| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| BBC "proves" Pantibomber couldn't have broken the airplane |
| 2010-03-06 |
| A bomb on board a U.S. Christmas Day flight would have failed to bring the plane down even if it had been detonated successfully, a new test explosion suggests. A controlled blast on a Boeing 747, using the same explosives that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is accused of smuggling on board, failed to burst the fuselage. A bomb on board a U.S. Christmas Day flight would have failed to bring the plane down even if it had been detonated successfully, a new test explosion suggests. A controlled blast on a Boeing 747, using the same explosives that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is accused of smuggling on board, failed to burst the fuselage. It means, had the bomb exploded on December 25, Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit would have successfully landed. |
| Posted by: |
| #9 would be nice if the BBC had put at least that much effort in verifying the Climate Change claims. Kinda like the Dubai assassination investigation where they seem to have spent a couple year's budget on one dead asshole. I guess the budget matches desired outcome. Go figure |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-03-06 19:50 |
| #8 BBC should have used an identical aircraft in their test; IIRC the a/c involved was an Airbus A 319 or 320, not a B-747. Different build details and different interior volume to absorb the shock. Regarding the Aloha flight; that strucutral failure was due to several things, key being cyclic fatigue of the structure due to the pressurization / depressurization requirements of the flight (constant exposure to the salty air environment didn't help any). That accident led to the FAA's Aging Aircraft Inspection Program, and uncovered many more like it. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2010-03-06 19:43 |
| #7 I think they're asking the wrong questions. the right question is: could it puncture the center fuel tank? |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-03-06 19:37 |
| #6 i still don't think i would want too be on a plane with a man whose crotch is blowing up |
| Posted by: chris 2010-03-06 19:28 |
| #5 So. This is what passes as investigation at the BBC? Cuz it looks to me like the door is open so unpressurized, and the windows sealed with metal, and the cabin empty (correct me if wrong, but the total volume occupied by the passengers and baggage would make the bomb more effective). |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2010-03-06 19:18 |
| #4 I say we give the BBC staff an opportunity to do their own in-flight test. |
| Posted by: Mizzou Mafia 2010-03-06 14:47 |
| #3 It would have worked on a pressurised aeroplane. AlBBC doesn't understand science, hence it's support for the post-normal "science" of AGW. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2010-03-06 13:17 |
| #2 They don't mention whether the AC was pressurized to the equivalent altitude. That makes a HUGE difference. Example: An under inflated balloon is anti-climatic when poked; fully inflated they explode when pricked. |
| Posted by: tipover 2010-03-06 11:30 |
| #1 Just a little give in the fuselage can do this. Fortunately, emergency landing could be executed in minutes reducing the time the remainder of the structure was subject to stress. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-03-06 09:59 |