If it ran out of fuel before it crashed, then why would have any of the bodies be 'charred beyond recognition',as was reported yesterday?
What was left to burn?
""If it ran out of fuel before it crashed, then why would have any of the bodies be 'charred beyond recognition',as was reported yesterday? ""
Freezer-burn.
"Out of fuel" doesn't mean bone-dry. There's still probably several hundred pounds of kerosene, maybe more, onboard the plane (much like your car tank will still have a little gas in it even after the engine quits). Or, maybe they had the engines drawing off one tank and it ran out but there was fuel in the others, and nobody to switch to them. I think a 737-300 has three tanks, one in each wing and one in the fuselage, but I don't know if the pilots have to manually switch back and forth or if it automatically draws until all three tanks are empty.
}:-)4
Don't know. Brief clips I saw on TV news of the crash site showed heavily burning wreckage. Also, the crash debris appeared to be scattered over a wide area, suggesting aircraft breakup in flight.
When a plane runs out of fuel, it goes pretty much straight down, and the wreckage is found in a relatively compact area. That's the way it was in the Payne Stewart accident. That's the way it was with the hijacked plane that crash in Pennsylvania on 9/11/01 (although that one was deliberately forced straight down vs. running out of fuel).
I suspect governments and the airlines don't want to admit to Islamofreak hijackings and crashes anymore because of the impact to the aviation industry. Remember the three Russian airliners that were hijacked almost simultaneously a few years ago? The Russians tried every which way to claim they were accidents.