the_can_of_paint_modifier
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
the_can_of_paint_modifier [2012/03/25 01:14] tom |
the_can_of_paint_modifier [2012/03/25 01:15] tom |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Having had no background in aviation; some of the terminology and abbreviations, at first, were alien to me. However, the useful tool of the Internet has gone a long way in assisting me to make adequate judgments on prioritizing and making decisions as to how the matter of United Flight 823 should be presented. I can humbly make the personal statement that this website is not the end all or be all, so the reader should not presume that that is my position. Instead, I see my purpose more as an interested party who wishes to raise questions that the reader might see worthwhile in considering. Above all else, I would remind the reader that the Federal Aviation Administration, nor anyone else, has found conclusive evidence as to the cause of the inflight fire that took place on July 9, 1964. Saying that, I would ask the reader if it is best to accept that there will never be real answers, or is it better to carry on in an attempt to find out exactly what happened? | Having had no background in aviation; some of the terminology and abbreviations, at first, were alien to me. However, the useful tool of the Internet has gone a long way in assisting me to make adequate judgments on prioritizing and making decisions as to how the matter of United Flight 823 should be presented. I can humbly make the personal statement that this website is not the end all or be all, so the reader should not presume that that is my position. Instead, I see my purpose more as an interested party who wishes to raise questions that the reader might see worthwhile in considering. Above all else, I would remind the reader that the Federal Aviation Administration, nor anyone else, has found conclusive evidence as to the cause of the inflight fire that took place on July 9, 1964. Saying that, I would ask the reader if it is best to accept that there will never be real answers, or is it better to carry on in an attempt to find out exactly what happened? | ||
| - | It is tempting to view the task as insurmountable and just assign it to the "dustbin of history", but I would, once again, remind the reader of the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Investigation|Pan Am flight 103 investigation]] that took place after an aircraft was destroyed over Lockerbie, Scotland. A tiny piece of a circuit board from a cassette player took investigators in the direction that eventually led to the identification of those responsible for placing a bomb on the aircraft that killed 243 passengers and 16 crew members. | + | It is tempting to view the task as insurmountable and just assign it to the "dustbin of history", but I would remind the reader of the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Investigation|Pan Am flight 103 investigation]] that took place after an aircraft was destroyed over Lockerbie, Scotland. A tiny piece of a circuit board from a cassette player took investigators in the direction that eventually led to the identification of those responsible for placing a bomb on the aircraft that killed 243 passengers and 16 crew members. |
| - | One paragraph, on Page 9 of the[[[[http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A\DOT_56GB\airplane%20accidents\websearch\070964.pdf|Civil Aeronautics Board Aircraft Accident Report]]deserves a good amount of scrutiny: **"An inflight fire existed in the passenger-occupied portion of the cabin. The only flammable liquid carried as a part of the airplane above the fuselage floor is hydraulic fluid in a reservoir located in a compartment between the carry-on luggage rack and the lavatory. The reservoir was damaged by impact and fire and was empty. Another source of flammable liquid known to have been aboard the aircraft was a one-gallon can containing a commercial paint modifier. This can was recovered in the wreckage area, crushed with no evidence of fire damage to either the can or its paper wrapping."** | + | One paragraph, on Page 9 of the [[http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A\DOT_56GB\airplane%20accidents\websearch\070964.pdf|Civil Aeronautics Board Aircraft Accident Report]]deserves a good amount of scrutiny: **"An inflight fire existed in the passenger-occupied portion of the cabin. The only flammable liquid carried as a part of the airplane above the fuselage floor is hydraulic fluid in a reservoir located in a compartment between the carry-on luggage rack and the lavatory. The reservoir was damaged by impact and fire and was empty. Another source of flammable liquid known to have been aboard the aircraft was a one-gallon can containing a commercial paint modifier. This can was recovered in the wreckage area, crushed with no evidence of fire damage to either the can or its paper wrapping."** |
| The first part of the above paragraph, that mentioned the hydraulic fluid reservoir, specifically stated that the reservoir was empty. The last part of the above paragraph mentions a one gallon can //containing// a flammable paint modifier. If one were to parse words, the first operative word is "containing", which I take to mean the one gallon vessel still held liquid. The second operative word is "crushed". I'm left to wonder how a can, containing a liquid, could still be viable in the sense that the liquid would still remain present in the can in spite of the can being crushed. | The first part of the above paragraph, that mentioned the hydraulic fluid reservoir, specifically stated that the reservoir was empty. The last part of the above paragraph mentions a one gallon can //containing// a flammable paint modifier. If one were to parse words, the first operative word is "containing", which I take to mean the one gallon vessel still held liquid. The second operative word is "crushed". I'm left to wonder how a can, containing a liquid, could still be viable in the sense that the liquid would still remain present in the can in spite of the can being crushed. | ||
the_can_of_paint_modifier.txt · Last modified: 2012/04/02 00:20 by tom
Page Tools
