<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_05_1419247</id>
	<title>Could a Meteor Have Brought Down Air France 447?</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244212500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>niktemadur writes <i>"In light of an Air Comet <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/04/plane.crash/">pilot's report</a> to Air France, Airbus, and the Spanish civil aviation authority that, during a Monday flight from Lima to Lisbon, 'Suddenly, we saw in the distance a strong and intense flash of white light, which followed a descending and vertical trajectory and which broke up in six seconds,' the Cosmic Variance blog team on the Discover Magazine website muses on the question 'What is the probability that, for all flights in history, one or more <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/06/04/did-a-meteor-bring-down-air-france-447/">could have been downed by a meteor</a>?' Taking into account total flight hours and the rate of meteoric activity with the requisite mass to impact on Earth (approximately 3,000 a day), some quick math suggests there may be one in twenty odds of a plane being brought down in the period from 1989 to 2009. Intriguingly, in the aftermath of TWA flight 800's crash in 1996, the New York Times published a letter by Columbia professors Charles Hailey (physics) and David Helfand (astronomy), in which they <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/19/opinion/l-in-twa-800-crash-don-t-discount-meteor-386081.html">stated the odds</a> of a meteor-airplane collision for aviation history up to that point: one in ten."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>niktemadur writes " In light of an Air Comet pilot 's report to Air France , Airbus , and the Spanish civil aviation authority that , during a Monday flight from Lima to Lisbon , 'Suddenly , we saw in the distance a strong and intense flash of white light , which followed a descending and vertical trajectory and which broke up in six seconds, ' the Cosmic Variance blog team on the Discover Magazine website muses on the question 'What is the probability that , for all flights in history , one or more could have been downed by a meteor ?
' Taking into account total flight hours and the rate of meteoric activity with the requisite mass to impact on Earth ( approximately 3,000 a day ) , some quick math suggests there may be one in twenty odds of a plane being brought down in the period from 1989 to 2009 .
Intriguingly , in the aftermath of TWA flight 800 's crash in 1996 , the New York Times published a letter by Columbia professors Charles Hailey ( physics ) and David Helfand ( astronomy ) , in which they stated the odds of a meteor-airplane collision for aviation history up to that point : one in ten .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>niktemadur writes "In light of an Air Comet pilot's report to Air France, Airbus, and the Spanish civil aviation authority that, during a Monday flight from Lima to Lisbon, 'Suddenly, we saw in the distance a strong and intense flash of white light, which followed a descending and vertical trajectory and which broke up in six seconds,' the Cosmic Variance blog team on the Discover Magazine website muses on the question 'What is the probability that, for all flights in history, one or more could have been downed by a meteor?
' Taking into account total flight hours and the rate of meteoric activity with the requisite mass to impact on Earth (approximately 3,000 a day), some quick math suggests there may be one in twenty odds of a plane being brought down in the period from 1989 to 2009.
Intriguingly, in the aftermath of TWA flight 800's crash in 1996, the New York Times published a letter by Columbia professors Charles Hailey (physics) and David Helfand (astronomy), in which they stated the odds of a meteor-airplane collision for aviation history up to that point: one in ten.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222787</id>
	<title>Re:Why complicate things?</title>
	<author>ub3r n3u7r4l1st</author>
	<datestamp>1244218260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It cannot be that way.</p><p>If the plane is properly grounded and shielded, the electrical current from lightning will just go around the plane body en route to its final destination. No current should be able to enter the interior parts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It can not be that way.If the plane is properly grounded and shielded , the electrical current from lightning will just go around the plane body en route to its final destination .
No current should be able to enter the interior parts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It cannot be that way.If the plane is properly grounded and shielded, the electrical current from lightning will just go around the plane body en route to its final destination.
No current should be able to enter the interior parts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223259</id>
	<title>4 8 15 16 23 42</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244219940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone didn't push the button</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone did n't push the button</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone didn't push the button</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225113</id>
	<title>most likely scenario</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244226960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the most likely scenario is erroneous airspeed readings due to rapid icing caused the pilots to think they were going slower than actual and they were not able to slow to the maneuvering speed required for a severe turbulence encounter, which over-stressed the airframe. Even then, that alone shouldn't have been immediately catastrophic so there were probably other factors. Meteors? Horseshit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the most likely scenario is erroneous airspeed readings due to rapid icing caused the pilots to think they were going slower than actual and they were not able to slow to the maneuvering speed required for a severe turbulence encounter , which over-stressed the airframe .
Even then , that alone should n't have been immediately catastrophic so there were probably other factors .
Meteors ? Horseshit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the most likely scenario is erroneous airspeed readings due to rapid icing caused the pilots to think they were going slower than actual and they were not able to slow to the maneuvering speed required for a severe turbulence encounter, which over-stressed the airframe.
