![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Peter Skelton" wrote in message ... On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:57:31 +0100, "Keith Willshaw" wrote: Only if it were still functional after the initial explosion, given the scale of the damage done by what was to all intents a 50 ton FAE thats unlikely. The issue is moot however since the major damage was done by the initial explosion I doubt there'd have been an explosion of anythihg like that magnitude. There was , read the bloody report. ??????? There was? this is a sequence that did *not* happen. You might argue that there would have been, but what you typed is nonsense. From the report "Approximately 50 tons of cyclohexane was released, mixed with air, and exploded" A lot of material had to leak fast. It did, , read the bloody report. See above I repeat from the report "Approximately 50 tons of cyclohexane was released, mixed with air, and exploded" Are you going to turn into Tarver now ? Continually denying that a large explosion occurred is not smart given the incontrovertible evidence that it did. Keith ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|