Sysop: | Amessyroom |
---|---|
Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
Users: | 35 |
Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
Uptime: | 30:39:35 |
Calls: | 322 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 959 |
Messages: | 81,851 |
Posted today: | 3 |
Video from the scene shows the Mitsubishi CRJ-900LR upside down on the
snowy tarmac as emergency workers hose it down.
you can't determine blame simply by looking at where an
accident happened
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:58:34 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
you can't determine blame simply by looking at where an
accident happened
Of course you can where intense meterological conditions exist,No. That isn't about "where" it happened.
especially snowy runways, crosswinds and sudden downdrafts.
On 2025-02-18 12:14, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:58:34 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
you can't determine blame simply by looking at where an
accident happened
Of course you can where intense meterological conditions exist,
especially snowy runways, crosswinds and sudden downdrafts.
No. That isn't about "where" it happened.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:20:42 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 12:14, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:58:34 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
you can't determine blame simply by looking at where an
accident happened
Of course you can where intense meterological conditions exist,
especially snowy runways, crosswinds and sudden downdrafts.
Sure... ...but "correlation is not causation".No. That isn't about "where" it happened.
You've lost all your marbles, snow mexican.
Weather is intensely place-correlated.
On 2025-02-18 13:38, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:20:42 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 12:14, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:58:34 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
you can't determine blame simply by looking at where an
accident happened
Of course you can where intense meterological conditions exist,
especially snowy runways, crosswinds and sudden downdrafts.
No. That isn't about "where" it happened.
You've lost all your marbles, snow mexican.
Weather is intensely place-correlated.Sure... ...but "correlation is not causation".
Bottom line:
We don't know why this jet crashed.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 15:02:23 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 13:38, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:20:42 -0800Sure... ...but "correlation is not causation".
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 12:14, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:58:34 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
you can't determine blame simply by looking at where an
accident happened
Of course you can where intense meterological conditions exist,
especially snowy runways, crosswinds and sudden downdrafts.
No. That isn't about "where" it happened.
You've lost all your marbles, snow mexican.
Weather is intensely place-correlated.
Bad weather was caused by location and atmospheric dynamics.
Bottom line:
We don't know why this jet crashed.
Yet.
But we can see that video and the right wing catch and know that
slippery conditions and high crosswinds played a role.
The NTSB workup will in time explain if the landing gear collapsed or
there were other factors.
For now - weather.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 15:02:23 -0800Actually, what was obvious that you've utterly failed to see is that the descent rate was FAR TOO HIGH.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 13:38, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:20:42 -0800Sure... ...but "correlation is not causation".
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 12:14, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:58:34 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
you can't determine blame simply by looking at where an
accident happened
Of course you can where intense meterological conditions exist,
especially snowy runways, crosswinds and sudden downdrafts.
No. That isn't about "where" it happened.
You've lost all your marbles, snow mexican.
Weather is intensely place-correlated.
Bad weather was caused by location and atmospheric dynamics.
Bottom line:
We don't know why this jet crashed.
Yet.
But we can see that video and the right wing catch and know that
slippery conditions and high crosswinds played a role.
The NTSB workup will in time explain if the landing gear collapsed or
there were other factors.
For now - weather.
On 2/18/2025 3:24 PM, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 15:02:23 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 13:38, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:20:42 -0800Sure... ...but "correlation is not causation".
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 12:14, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:58:34 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
you can't determine blame simply by looking at where an
accident happened
Of course you can where intense meterological conditions exist,
especially snowy runways, crosswinds and sudden downdrafts.
No. That isn't about "where" it happened.
You've lost all your marbles, snow mexican.
Weather is intensely place-correlated.
Bad weather was caused by location and atmospheric dynamics.
Bottom line:
We don't know why this jet crashed.
Yet.
But we can see that video and the right wing catch and know that
slippery conditions and high crosswinds played a role.
The NTSB workup will in time explain if the landing gear collapsed
or there were other factors.
For now - weather.
The flight came from Minnesota. Tim Walz probably had a defective
tampon dispenser installed and it began high-speed dispensing on
landing.
On 2025-02-18 15:24, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 15:02:23 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 13:38, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:20:42 -0800Sure... ...but "correlation is not causation".