Even then, that alone shouldn't have been immediately catastrophic so there were probably other factors.
Meteors? Horseshit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223571</id>
	<title>This is what Conficker was programmed to do</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1244221140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now we know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223165</id>
	<title>Meteor - So where was bruce willis ?</title>
	<author>itsthebin</author>
	<datestamp>1244219640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>maybe in bangkok , in a closet , with a rope ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe in bangkok , in a closet , with a rope ?
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe in bangkok , in a closet , with a rope ?
:D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224263</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244223660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something &gt; was attained.</p><p>The airbus is completely fly by wire.  There is no manual connection to the flight controls, therefor, you do not require large forces on the control inputs (besides what the computer simulates to you).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something &gt; was attained.The airbus is completely fly by wire .
There is no manual connection to the flight controls , therefor , you do not require large forces on the control inputs ( besides what the computer simulates to you ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something &gt; was attained.The airbus is completely fly by wire.
There is no manual connection to the flight controls, therefor, you do not require large forces on the control inputs (besides what the computer simulates to you).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227235</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244194200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not quite though.  The motivation behind having black boxes on planes is so that in the event they crash, investigators can determine whether the crash was due to a mechanical fault, procedural flaw, etc.  With this knowledge they can make future planes safer.  It's not clear this would be needed in hospital rooms, etc. since they can already do all the analysis they need after the fact (the room, remains of the person, etc. are still intact).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite though .
The motivation behind having black boxes on planes is so that in the event they crash , investigators can determine whether the crash was due to a mechanical fault , procedural flaw , etc .
With this knowledge they can make future planes safer .
It 's not clear this would be needed in hospital rooms , etc .
since they can already do all the analysis they need after the fact ( the room , remains of the person , etc .
are still intact ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite though.
The motivation behind having black boxes on planes is so that in the event they crash, investigators can determine whether the crash was due to a mechanical fault, procedural flaw, etc.
With this knowledge they can make future planes safer.
It's not clear this would be needed in hospital rooms, etc.
since they can already do all the analysis they need after the fact (the room, remains of the person, etc.
are still intact).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223435</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Dzimas</author>
	<datestamp>1244220660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>"Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained."</em>
Umm. In this case, "manual" control means fly by wire, so there was no need for extreme control pressure. The appropriate way to recover from a dive does not involve yanking on the controls like a gorilla. You reduce power to idle if above maneuvering speed and apply a smooth pull. Of course, this assumes you're not overbanked, in which case you need to push the yolk toward neutral if the controls are loaded (pulling G's) and then roll the aircraft level and pull smoothly. This can be a serious bitch if you're spatially disoriented (potentially inverted or in a spiral dive, to name a couple of scenarios) with no horizon for reference and the artificial horizon rolling all over the place. Control is somewhat counter-intuitive when you're flying inverted and you can never rely on what your inner ear is telling you about correct orientation (I vividly remember an instructor driving that point home by putting me "under the hood" and banking the aircraft all over the place, then asking me to tell him when we were flying straight and level. I didn't have a clue). To make things worse, if you're not belted in snugly you're going to end up hitting the overhead panel with your face rather than flying the aircraft when things get really rough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained .
" Umm .
In this case , " manual " control means fly by wire , so there was no need for extreme control pressure .
The appropriate way to recover from a dive does not involve yanking on the controls like a gorilla .
You reduce power to idle if above maneuvering speed and apply a smooth pull .
Of course , this assumes you 're not overbanked , in which case you need to push the yolk toward neutral if the controls are loaded ( pulling G 's ) and then roll the aircraft level and pull smoothly .
This can be a serious bitch if you 're spatially disoriented ( potentially inverted or in a spiral dive , to name a couple of scenarios ) with no horizon for reference and the artificial horizon rolling all over the place .
Control is somewhat counter-intuitive when you 're flying inverted and you can never rely on what your inner ear is telling you about correct orientation ( I vividly remember an instructor driving that point home by putting me " under the hood " and banking the aircraft all over the place , then asking me to tell him when we were flying straight and level .
I did n't have a clue ) .
To make things worse , if you 're not belted in snugly you 're going to end up hitting the overhead panel with your face rather than flying the aircraft when things get really rough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.
"
Umm.
In this case, "manual" control means fly by wire, so there was no need for extreme control pressure.
The appropriate way to recover from a dive does not involve yanking on the controls like a gorilla.
You reduce power to idle if above maneuvering speed and apply a smooth pull.
Of course, this assumes you're not overbanked, in which case you need to push the yolk toward neutral if the controls are loaded (pulling G's) and then roll the aircraft level and pull smoothly.
