2 civilian airliners down south of Moscow

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Vaughn"
Date: 8/26/2004 5:20 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


It would be *very* tricky to fuel just 2 a/c - and no others - with
contaminated fuel.

One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could manage
that
trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.

Vaughn

Assuming a truck on the scale of an R-5 and full fuel loads on both
aircraft it
is not likely both aircraft would be able to be refueled from the same
truck.
Of course it depends on initial fule levels in both aircraft

And the odds that both aircraft would then crash at about the same time,
even though one had been in the air quite a bit longer and covered a lot
more distance away from the departure point? The fuel bit has been a
long-shot from the get-go when you consider that fact, along with the
transponder signal reported to have been received from one aircraft. If the
latest reports indicating that no out-of-the-ordinary conversations were
heard on the CVR's proves to be true, then you can nail the coffin door shut
on "bad fuel".

Brooks


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 8/26/2004 2:24 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Vaughn"
Date: 8/26/2004 5:20 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


It would be *very* tricky to fuel just 2 a/c - and no others - with
contaminated fuel.

One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could manage
that
trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.

Vaughn

Assuming a truck on the scale of an R-5 and full fuel loads on both
aircraft it
is not likely both aircraft would be able to be refueled from the same
truck.
Of course it depends on initial fule levels in both aircraft

And the odds that both aircraft would then crash at about the same time,
even though one had been in the air quite a bit longer and covered a lot
more distance away from the departure point? The fuel bit has been a
long-shot from the get-go when you consider that fact, along with the
transponder signal reported to have been received from one aircraft. If the
latest reports indicating that no out-of-the-ordinary conversations were
heard on the CVR's proves to be true, then you can nail the coffin door shut
on "bad fuel".

Brooks


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

There is absolutely no reason the crashes could be purely coincidental. The
odds of that being the case are extremely long however.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 8/26/2004 2:24 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Vaughn"
Date: 8/26/2004 5:20 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:



"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


It would be *very* tricky to fuel just 2 a/c - and no others - with
contaminated fuel.

One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could
manage
that
trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.

Vaughn

Assuming a truck on the scale of an R-5 and full fuel loads on both
aircraft it
is not likely both aircraft would be able to be refueled from the same
truck.
Of course it depends on initial fule levels in both aircraft

And the odds that both aircraft would then crash at about the same time,
even though one had been in the air quite a bit longer and covered a lot
more distance away from the departure point? The fuel bit has been a
long-shot from the get-go when you consider that fact, along with the
transponder signal reported to have been received from one aircraft. If
the
latest reports indicating that no out-of-the-ordinary conversations were
heard on the CVR's proves to be true, then you can nail the coffin door
shut
on "bad fuel".

Brooks


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

There is absolutely no reason the crashes could be purely coincidental.

I assume you meant to put a "not" in there after "could".

The
odds of that being the case are extremely long however.

The odds of it being a fuel problem are even more remote.

Brooks


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 8/26/2004 10:44 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 8/26/2004 2:24 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Vaughn"
Date: 8/26/2004 5:20 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:



"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


It would be *very* tricky to fuel just 2 a/c - and no others - with
contaminated fuel.

One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could
manage
that
trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.

Vaughn

Assuming a truck on the scale of an R-5 and full fuel loads on both
aircraft it
is not likely both aircraft would be able to be refueled from the same
truck.
Of course it depends on initial fule levels in both aircraft

And the odds that both aircraft would then crash at about the same time,
even though one had been in the air quite a bit longer and covered a lot
more distance away from the departure point? The fuel bit has been a
long-shot from the get-go when you consider that fact, along with the
transponder signal reported to have been received from one aircraft. If
the
latest reports indicating that no out-of-the-ordinary conversations were
heard on the CVR's proves to be true, then you can nail the coffin door
shut
on "bad fuel".

Brooks


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

There is absolutely no reason the crashes could be purely coincidental.

I assume you meant to put a "not" in
there after "could".

I did, thanks for pointing it out.


The
odds of that being the case are extremely long however.

The odds of it being a fuel problem are even more remote.

Brooks


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Hexogen explosive traces found in the Tu-154 wreck (confirmed/ reported from
Russia). One Chechenian women suspected since nobody asked for her
(speculation). Islambouli Brigades allegedly took responsibility.

