Ian Goddard wrote:
> >but when the thing first happened, i thought i recall the investigators
so i really did hear this? they suggested an explosion originating
inside the tank? what i wonder is how they proposed sufficient
oxygen got in there, assuming a spark. sparks are easy. would
> >proposing an explosion that originated *inside* the fuel tank.
>
> IAN: Before that became the leading theory
> they canned the theory.
> >im not too concerned about the 29 second plunge tho.
ya, ive followed your argument, but the way i would explain the
report is a kind of one way tendency by the investigators
to underreport the plunge time. their motives would not
need to be evil. i would suppose many or most of the
passengers survived the original blast, and no one wants
to even imagine those poor folks living long under those
horrifying conditions of being in a burning plane plunging
toward the sea. i figured they just picked the most optimistic
(shortest) estimate of descent time.
>
> IAN: For me, you can't break physical
> law, and saying an object with negative
> aerodynamic advantage could fall from zero...
the idea of an explosion originating *inside* a fuel tank, that really bothers me tho. why couldnt it happen again? {8-[ spike