This can be a serious bitch if you're spatially disoriented (potentially inverted or in a spiral dive, to name a couple of scenarios) with no horizon for reference and the artificial horizon rolling all over the place.
Control is somewhat counter-intuitive when you're flying inverted and you can never rely on what your inner ear is telling you about correct orientation (I vividly remember an instructor driving that point home by putting me "under the hood" and banking the aircraft all over the place, then asking me to tell him when we were flying straight and level.
I didn't have a clue).
To make things worse, if you're not belted in snugly you're going to end up hitting the overhead panel with your face rather than flying the aircraft when things get really rough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28232061</id>
	<title>Re:calculations wrong I think</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1244296680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that extra-terrestrial explanations are unlikely and unhelpful here, but a nitpick - by the time a rock has fallen to within 10km of the ground, it is at terminal velocity and is not going to degrade any further.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that extra-terrestrial explanations are unlikely and unhelpful here , but a nitpick - by the time a rock has fallen to within 10km of the ground , it is at terminal velocity and is not going to degrade any further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that extra-terrestrial explanations are unlikely and unhelpful here, but a nitpick - by the time a rock has fallen to within 10km of the ground, it is at terminal velocity and is not going to degrade any further.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222695</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244217900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The crew was struggling, all three physically, to pull the aircraft out of a high-speed dive and nobody had a chance to radio what the hell was happening.</i><br>It was a scarebus... the controls don't flight back any more than your mouse does.</p><p>Bombs in the past have ripped enough skin off to have decompression and then failure.</p><p>A plane that blows up in the air will be scattered on the ground (or water), but a plane that is intact tends to have a very small spot on the ground depending on the angle of impact.  So far nothing has been found which indicates a small spot.</p><p>It looks like the pilots flew where their weather radar told them they shouldn't which resulted in severe turbulence (check how the FAA defines that one) and the computer didn't cope with the holes in the airframe and other issues which resulted in a high speed, mostly intact controlled flight into wet terrain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The crew was struggling , all three physically , to pull the aircraft out of a high-speed dive and nobody had a chance to radio what the hell was happening.It was a scarebus... the controls do n't flight back any more than your mouse does.Bombs in the past have ripped enough skin off to have decompression and then failure.A plane that blows up in the air will be scattered on the ground ( or water ) , but a plane that is intact tends to have a very small spot on the ground depending on the angle of impact .
So far nothing has been found which indicates a small spot.It looks like the pilots flew where their weather radar told them they should n't which resulted in severe turbulence ( check how the FAA defines that one ) and the computer did n't cope with the holes in the airframe and other issues which resulted in a high speed , mostly intact controlled flight into wet terrain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The crew was struggling, all three physically, to pull the aircraft out of a high-speed dive and nobody had a chance to radio what the hell was happening.It was a scarebus... the controls don't flight back any more than your mouse does.Bombs in the past have ripped enough skin off to have decompression and then failure.A plane that blows up in the air will be scattered on the ground (or water), but a plane that is intact tends to have a very small spot on the ground depending on the angle of impact.
So far nothing has been found which indicates a small spot.It looks like the pilots flew where their weather radar told them they shouldn't which resulted in severe turbulence (check how the FAA defines that one) and the computer didn't cope with the holes in the airframe and other issues which resulted in a high speed, mostly intact controlled flight into wet terrain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225031</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Solandri</author>
	<datestamp>1244226600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.</p></div></blockquote><p>
IIRC, the A330 is fly-by-wire and the joystick controllers have no force feedback.  i.e. The pilots point their joystick in the direction they want, the computer takes a reading of the joystick deflection and tries its best to make it happen.  It's not like the traditional stick and rudder where forces acting on the control surfaces get transmitted back to the stick/yoke in the pilot's hand.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained .
IIRC , the A330 is fly-by-wire and the joystick controllers have no force feedback .
i.e. The pilots point their joystick in the direction they want , the computer takes a reading of the joystick deflection and tries its best to make it happen .
It 's not like the traditional stick and rudder where forces acting on the control surfaces get transmitted back to the stick/yoke in the pilot 's hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.
IIRC, the A330 is fly-by-wire and the joystick controllers have no force feedback.
i.e. The pilots point their joystick in the direction they want, the computer takes a reading of the joystick deflection and tries its best to make it happen.