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

Nele VII wrote:

Hexogen explosive traces found in the Tu-154 wreck (confirmed/ reported
from Russia). One Chechenian women suspected since nobody asked for her
(speculation). Islambouli Brigades allegedly took responsibility.

Widely disbelieved - they have taken responsability for a lot of other
things in the past, which were later proven to be bogus.

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

....except for our patented, genetically modified ones! Never again need your
loved one moan "and if you prickle us don't we bleed?"
--
Mailman


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

(B2431) wrote in message ...
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 8/26/2004 2:24 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Vaughn"
Date: 8/26/2004 5:20 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


It would be *very* tricky to fuel just 2 a/c - and no others - with
contaminated fuel.

One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could manage
that
trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.

Vaughn

Assuming a truck on the scale of an R-5 and full fuel loads on both
aircraft it
is not likely both aircraft would be able to be refueled from the same
truck.
Of course it depends on initial fule levels in both aircraft

And the odds that both aircraft would then crash at about the same time,
even though one had been in the air quite a bit longer and covered a lot
more distance away from the departure point? The fuel bit has been a
long-shot from the get-go when you consider that fact, along with the
transponder signal reported to have been received from one aircraft. If the
latest reports indicating that no out-of-the-ordinary conversations were
heard on the CVR's proves to be true, then you can nail the coffin door shut
on "bad fuel".

Brooks


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

There is absolutely no reason the crashes could be purely coincidental. The
odds of that being the case are extremely long however.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


more than the unlikely odds of an aircraft crashing multiplied by two.
if the odds of being in an aircraft crash are in excess of 14 million
to one, the odds of two aircraft departing the same airport on the
same day, within 40 minutes of each other, both involving inflight
catastrophic loss.

i have no idea how many zero's the odds would involve !

f the odds of being in an aircraft crash are in excess of 14 million
to one, the odds of two aircraft departing the same airport on the
same day, within 40 minutes of each other, both involving inflight
catastrophic loss.

i have no idea how many zero's the odds would involve !

The odds have now become moot, with the announcement that explosive residue has
been found among the debris. Its inevitable that the other impact site will
reveal some similar agent at work. We're counting angels on the head of a pin
while Islamist 'soldiers' strike civilians the world over - I have no doubt
they will be found to be the culprits in this case. During the Yugoslav wars
of succession, I supported the hard-pressed Muslim civilians and I still do.
But when I pass a middle eastern man on the street, I see him now as a
potential enemy soldier, someone to be wary of. That this alienates me from a
billion of my fellow men bothers me, however I understand we are at war.
These airliners were downed by enemy action.

nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message ...
f the odds of being in an aircraft crash are in excess of 14 million
to one, the odds of two aircraft departing the same airport on the
same day, within 40 minutes of each other, both involving inflight
catastrophic loss.

i have no idea how many zero's the odds would involve !

The odds have now become moot, with the announcement that explosive residue has
been found among the debris.

not for those damn conspirowhcko's it isnt.

Its inevitable that the other impact site will
reveal some similar agent at work. We're counting angels on the head of a
pin

i dont know what that means ?

while Islamist 'soldiers' strike civilians the world over - I have no doubt
they will be found to be the culprits in this case.

claimed responsibility included the basis of russian acts against the
chechen muslims.

During the Yugoslav wars
of succession, I supported the hard-pressed Muslim civilians and I still do.

i supported no side and still dont, all made claims against the other
side for doing the same thing as they were doing.

But when I pass a middle eastern man on the street, I see him now as a
potential enemy soldier, someone to be wary of.

thats hardly a sound basis to work on is it, concluding that everyone
from a geographical region is an islamic fundamentalist.

That this alienates me from a
billion of my fellow men bothers me,

i shouldnt think it's that alone that alienates you

however I understand we are at war.

really! at war with who? what is the capabilities of this state, of
whom we are at war with, tell me about their air force, their navy, or
army. what's the history of their military forces and previous
involvements.

These airliners were downed by enemy action.

really! with technology able to provide guided weapons from a
distance, their military forces must be a little underfunded if guided
weaponry has to be hand carried, their ground forces wont serve too
well will they? whats the political basis of this state we are at war
with ? can their forces lobby for increased military spending, you
would think they would have thought about that before getting into a
war.

personally speaking, it has the representation of an act of terrorism.