest of your statement is not modified by "I think".

[Teacher317]

Hydrogen can be a liquid if kept very cold. It is not "a gas" at all conditions. See: Space Shuttle.

That certainly didn't help the Challenger very much, though.

[TC Rider]

They were probably smoking a cigarette or doing something stupid.

Note to Islamic radicals: Allah loves you more when you fill balloons and burn American flags in same area.

[Mortimer Snavely]

Turkey got rid of Sharia law back in 1923 and has been fighting Islamic nut cases ever since. Religion plays no part in public policy making to the extent that only civil, not religious, marriages are legal. Back during the Korean War Turkish troops were the only Allied POWs who the Reds were unable to break, brainwash, and turn traitor.

Turkey also has extensive military and economic ties with Israel, allowing the Israeli Air Force access to Turkish air space for high speed exercises which require vast amounts of space.

Modern Turkey also contributes the second largest number of troops to NATO, and is one of those heathen secular democratic states which the Islamicists wish to destroy. Those are just a couple of reasons why Turco-American relations are so important.

Here's another:

[PatrioticAmerican]

#19 - ping. LOL!

[Travis McGee]

Geez Louise!

[Mortimer Snavely]

"Justice and Development Party"

Aren't these the same guys who were the "Welfare Party?"

[a_Turk]

The Welfare party crowd broke up to yield two parties. This one contains the progressive religionists. The real backward ones are have their own party. I don't care for either, but they'll be around so long as we can't afford more educational opportunities for our public.

[boris]

"That certainly didn't help the Challenger very much, though."

It was, of course, the solid rocket boosters that destroyed Challenger.

A friend of mine went to a conference, at which an employee of Thiokol (makers of the poorly-designed solids) stated that Challenger marked "the end of liquid propulsion."

Why? my colleague asked.

"If it hadn't been for that big tank of liquid propellants, there wouldn't have been a disaster," was the reply.

My friend pressed on. "So, when a solid fails, it is the end of liquids. Suppose one of our liquid-propellant engines had failed, flung a turbine blade into one of the solids and caused it to explode. Would that, too, be 'the end of liquid propulsion'?"

"Yes."

"Why?"

"Because then it would have been the liquids' fault!"

In other words, when a liquid fails, it is the liquid's fault; when a solid fails, it is also the liquid's fault.

This reminds me of liberal/socialist/soviet logic, or perhaps 1984; I'm not sure.

--Boris

[Teacher317]

I didn't know the shuttle's hydrogen tanks were solid propellants. I learn something new every day on FR!

[boris]

"I didn't know the shuttle's hydrogen tanks were solid propellants. I learn something new every day on FR!"

Well, to belabor the obvious, the solid guy's thinking was, a little gas leak from our solid wouldn't have been a big problem except that it ignited those nasty liquid propellants next door.

--Boris