It's not like the traditional stick and rudder where forces acting on the control surfaces get transmitted back to the stick/yoke in the pilot's hand.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</id>
	<title>Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244216640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So any guess is equally likely/unlikely until there is more information.  I think even a lot of the 'debris' they've found is probably not from the jet.<br>
&nbsp; <br>They disengaged the main flight control system because they thought it was flying too fast in the turbulence, or was causing too much passenger discomfort.</p><p>They slowed down to a very narrow margin above stall speed.</p><p>They hit a 100 mph updraft, causing the AOA to go beyond the stall angle.</p><p>They went into a high-speed dive.</p><p>Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.</p><p>Something (wing, tail surface, aileron, spoiler... whatever) tore off.</p><p>The resulting asymmetric forces caused a violent departure from normal flight.</p><p>At a speed probably above Vne, that resulted in the aircraft structure being instantly destroyed.</p><p>This accounts for the fact that there was a an elapsed time of approximately a minute between the first failure messages and the last.</p><p>If it had been a bomb, or simple explosive decompression from another source, that time would have been at most a few seconds, and more likely zero.</p><p>The crew was struggling, all three physically, to pull the aircraft out of a high-speed dive and nobody had a chance to radio what the hell was happening.</p><p>That's my call.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So any guess is equally likely/unlikely until there is more information .
I think even a lot of the 'debris ' they 've found is probably not from the jet .
  They disengaged the main flight control system because they thought it was flying too fast in the turbulence , or was causing too much passenger discomfort.They slowed down to a very narrow margin above stall speed.They hit a 100 mph updraft , causing the AOA to go beyond the stall angle.They went into a high-speed dive.Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.Something ( wing , tail surface , aileron , spoiler... whatever ) tore off.The resulting asymmetric forces caused a violent departure from normal flight.At a speed probably above Vne , that resulted in the aircraft structure being instantly destroyed.This accounts for the fact that there was a an elapsed time of approximately a minute between the first failure messages and the last.If it had been a bomb , or simple explosive decompression from another source , that time would have been at most a few seconds , and more likely zero.The crew was struggling , all three physically , to pull the aircraft out of a high-speed dive and nobody had a chance to radio what the hell was happening.That 's my call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So any guess is equally likely/unlikely until there is more information.
I think even a lot of the 'debris' they've found is probably not from the jet.
  They disengaged the main flight control system because they thought it was flying too fast in the turbulence, or was causing too much passenger discomfort.They slowed down to a very narrow margin above stall speed.They hit a 100 mph updraft, causing the AOA to go beyond the stall angle.They went into a high-speed dive.Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.Something (wing, tail surface, aileron, spoiler... whatever) tore off.The resulting asymmetric forces caused a violent departure from normal flight.At a speed probably above Vne, that resulted in the aircraft structure being instantly destroyed.This accounts for the fact that there was a an elapsed time of approximately a minute between the first failure messages and the last.If it had been a bomb, or simple explosive decompression from another source, that time would have been at most a few seconds, and more likely zero.The crew was struggling, all three physically, to pull the aircraft out of a high-speed dive and nobody had a chance to radio what the hell was happening.That's my call.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225529</id>
	<title>3000 meteorites striking the Earth everyday...</title>
	<author>nuckfuts</author>
	<datestamp>1244228820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>is not the relevant number. The probability calculation needs to consider how many are large enough to take down a large aircraft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>is not the relevant number .
The probability calculation needs to consider how many are large enough to take down a large aircraft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is not the relevant number.
The probability calculation needs to consider how many are large enough to take down a large aircraft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28229305</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>GrahamCox</author>
	<datestamp>1244211300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover</i> <br> <br>
The A330 is entirely fly-by-wire. Force on the controls doesn't come into it. Also, in the light of reports that an automatic message reporting an electrical systems failure was received, it seems likely that *something* caused a major power failure at which point the aircraft was simply out of control.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover The A330 is entirely fly-by-wire .
Force on the controls does n't come into it .
Also , in the light of reports that an automatic message reporting an electrical systems failure was received , it seems likely that * something * caused a major power failure at which point the aircraft was simply out of control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover  
The A330 is entirely fly-by-wire.
Force on the controls doesn't come into it.
Also, in the light of reports that an automatic message reporting an electrical systems failure was received, it seems likely that *something* caused a major power failure at which point the aircraft was simply out of control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224671</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244225160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Airbus aircraft are all fly-by-wire, so there would not have been any physical struggle. There is no mechanical connection between the controls in the cockpit and the control surfaces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Airbus aircraft are all fly-by-wire , so there would not have been any physical struggle .
There is no mechanical connection between the controls in the cockpit and the control surfaces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Airbus aircraft are all fly-by-wire, so there would not have been any physical struggle.
