John Ranalletta Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 Having spent more than a few of the last 24 hours suspended at 37,000 feet over the Pacific in Oakland Oceanics space, it's quite a relief knowing only a couple of fellow passengers would have been blown to bits. However, the experts said that the death of the suspected bomber and the passenger beside him would have been traumatic for passengers. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255722/Test-explosion-shows-Christmas-Day-flight-landed-bomb-detonated.html#ixzz0hYbb1kro Link to comment
philbytx Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 Bah! BBC = UK Government controlled media! Ahh! The poor little confused rich kid. He really wasn't that bad of a terrorist! Multicultural society, my arse!!! Link to comment
upflying Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 Has anyone reported what damage and injuries the diaper bomber sustained to his genitalia? Whatever happpens, we are getting the last laugh. Link to comment
SageRider Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 Nowhere is it stated that the test recreated the cabin pressure to ambient pressure at altitude differential. I wonder what a difference that might have made to the results... Link to comment
motoguy128 Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Nowhere is it stated that the test recreated the cabin pressure to ambient pressure at altitude differential. I wonder what a difference that might have made to the results... True, but the cabin pressure is self regulating and given the size of the cabin, the valves that regulate pressure may have had enough capacity to prefent overpressure of the cabin. The cabine may also have large pressure relief valves as well. It seems like thsi is too small of a explosion to have a catasrophic effect of the structure. But I do agree, it would be nice if they specifically included or mentioned that in their tests. Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Even if a true detonation had occurred (rather than the ordinary combustion that actually took place), I think the location of the bomb - tucked between the bomber's legs, some distance from the fuselage wall - would have offered the fuselage some protection from the direct effects of the shock wave. re: cabin pressure, According to Wikipedia, the cabin was not pressurized during the test. Note that the bombing attempt took place 20 minutes prior to landing, when the plane would have been at relatively low altitude, resulting in a very modest pressure differential. Link to comment
John Ranalletta Posted March 9, 2010 Author Share Posted March 9, 2010 I feel better now knowing that the only problem might have been testicular bits in the fruit salad. Link to comment
John Ranalletta Posted March 9, 2010 Author Share Posted March 9, 2010 Welcome back to the States! Thanks, Larry. Good to be home again, but while on this trip, someone suggested the next locale might be Malaysia. Not sure I'm up for that. Link to comment
tallman Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Gives a new meaning to safe sax. Link to comment
Harry_Wilshusen Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Even if a true detonation had occurred (rather than the ordinary combustion that actually took place), I think the location of the bomb - tucked between the bomber's legs, some distance from the fuselage wall - would have offered the fuselage some protection from the direct effects of the shock wave. re: cabin pressure, According to Wikipedia, the cabin was not pressurized during the test. Note that the bombing attempt took place 20 minutes prior to landing, when the plane would have been at relatively low altitude, resulting in a very modest pressure differential. But what if he mooned the window? Harry Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.