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 12:14, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:58:34 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
you can't determine blame simply by looking at where an
accident happened
Of course you can where intense meterological conditions exist,
especially snowy runways, crosswinds and sudden downdrafts.
No. That isn't about "where" it happened.
You've lost all your marbles, snow mexican.
Weather is intensely place-correlated.
Bad weather was caused by location and atmospheric dynamics.
Bottom line:
We don't know why this jet crashed.
Yet.
But we can see that video and the right wing catch and know that
slippery conditions and high crosswinds played a role.
The NTSB workup will in time explain if the landing gear collapsed
or there were other factors.
For now - weather.Actually, what was obvious that you've utterly failed to see is that
the descent rate was FAR TOO HIGH.
On 2025-02-19 10:03, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:02:14 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 15:24, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 15:02:23 -0800Actually, what was obvious that you've utterly failed to see is
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 13:38, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:20:42 -0800Sure... ...but "correlation is not causation".
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 12:14, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:58:34 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
you can't determine blame simply by looking at where an
accident happened
Of course you can where intense meterological conditions
exist, especially snowy runways, crosswinds and sudden
downdrafts.
No. That isn't about "where" it happened.
You've lost all your marbles, snow mexican.
Weather is intensely place-correlated.
Bad weather was caused by location and atmospheric dynamics.
Bottom line:
We don't know why this jet crashed.
Yet.
But we can see that video and the right wing catch and know that
slippery conditions and high crosswinds played a role.
The NTSB workup will in time explain if the landing gear collapsed
or there were other factors.
For now - weather.
that the descent rate was FAR TOO HIGH.
That came out this morning.
Could be a microburst, or flaps malfunction, there are no black box
reading yet, are there?
Funny thing, as easily as it was to recover.
Ah, yes!
The conspiracy theorist emerges!
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:02:14 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 15:24, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 15:02:23 -0800Actually, what was obvious that you've utterly failed to see is that
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 13:38, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:20:42 -0800Sure... ...but "correlation is not causation".
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 12:14, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:58:34 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
you can't determine blame simply by looking at where an
accident happened
Of course you can where intense meterological conditions exist,
especially snowy runways, crosswinds and sudden downdrafts.
No. That isn't about "where" it happened.
You've lost all your marbles, snow mexican.
Weather is intensely place-correlated.
Bad weather was caused by location and atmospheric dynamics.
Bottom line:
We don't know why this jet crashed.
Yet.
But we can see that video and the right wing catch and know that
slippery conditions and high crosswinds played a role.
The NTSB workup will in time explain if the landing gear collapsed
or there were other factors.
For now - weather.
the descent rate was FAR TOO HIGH.
That came out this morning.
Could be a microburst, or flaps malfunction, there are no black box
reading yet, are there?
Funny thing, as easily as it was to recover.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:32:16 -0800<https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/delta-air-lines-said-most-passengers-toronto-plane-crash-released-hospital-2025-02-18/>
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-19 10:03, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:02:14 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 15:24, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 15:02:23 -0800Actually, what was obvious that you've utterly failed to see is
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 13:38, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:20:42 -0800Sure... ...but "correlation is not causation".
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-02-18 12:14, tye syding wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:58:34 -0800
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
you can't determine blame simply by looking at where an
accident happened
Of course you can where intense meterological conditions
exist, especially snowy runways, crosswinds and sudden
downdrafts.
No. That isn't about "where" it happened.
You've lost all your marbles, snow mexican.
Weather is intensely place-correlated.
Bad weather was caused by location and atmospheric dynamics.
Bottom line:
We don't know why this jet crashed.
Yet.
But we can see that video and the right wing catch and know that
slippery conditions and high crosswinds played a role.
The NTSB workup will in time explain if the landing gear collapsed
or there were other factors.
For now - weather.
that the descent rate was FAR TOO HIGH.
That came out this morning.
Could be a microburst, or flaps malfunction, there are no black box
reading yet, are there?
Funny thing, as easily as it was to recover.
Ah, yes!
The conspiracy theorist emerges!
BB data is where?
Why?
Uh huh.
Try to keep up, doofus.