There is no mechanical connection between the controls in the cockpit and the control surfaces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226927</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>youn</author>
	<datestamp>1244192520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not sure I fully grasp the gravity of what you're saying... it's that serious of a threat?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not sure I fully grasp the gravity of what you 're saying... it 's that serious of a threat ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not sure I fully grasp the gravity of what you're saying... it's that serious of a threat?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28236577</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>FordPrefect276709</author>
	<datestamp>1244283840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.</p></div><p>Airbus fly-by-wire. no force needed, it's just a "joystick".

probability is though, in extreme flying situation - with obviously failing electronic systems (fly-by-wire will by design be the last one failing...) they possibly lacked the artificial horizon - you loose orientation completely.

if you wind down in a 1G spiral, you can't detect this.

if you happen to fly into a dense cloud with a paraglider, this is how you die. with no sight and no instruments in a rather rough condition, you're doomed. you loose orientation and thus control within seconds.

a A330 needs something else tho get into this condition. but once you're there you're almost dead.

within our neighborhood we had at least two planes going down in the past 10 years just like this. one was an F/A-18 fighter, the other a small-sized commercial plane. they flew directly at full speed into ground</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.Airbus fly-by-wire .
no force needed , it 's just a " joystick " .
probability is though , in extreme flying situation - with obviously failing electronic systems ( fly-by-wire will by design be the last one failing... ) they possibly lacked the artificial horizon - you loose orientation completely .
if you wind down in a 1G spiral , you ca n't detect this .
if you happen to fly into a dense cloud with a paraglider , this is how you die .
with no sight and no instruments in a rather rough condition , you 're doomed .
you loose orientation and thus control within seconds .
a A330 needs something else tho get into this condition .
but once you 're there you 're almost dead .
within our neighborhood we had at least two planes going down in the past 10 years just like this .
one was an F/A-18 fighter , the other a small-sized commercial plane .
they flew directly at full speed into ground</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.Airbus fly-by-wire.
no force needed, it's just a "joystick".
probability is though, in extreme flying situation - with obviously failing electronic systems (fly-by-wire will by design be the last one failing...) they possibly lacked the artificial horizon - you loose orientation completely.
if you wind down in a 1G spiral, you can't detect this.
if you happen to fly into a dense cloud with a paraglider, this is how you die.
with no sight and no instruments in a rather rough condition, you're doomed.
you loose orientation and thus control within seconds.
a A330 needs something else tho get into this condition.
but once you're there you're almost dead.
within our neighborhood we had at least two planes going down in the past 10 years just like this.
one was an F/A-18 fighter, the other a small-sized commercial plane.
they flew directly at full speed into ground
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227549</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244196420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the pilot's are required to turn off their cell phones at take off, and you can't SMS without the radio on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the pilot 's are required to turn off their cell phones at take off , and you ca n't SMS without the radio on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the pilot's are required to turn off their cell phones at take off, and you can't SMS without the radio on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226307</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244232540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes but what if after all that, the plane (what remained of it) got hit by a meteor? And then the CIA bomb went off from all the commotion, and the North Korean missile impacted, and the aliens abducted all those passengers' limbs. You can't disprove that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but what if after all that , the plane ( what remained of it ) got hit by a meteor ?
And then the CIA bomb went off from all the commotion , and the North Korean missile impacted , and the aliens abducted all those passengers ' limbs .
You ca n't disprove that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but what if after all that, the plane (what remained of it) got hit by a meteor?
And then the CIA bomb went off from all the commotion, and the North Korean missile impacted, and the aliens abducted all those passengers' limbs.
You can't disprove that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227615</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244196780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this Airbus a fly by wire aircraft?  Why would there be any need for "all three physically" to be pulling at anything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this Airbus a fly by wire aircraft ?
Why would there be any need for " all three physically " to be pulling at anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this Airbus a fly by wire aircraft?
Why would there be any need for "all three physically" to be pulling at anything?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223217</id>
	<title>Re:Cars</title>
	<author>ParanoiaBOTS</author>
	<datestamp>1244219760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you go up 30K feet in the air meteors are significantly bigger.  By the time they actually reach someplace that *may* be inhabited they are often dust.  But at 30k feet they are going to bigger (roughly the size of a pea to the size of your fist I would guess).  Also at the speed they are traveling, something that small still has a TON of force behind it, more than likely enough to do enough damage to a plane to take it down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you go up 30K feet in the air meteors are significantly bigger .
By the time they actually reach someplace that * may * be inhabited they are often dust .
But at 30k feet they are going to bigger ( roughly the size of a pea to the size of your fist I would guess ) .
Also at the speed they are traveling , something that small still has a TON of force behind it , more than likely enough to do enough damage to a plane to take it down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you go up 30K feet in the air meteors are significantly bigger.
By the time they actually reach someplace that *may* be inhabited they are often dust.
But at 30k feet they are going to bigger (roughly the size of a pea to the size of your fist I would guess).
