SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: jcky who wrote (4078)11/12/2001 2:39:05 PM
From: Lane3  Respond to of 14610
 
I'm not proposing a failed turbine engine was the cause of the crash (though, it is still plausible).

Mary Sciavo was just on MSNBC indicating that the engine was her first choice among possibilities.

Karen



To: jcky who wrote (4078)11/12/2001 2:46:54 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 14610
 
I just saw a photo of the engine that landed on the house - it looked fairly intact to me.

Remember when the first guy got anthrax, and everyone said don't worry, it's a coincidence?

Well, it's also a strange coincidence that we're at war and one of our planes explodes.



To: jcky who wrote (4078)11/12/2001 3:02:20 PM
From: Ilaine  Respond to of 14610
 
I just located some photos of the engine that fell on the house - post 809 on this link:

freerepublic.com

I know zip about planes, but that engine does not look as if it exploded. It may have failed in some other way, but if so, what would that do?



To: jcky who wrote (4078)11/12/2001 3:17:11 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 14610
 
On the other hand, it appears that one of the engines had 9,788 hours on it, and was due for an overhaul. So maybe it's got a natural explanation, after all?

nytimes.com