Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (340307)	12/28/2009 12:21:17 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 793982

Less time for the pilots to try to recover. More oxygen to feed the flames.

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (340307)	12/28/2009 12:58:21 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793982

More ground casualties.

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (340307)	12/28/2009 4:11:37 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793982

I promise you can take this to the bank. Other than splattering blood, 3 ounces of high explosive enclosed by and smothered by an adult human body is going to be no more than minimally invasive to anything else in the vicinity. He may have been sitting above a fuel tank but he was not going to damage that tank while seated in an aircraft seat with 3 ounces in his BVDs. AQ's demo men know that. They are highly skilled. Therefore I do not believe the intent was to take out the aircraft by damaging the fuel tank. I can think of one specialty charge that might puncture a fuel tank with three ounces. It is usually made with C-4, but it would have to be within 2 inches or less of the tank when detonated to even have a chance to do so. Even then it would be a hole no more than a dime in diameter and in the top. The only way to get it to leak would be to fly the acft upside down.