Also at the speed they are traveling, something that small still has a TON of force behind it, more than likely enough to do enough damage to a plane to take it down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222429</id>
	<title>Because...</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1244216820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>70\% of the earth is water. I would guess 98\% of the land is not covered by buildings or roads. So, a lot of things can hit the ground without us noticing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>70 \ % of the earth is water .
I would guess 98 \ % of the land is not covered by buildings or roads .
So , a lot of things can hit the ground without us noticing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>70\% of the earth is water.
I would guess 98\% of the land is not covered by buildings or roads.
So, a lot of things can hit the ground without us noticing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224881</id>
	<title>Re:Because...</title>
	<author>H0p313ss</author>
	<datestamp>1244226060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>70\% of the earth is water. I would guess 98\% of the land is not covered by buildings or roads. So, a lot of things can hit the ground without us noticing.</p></div><p>Agreed, remember that about 100 years ago the conventional wisdom was that impact craters were something that only occurred on the moon or other planets. It's only fairly recently (in the grand scheme of things) that we've recognized that this is scientifically possible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>70 \ % of the earth is water .
I would guess 98 \ % of the land is not covered by buildings or roads .
So , a lot of things can hit the ground without us noticing.Agreed , remember that about 100 years ago the conventional wisdom was that impact craters were something that only occurred on the moon or other planets .
It 's only fairly recently ( in the grand scheme of things ) that we 've recognized that this is scientifically possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>70\% of the earth is water.
I would guess 98\% of the land is not covered by buildings or roads.
So, a lot of things can hit the ground without us noticing.Agreed, remember that about 100 years ago the conventional wisdom was that impact craters were something that only occurred on the moon or other planets.
It's only fairly recently (in the grand scheme of things) that we've recognized that this is scientifically possible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223733</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>bperkins</author>
	<datestamp>1244221740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; They slowed down to a very narrow margin above stall speed.<br>[...]</p><p>&gt; They went into a high-speed dive.<br>&gt; Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.</p><p>Doesn't seem reasonable to me.</p><p>Your description is of an airplane going from just below stall speed to an airspeed that could damage the aircraft before the pilot is able to regain control.  I don't think a "high-speed dive" could explain that.  Once you're in a dive it should be pretty easy to get the nose up.</p><p>Going into something like a flat spin may be a possibility; I have no idea on how vulnerable airliners are to unrecoverable spins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; They slowed down to a very narrow margin above stall speed. [ .. .
] &gt; They went into a high-speed dive. &gt; Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.Does n't seem reasonable to me.Your description is of an airplane going from just below stall speed to an airspeed that could damage the aircraft before the pilot is able to regain control .
I do n't think a " high-speed dive " could explain that .
Once you 're in a dive it should be pretty easy to get the nose up.Going into something like a flat spin may be a possibility ; I have no idea on how vulnerable airliners are to unrecoverable spins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; They slowed down to a very narrow margin above stall speed.[...
]&gt; They went into a high-speed dive.&gt; Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.Doesn't seem reasonable to me.Your description is of an airplane going from just below stall speed to an airspeed that could damage the aircraft before the pilot is able to regain control.
I don't think a "high-speed dive" could explain that.
Once you're in a dive it should be pretty easy to get the nose up.Going into something like a flat spin may be a possibility; I have no idea on how vulnerable airliners are to unrecoverable spins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223317</id>
	<title>Re:The suck!</title>
	<author>srussia</author>
	<datestamp>1244220180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How much does God hate you to put you in a meteor strike, a plane crash, and a lost-at-sea drowning all in the same day?</p></div><p>Too soon?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much does God hate you to put you in a meteor strike , a plane crash , and a lost-at-sea drowning all in the same day ? Too soon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much does God hate you to put you in a meteor strike, a plane crash, and a lost-at-sea drowning all in the same day?Too soon?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226407</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>AxemRed</author>
	<datestamp>1244233020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your scenario sounds the most likely of any that I have read. The bright white light seen by the other airline is, IMO, not as much evidence of a meteor as evidence that the plane started breaking up while it was crashing (as opposed to crashing intact and breaking up when it hit the water.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your scenario sounds the most likely of any that I have read .
The bright white light seen by the other airline is , IMO , not as much evidence of a meteor as evidence that the plane started breaking up while it was crashing ( as opposed to crashing intact and breaking up when it hit the water .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your scenario sounds the most likely of any that I have read.
