Comments by "David Ford" (@davidford3115) on "DW News" channel.

  1.  @heythere5817  Need to remember that WIND DIRECTION is what determines the path of approach; there is no "wrong" direction when landing.
    9
  2.  @Peter-xl7zm  What video have you been watching? The Antenna was ON THE CONCRETE BERN! A plane doesn't shatter like glass when it hits a localizer antenna; the antenna breaks away.
    9
  3.  @Danny451  Didn't your mother ever teach you that if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all? Indecently, how would you feel if people mocked you in your time of need?
    5
  4.  @FlashRyu  Every airport in the US uses chain-link fence (which breakaway easily) with a required clear area beyond the end of the runway in case of an overrun like this. Don't make excuses for criminally incompetent designs.
    5
  5. The Earth is ambivalent to us. We are but a blink of an eye to her 4 billion years of existence. Don't fool yourself into thinking we have any control over nature.
    4
  6. Indeed, if not for that wall, the plane likely would have slid into the bay and ended up like the one that landed on the Hudson River.
    3
  7.  @Danny451  No, you are trolling. There is a difference.
    3
  8.  @Danny451  Funny, because the great futurists Arthur C. Clarke, Issaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and Michael Crichton were men of faith, but unlike you, they were not setting out to either prove or disprove the existence of an almighty. They knew how to partition out matters of faith from temporal affairs. Something you can't seem to achieve. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," -Arthur C. Clarke "Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God," -Michael Shermer
    3
  9. So, you are just going to ignore the fact that the fireball occurred AFTER the impact with the concrete wall?
    3
  10.  @paulgifis1908  The wall was barely 500 ft (150 Meters) from the end of the runway. Most US airports have at least 2,000ft (610 Meters) of clearance at the end of the runway. Stop making excuses for the ONLY reason why the plane ended up exploding.
    3
  11.  @FlashRyu  "Stating the facts" or simply being a contrarian? the ICAO takes its cues from AMERICAN safety standards. Why is it that the Unites States NTSB is almost always the agency that leads the investigations into crashes like this? When an airfield is NOT meeting those standards, they are NOT an authorized ICAO field with an ICAO reporting code used in METAR observations. Local airstrips may be approved for LOCAL use by LOCAL authorities, but NOT for international flights. Perhaps YOU need to check your facts, because your information has major holes.
    3
  12.  @jasonlarsen4945  And how quickly have those environments recovered on volcanic islands? If Surtsey in Iceland and Mount St. Helens is any indication, it will be a lot faster than you think.
    2
  13.  @jasonlarsen4945  Moving the goal posts. Typical. But then I expect that from alarmists like you who have such hubris you think you can tame the planet.
    2
  14.  @decimusrex92  Pure hubris. To quote George Carlin, "The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas". Man is not nearly as powerful as you would like to believe.
    2
  15. Indeed. Most US airports only have a chain-link fence perhaps topped with consintina wire so that in an overrun situation, the fence breaks away safely.
    2
  16. The Deccan Traps were laid down around the same time as the K-T extinction event.
    2
  17. Volcanic lighting is more common than thunderstorm lightning.
    2
  18. The Earth doesn't even notice us. We are a blink of an eye to her 4 billion years of existence.
    2
  19. Could be possible it was damaged by the tsunami. Under the surface, there is much turbulence that goes undetected.
    2
  20.  @Danny451  Funny, because existential nihilism leads to madness and insanity. It is NOT the path one wants to take when they are spiritually shallow. But hey, you do you. Just don't be surprised when you meet your maker, and he holds your lack of faith against you.
    2
  21. Why? This was a SOUTH KOREAN plane. You think they care about that?
    2
  22.  @bdk88  Are you going to ignore the fact that the concrete wall was but a mere 150 meters from the end of the runway? Most US airports have at least 610 meters of clearance.
    2
  23.  @everydaydose7779  I tend to agree. But it was unfortunately the airport design failure that made it catastrophic. And THAT is where much of the criminal liability is going to fall.
    2
  24.  @danielpacheco4821  I guess you have never heard of "CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE". Corrupt practices are what elevates it to criminal status.
    2
  25. That explosion was orders of magnitude larger than Tsar Bomba. Don't fool yourself.
    2
  26.  @sncy5303  You don't know that. You are making wild speculations. The flight data recorders will confirm that. It has been pointed out that the datalink between the aircraft and the control tower failed before the plane made its final approach indicating a massive electrical failure, throwing a wrench in your whole THEORY.
    2
  27.  @joaoroman9583  The stall speed for a 737-800 is 128kts in flight configuration. In landing, it is about 108kts.
    2
  28.  @jasonlarsen4945  "Master's degree in environmental science"? You mean a degree in political activism pretending to be science. Biology degrees falls into two categories: Zoology and Botany. Earth Sciences typically fall into either geology or meteorology. Your "environmental science" is too broad to be a specific scientific discipline, hence it is political activism degree. It is also the appeal to authority logical fallacy, which is always used to stifle any discussion because those who invoke it know their position is weak on substance.
    2
  29.  @michaeldeierhoi4096  "Fairy tale"? You are arguing with Sir Issaac Newton! Namely the second law of thermodynamics often invoked in chemistry. Namely you cannot create nor destroy matter, nor can you create nor destroy energy. It very much is a zero-sum game with regards to physics and chemistry. Any high school chemistry student can tell you that. But I get it, you are pushing your neo-pagan Earth mother (Greco-Roman Gaia) worship.
    2
  30. Solar will not work under an ash cloud. Adn the abrasiveness of the ash means it would damage the solar panels when you are trying to clean them off.
    1
  31.  @Chepicoro  I think he needs a bigger boat.
    1
  32.  @Danny451  You would reject the preponderance of evidence even if presented before you. Nothing will convince you because you have closed off your heart and your mind. Nietzsche talked about the death of faith and spiritualism in people like you. Notice, I am not trying to convert nor proselytize to you. But you are so dead set in you mesotheism that you have made it your mission to covert others to your faith hating non-theistic religion. That speaks volumes.
    1
  33. Fiji also experienced a significant tsunami, though not nearly as bad as Tonga.
    1
  34.  @danielpacheco4821  You are trying to make a distinction WITHOUT a difference.
    1
  35. When you lose power to your vehicle. you don't have time or altitude to divert. Look at what happened after the bird strike when Sully Sullenberger landed on the Hudson River.
    1
  36. They might not have had time. There is talk that the entire plane's hydraulic system was damaged preventing proper deployment of the landing gear. Loss of power and hydraulics might have forced and immediate landing.
    1
  37.  @jasonlarsen4945  Completely false. Volcanic emissions vastly outperform anything humans can do. Incidentally, fossil fuels come from carbon that was already on Earth since its formation 4 billion years ago. Stop this grifting over "man cause climate change". It is the same false argument about "human caused global cooling" in the 1970s.
    1
  38.  @michaeldeierhoi4096  Talking about strawman arguments, the ONLY argument for climate change being the result of man is consensus. That isn't science, that is appeal to authority. The data is inconclusive at best. "Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough." -Michael Crichton's 2003 CalTech speech on Global Warming.
    1
  39.  @michaeldeierhoi4096  To quote Michael Crichton, "the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period." You resorting to claiming consensus is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority which makes anything else you claim based on that illegitimate. "Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way." -Michael Crichton
    1