Hydrogen-Powered Aircraft == Anti-Terrorist Device?
maladroit asks: "Today on NPR's Talk of the Nation/Science Friday , Harry Braun of the Phoenix Project said that a hydrogen-powered airplane would not have produced the fire and intense heat that brought down the World Trade Center towers. Is this true ? What are the other advantages and disadvantages of hydrogen fuel ? Details on the Phoenix Project's website are a bit sketchy, but I'm sure the Slashdot crowd has some answers (and Richard Dean Anderson jokes)." Sounds like a good theory, it doesn't account for the hostage aspect, but it would prevent the use of aircraft as cheap bombs. Would there be any drawbacks? How much would such a refit cost for your average commercial aircraft?
that would go over like a lead zeppelin
sulli
RTFJ.
I mean, it just seems so stupid. What's the point? It's easy to act like a moron. Morons do it effortlessly. What does it prove to act stupid - that you can act dumb, too? This doesn't strike me as a grand accomplishment. Perhaps it's a malicious joy in infuriating others. Again, this doesn't seem particularly impressive - you can irritate people by accident. It's another no-brainer. What's the point?
Let me ask you something. Can you come up with something to say that would make readers feel as good as what you wrote made them angry? Now, that would be impressive. Improving things is always harder than destroying them, whether moods or communication or software or buildings.
I know lots of people who know how to insult, and only one or two who knows how to give a really good backrub. Lots of people can break things, but only a few know how to repair them, much less make improvements. Do you believe that you can't post something that would be considered "Insightful", and so out of jealousy you want to ruin things for others?
So, again, I ask: What's the point? What do you get out of it?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!