The bright white light seen by the other airline is, IMO, not as much evidence of a meteor as evidence that the plane started breaking up while it was crashing (as opposed to crashing intact and breaking up when it hit the water.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222887</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244218560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"So any guess is equally likely/unlikely until there is more information. I think even a lot of the 'debris' they've found is probably not from the jet."<br><br>I don't think you really mean this. It's obvious prima facie that some explanations are more likely than others: regular old human error is more likely than a fatal meteorite strike is more likely than an attack by evil space aliens. It'd be more accurate to say that we lack the information to assign realistic probabilities to the different scenarios.<br><br>Pedanticism thus ended.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" So any guess is equally likely/unlikely until there is more information .
I think even a lot of the 'debris ' they 've found is probably not from the jet .
" I do n't think you really mean this .
It 's obvious prima facie that some explanations are more likely than others : regular old human error is more likely than a fatal meteorite strike is more likely than an attack by evil space aliens .
It 'd be more accurate to say that we lack the information to assign realistic probabilities to the different scenarios.Pedanticism thus ended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So any guess is equally likely/unlikely until there is more information.
I think even a lot of the 'debris' they've found is probably not from the jet.
"I don't think you really mean this.
It's obvious prima facie that some explanations are more likely than others: regular old human error is more likely than a fatal meteorite strike is more likely than an attack by evil space aliens.
It'd be more accurate to say that we lack the information to assign realistic probabilities to the different scenarios.Pedanticism thus ended.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224847</id>
	<title>WHO WAS ON THE PLANE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244225940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I didn't even read the article.</p><p>Call me paranoid, but before we consider a fucking meteor, let's see the passenger list.  Okay?  Great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I did n't even read the article.Call me paranoid , but before we consider a fucking meteor , let 's see the passenger list .
Okay ? Great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I didn't even read the article.Call me paranoid, but before we consider a fucking meteor, let's see the passenger list.
Okay?  Great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227373</id>
	<title>Bad Luck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244194980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no God, so it is just really bad luck if this is true.</p><p>I haven't checked the math, but intuitively, the statistics seem flawed. OTOH, most statistics that are useful are not intuitively obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no God , so it is just really bad luck if this is true.I have n't checked the math , but intuitively , the statistics seem flawed .
OTOH , most statistics that are useful are not intuitively obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no God, so it is just really bad luck if this is true.I haven't checked the math, but intuitively, the statistics seem flawed.
OTOH, most statistics that are useful are not intuitively obvious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223901</id>
	<title>Could a laser have downed them?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244222220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I think that a space-based laser test or kinetic energy weapon is more likely than a meteor. Malice strikes me as more common than meteors.</p><p>Consider... If you were going to test your weapon:<br>- it would be good to test on a plane in a storm, that way lightening can be blamed<br>- it would be good to run the test in a place where there's not much communication coverage/radar<br>- it would be great to test over the sea where there's less likely to be evidence<br>- you wouldn't want to test on the aircraft of a hostile nation because that might precipitate a war you don't want<br>- you'd like to avoid Muslim nations because inflamed opinion can lead unpredictable places<br>- you'd plant stories in the media about the likelihood of meteors hitting planes.</p><p>Or it could be a bomb.<br>Or it could be vicious weather conditions, possibly a small precursor to more widespread conditions caused by global warming.</p><p>Or it could just be lightning taking out the electrics. A plane with no engines is hard to fly at the best of times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I think that a space-based laser test or kinetic energy weapon is more likely than a meteor .
Malice strikes me as more common than meteors.Consider... If you were going to test your weapon : - it would be good to test on a plane in a storm , that way lightening can be blamed- it would be good to run the test in a place where there 's not much communication coverage/radar- it would be great to test over the sea where there 's less likely to be evidence- you would n't want to test on the aircraft of a hostile nation because that might precipitate a war you do n't want- you 'd like to avoid Muslim nations because inflamed opinion can lead unpredictable places- you 'd plant stories in the media about the likelihood of meteors hitting planes.Or it could be a bomb.Or it could be vicious weather conditions , possibly a small precursor to more widespread conditions caused by global warming.Or it could just be lightning taking out the electrics .
A plane with no engines is hard to fly at the best of times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I think that a space-based laser test or kinetic energy weapon is more likely than a meteor.
Malice strikes me as more common than meteors.Consider... If you were going to test your weapon:- it would be good to test on a plane in a storm, that way lightening can be blamed- it would be good to run the test in a place where there's not much communication coverage/radar- it would be great to test over the sea where there's less likely to be evidence- you wouldn't want to test on the aircraft of a hostile nation because that might precipitate a war you don't want- you'd like to avoid Muslim nations because inflamed opinion can lead unpredictable places- you'd plant stories in the media about the likelihood of meteors hitting planes.Or it could be a bomb.Or it could be vicious weather conditions, possibly a small precursor to more widespread conditions caused by global warming.Or it could just be lightning taking out the electrics.
