Moon Watcher wrote:

I told here that the airflow disruption would exact too large of a sustained efficiency penalty in return for some protection against pretty rare engine-snuffing bird strikes. There also would be a weight penalty. I imagine that screens could come unfastened and be sucked into the engines themselves. I also imagine that screens may be susceptible to accumulating ice under certain conditions.

Considering that birdstrikes:

• dent leading edges
• shatter radomes, and
• obliterate windshields/canopies,

a "screen" would have to be manufactured from prohibitively dense and heavy material of sufficient heft to withstand/absorb the impact of an 8lb goose at ~200 knots (2,700 ft/lbs of force, roughly - if my math is correct). And, yes, icing would also be a significant issue. (See: F-117 development challenges)

illflux wrote:

The guy in the upper right has his life preserver on backwards (I think?).

At least he has one on (and it's inflated) -- too many passengers, in my opinion, didn't have any flotation devices on and a couple that did, didn't inflate theirs.

The portions of the wings that aren't marked as walkways (most of the upper surface) can be very slippery, especially when wet. Similarly, while the inflatable slides can serve as rafts, they're not the most stable of boats. If any of those passengers who weren't wearing their floatation collars, or didn't have them inflated would have fallen into the 41° water, they'd have likely gone into hypothermic shock and drowned before they could have been rescued.

But maybe he can perform a visual comparison...

Mt. Everest's glaciers: 1921 vs 2008 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enJ9F8WKXVU

Taking a cue from the McCain/Palin campaign, it seems that Bobby Jindal believes that a compelling lie is better than the truth, as this is the first mention of his story about Sheriff Harry Lee fighting a government bureaucrat to mount a rescue. Lee is conveniently dead and can neither confirm nor deny the story.

Furthermore, Jindal was in Baton Rouge through at least September 1, making it highly unlikely that he was on-scene in the Sheriff's office to mount an immediate post-Katrina rescue.

It sounds like Jindal is combining two different events, which occurred in two different jurisdictions, neither of which involved him.

See:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/24/23132/9395/253/701495

Despite plenty of press-conferencing by then-Congressman Jindal in the days immediately following Katrina's landfall, this is the first mention of his story about Sheriff Harry Lee fighting a government bureaucrat to mount a rescue by boat. Lee is conveniently dead and can neither confirm nor deny the story and Jindal, was apparently, the only person in the room, according to him.

Furthermore, Jindal was in Baton Rouge through at least September 1, making it highly unlikely that he was on-scene in the Sheriff's office to mount an immediate post-Katrina rescue.

It sounds like Jindal is combining multiple different events, which occurred in different jurisdictions, none of which involved him.

See:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/24/23132/9395/253/701495

and:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110007224

@something stinks: I think what you were trying to infer was that the crashes of AA77 and UA93 in Arlington and Shanksville were, in fact, cover stories for conspiratorial attacks by a U.S. cabal against itself, based on the fact that the crash sites were largely devoid of large portions of the aircraft involved, right?

I think you need to remove your tinfoil hat and re-take basic Newtonian physics.

When you do, pay extra close attention to: F=ma and E=mv^2

The amount of energy rises exponentially with velocity, so a full-loaded 767-300ER at approach speed (let's say ~ 150 KIAS) has far, far, far less energy than a 767-300ER of exactly the same mass traveling at say, 550 KIAS. (Of course, in reality, the disparity is even greater, as a plane on approach has far less mass than shortly after taking off, having burned through most of its fuel fraction.)

So, when that faster 767-300ER comes to a sudden stop against an immovable object, such as the ground, or a large, stone, steel and concrete building, the force it imparts is much greater than the force of a slower 767-300ER slamming into the same object.

According to Newton's third law of motion, any force applied is countered by an equal force along the opposite vector, meaning that the faster aircraft has a much greater force applied to it by the object, so the destructive effects will be exponentially greater... Or do you believe that Sir Isaac was also in on 9/11.

--

Of course, there's also the little issue about hundreds of civilians, including a very good friend of mine, who watched Flight 77 slam into the E-ring... unless you think the government used some sort of giant Men-In-Black memory-modification ray at the exact same moment that they 'bombed' their own buildings... because I saw her in person, less than three hours after the crash.