If a car has automatic steering that fights the driver for control and crashes into bridge abutments at full speed, why not? Those 346 deaths were entirely preventable by responsible design decisions. There was no study performed by Boeing that uncovered the inherent fatal behavior. How do I know? I was on the program progress review board where these decisions were made, and the MCAS was waved away as a trivial software edit. So, I put you with the complacent ones.
The design requirement on airliners is that the statistical probability of a fatal event on any given flight should be no greater than on in ten million. The 737 MAX was a flunk.
Water vapor, a necessary result of hydrocarbon combustion.
And since a contrail is noticeable by being white---i.e., brighter than the sky behind it---how could it be harmfully affecting the sunlight? Or, live in a climate that has clouds and discover how senselessly trivial this whole subject is.
Actually, every single one of them was free of "chemtrails." You are just not free of them.
It used to be a crime to be a witch, so beware confusing crimes with truth. Chemtrails are the modern "witchcraft": no evidence, just fear and suspicion.
When you were younger, the air was less contaminated with organic compounds, which will have a more general scattering spectrum (making the sky more whitish). I think higher humidity has a similar effect. It also depends on time of day. Nearing sunset or sunrise there is a spectral shift in the skyshine that will give the sky a whitish quality. There is a gradual transition from blue daylight to reddish-orange sundown/sunrise light and white lies in the middle.
The weather changes...and a weather-determined effect also changes. What a coincidence! More humid air will cause contrails to be persistent. Just because the rains stopped doesn't mean the air was not humid.
Where I live, they can last the whole day, slowly spreading in width. More the norm than not. The last few days have been especially noteworthy.
See comment further above. Persistent contrails have been around since the 50s. It is all a matter of being formed at high-er altitudes, where the air is more saturated and it is difficult for a cloud to dissipate. Just a fact of airplanes being able to fly at higher altitudes due to better engines.
Big mystery: what changed in the mid-to-late 90s? The airliners were flying at significantly higher altitudes due to advanced engines and aerodynamics. Though the absolute humidity was lower (fewer kilograms/meter^3 of water vapor), the relative humidity was higher (carrying capacity of the air was near saturation), so the contrails would persist longer.
But long-lasting contrails stretching across the sky were commonplace in the 1950s where B-52s were operating at 50,000 feet altitude. I saw them as a pre-school child.
Ignorance never stops the imagination.
-
Wings are indeed box beams, formed by the front and rear spars and by the upper and lower main wing skins (stiffened by stringers). The leading and trailing edges are primarily aerodynamic, not structural surfaces. The wing sustains a bending and shear force equal to the weight of the entire airplane, as well as reacting against engine thrust levels and supporting point engine loads (bending and torsion).
-
The wing is not made of tempered steel. It is made from aluminum alloy (all Boeing airliners except the 787 and 777X).
-
The twin towers collisions were messy. The aircraft was significantly diced up, despite severing some structural columns. Ice is weaker than steel, but it didn't stop an iceberg from fatally gashing the RMS Titanic. Water is weaker than any structural material, but it has no problem destroying bridges and dams if there is enough momentum involved.
-
Oh, yeah. The signpost. That happened in a low-speed surface motion, not at 400-500 mph flight velocity. Notice that the post stopped penetrating when it reached the forward spar.
And you would be wrong.
Not in the least. The BoD determines the current and future direction and administrative personnel of a business enterprise. Don't confuse superficial similarities with grossly different governing documents and duties. How can you revile Milley and his woke agenda, and not also dismiss his stupid analogies?
If you want similarities, it is more appropriate to compare corporations to oligopolies, where the boards of directors have hornswoggled the shareholders in order to wield power and make money in the short term.
There's not much else to point to.
Of course they don't need it for a conspiracy theory. The point is, they don't need it at all. Unless you think you can always trust the government to be all-seeing and all-knowing, and a paragon of integrity and wisdom.
Logic scheme: Government enacts something stupid because it believes in something stupid. Kind of like all the climate-saving restrictions... "Well, the government wouldn't be enacting all this green energy stuff if climate change wasn't the honest truth."
From another perspective, Napolitano has been quite consistent in promoting Col. Douglas Macgregor as a commenter on the war in Ukraine, foreign policy, and military policy. At least he is in the right fan club. Otherwise, I will be happy to wait and see what washes out.
Moreover, the adiabatic flame temperature of wood burning with air is 1,980 C (3,956 F). Plenty of capability to melt things. How do you think we melted things in ancient times? Atomic power?
Tucker is correct that it didn't always have to be inhumanist. Here is a glimpse of the Johnson & Sons headquarters (Frank Lloyd Wright, 1936-1939), in theme, diagrams, and exterior and interior photographs. https://www.atlasofplaces.com/architecture/johnson-wax-headquarters/
Another example is Lloyd Wright's Marin County Civic Center, his last commission. https://www.archdaily.com/343928/ad-classics-marin-civic-center-frank-lloyd-wright
Well, I was there, and what you are claiming was not "obvious" or "hard to miss." The other explanations were far more evident. There is an observed tendency for people to brush off ineptitude or bad motivation in favor of outright conspiracy.
Prior to the merger, the middle management ranks were depleted by an early retirement incentive = brain drain. Most of the middle managers were former engineers. They may not have been the world's best managers, but at least they understood engineering. Post-merger, these ranks were filled from the McDonnel-Douglas side, many of whom had non-engineering or military backgrounds, and no appreciation of engineering needs and practices.
The key players in the merger and subsequent company top organization got embroiled in personal scandals and ethics problems that resulted in their ejection and replacement by executives who had no background in advanced engineering. Or, sometimes, neither in common sense. The later-to-be-CEO Dennis Muilenberg was in charge of the Future Combat System (FCS) program, which ran for years, costing the taxpayers billions, but produced nothing. Yet Muilenberg was esteemed for running such a remunerative program.
Meanwhile, the Board of Directors was being steadily enlarged with sycophants and former government officials or officers, with the intent being to better acquire an "angle" on potential government business.
This story can be a long one, which I have no time to recount. There is plenty that can be ascribed to ignorance, lack of expertise, ethical skirting, folly... One does NOT need to invoke CCP agents. Why would they be needed? The dumbbells were already wrecking the company.
Since the change at the top, I received an RNC donation solicitation. Normally, I threw them in the trash, but this time I sent them money.
Great movie, maybe. What do movies have to do with actual Board decisions? The Boeing Board decided it would work out just fine to build the new 787 as components that would "snap together" as easily as Lego blocks. Very attractive concept and they signed up vendors and factories to do the job. And when the pieces came together...they wouldn't go together. All along the engineering union had been warning that this would happen if the system engineering was neglected. So, the concept had to be substantially abandoned and Boeing took over some of the vendor activities (e.g., the production facility at South Charleston).
Bad management practices propagate from the top down. With the post-merger Board in place, there was less tolerance to accept reports of problems, so that was percolated down to lower reporting levels. Supervisors made it known to their staff that they didn't want to hear about problems (as they were overwhelmed). The engineers, being brighter than the ordinary trained seas, got the message and stopped reporting problems. But the problems didn't get the memo. This was particularly prevalent on the KC-46 program.
It is sadly true that the Boeing Board is prone to stock by-backs instead of internal engineering research and development.
The bad behavior of Boards reminds me of a saying attributed to Anton Chekov: "Families are all alike in their good times, but they are all different in their miseries." Movies may be illustrative, but they are also calculated to simplify a chain of events for the comprehension of the audience.