You're a hysterical idiot.
There is NO evidence that a bomb blew up that plane.
You can distrust the government all you want, but experienced airline people are all saying that catastrophic engine failure is likely, since these GE CF-6 engines have had problems for ten years.
You got that right. Sheesh.
There is NO evidence that a bomb blew up that plane.Of course! Everyone knows: it was a scud missile! ;-)
Actually, there's way more evidence that there was a bomb than not (little things like people hearing an explosion and pieces like the wing and engine falling off and landing away from the main crash site).
If anybody is hysterical it is you, I'm LMAO at your posts!
Correct. Appreciate your attempts at sanity on this thread.
It seems as if many folks want the crash to be the result of a terrorist.
I don't have much trust in government either but this instant analysis and final conclusions based on limited information is pointless. Too many know-it-alls who don't know much but like to think they do. Yes siree, can't fool those folks. They KNOW.
I'll hold judgement until we see more information and if the government witholds too much information or gets all coy about responding to questions and showing proof of simple mechanical failure then I'll get on the 'terrorists did it' bandwagon. It's a little too early for that at this point.
Since you appear to have a level perspective on this, I'll address this one to you. :-) This from another commercial pilot on Avsig:
"Ok, here's my put. The engine guys will have sorted out whether an engine was failed and by what circumstance by noon tomorrow. The aircraft structures guys are going to have a bigger job sorting out possible aerodynamic wing damage (e.g. El AL)and the Systems guys an even bigger job to sort out the hydraulics and backups to control surfaces.
Seeing the Vertical stab without visible damage really caught me by surprise. I noted that the rudders were missing as well. I guess I'll have to wait for the Public Hearing for that explanation.
The first thing I would go for is the condition of the fan rub strips and blade tips (tells a lot about gyro loading and running vs failed engines).
The engine shown at the gas station sure had a good looking nose spinner which had to be attached to a good fan disk.
The CF6 80 C2 sure has lots of experience and nothing even remotely close to such an outcome, so I'm sure that we we'll get some surprises here.
Look for tomorrow night's NTSB briefing to close down the speculations a good bit as they report what the engines and nacelles look like.
FYI...