A plane with no engines is hard to fly at the best of times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223665</id>
	<title>Timing Of Maintenance Messages</title>
	<author>steve6534</author>
	<datestamp>1244221500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it was struck by a meteor how would the aircraft be able to send maintenance messages minutes apart ? This is the part that makes the scenario unlikely to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was struck by a meteor how would the aircraft be able to send maintenance messages minutes apart ?
This is the part that makes the scenario unlikely to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was struck by a meteor how would the aircraft be able to send maintenance messages minutes apart ?
This is the part that makes the scenario unlikely to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28229449</id>
	<title>Re:The suck!</title>
	<author>pklinken</author>
	<datestamp>1244213520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They should never have turned on their infinite improbability drive..</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should never have turned on their infinite improbability drive. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should never have turned on their infinite improbability drive..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223495</id>
	<title>I say midair with a flying pink unicorn</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1244220840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since we're all just speculating.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since we 're all just speculating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since we're all just speculating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224347</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1244224020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we could do another thing, and it would be great: put a radio AND ultrasonic transmitter on the blackbox. Either can be made to be very sturdy. Then when an accident like this happens, the radio source would help to beacon in on the blackbox. Same with the ultrasound transmitter, undrwater.</p><p>Second improvement I would suggest: put cameras on the black box. They, too, can be made reasonably sturdy. Have, say, three of these record everything around them. Even with hight resolution, an intercontinental flight would take no more than 100-200GB of a harddrive, and nowadays we have 2.5" sized drives of twice this capacity. Heck, even a SSD drive for this purpose (more rugged than standard HDD) would be worth it. I mean, a blackbock records a lot of things, but sometimes a picture gives the best idea of What Went Wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we could do another thing , and it would be great : put a radio AND ultrasonic transmitter on the blackbox .
Either can be made to be very sturdy .
Then when an accident like this happens , the radio source would help to beacon in on the blackbox .
Same with the ultrasound transmitter , undrwater.Second improvement I would suggest : put cameras on the black box .
They , too , can be made reasonably sturdy .
Have , say , three of these record everything around them .
Even with hight resolution , an intercontinental flight would take no more than 100-200GB of a harddrive , and nowadays we have 2.5 " sized drives of twice this capacity .
Heck , even a SSD drive for this purpose ( more rugged than standard HDD ) would be worth it .
I mean , a blackbock records a lot of things , but sometimes a picture gives the best idea of What Went Wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we could do another thing, and it would be great: put a radio AND ultrasonic transmitter on the blackbox.
Either can be made to be very sturdy.
Then when an accident like this happens, the radio source would help to beacon in on the blackbox.
Same with the ultrasound transmitter, undrwater.Second improvement I would suggest: put cameras on the black box.
They, too, can be made reasonably sturdy.
Have, say, three of these record everything around them.
Even with hight resolution, an intercontinental flight would take no more than 100-200GB of a harddrive, and nowadays we have 2.5" sized drives of twice this capacity.
Heck, even a SSD drive for this purpose (more rugged than standard HDD) would be worth it.
I mean, a blackbock records a lot of things, but sometimes a picture gives the best idea of What Went Wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222583</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>alanp</author>
	<datestamp>1244217420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sir are an idiot.<br>The airbus is fly-by-wire, not mechanical controls.</p><p>People like you need to shut and stop hypothesising with bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sir are an idiot.The airbus is fly-by-wire , not mechanical controls.People like you need to shut and stop hypothesising with bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sir are an idiot.The airbus is fly-by-wire, not mechanical controls.People like you need to shut and stop hypothesising with bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227653</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244197020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say Electromagnetism. Gravity gets you going, but EM is what allows you to crash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say Electromagnetism .
Gravity gets you going , but EM is what allows you to crash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say Electromagnetism.
Gravity gets you going, but EM is what allows you to crash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223391</id>
	<title>Re:The suck!</title>
	<author>Is0m0rph</author>
	<datestamp>1244220420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really God must have given you a chance if you somehow survived a 35,000 foot fall to the sea to drown eh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really God must have given you a chance if you somehow survived a 35,000 foot fall to the sea to drown eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really God must have given you a chance if you somehow survived a 35,000 foot fall to the sea to drown eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222997</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>Nibbler(C)</author>
	<datestamp>1244218980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it could also have something to do with fact the boxes are supposed to record as much as possible until the bitter end. So in the event of (almost) complete system failure it could still record cockpit conversations and pressurization changes etc, while having not studied the issue I still suspect that it's hardwired into the internal systems for a reaso. I definitely think the planes probably should send the information (location, airspeed, altitude, etc) in almost realtime versus every once in a while like tehy do now. I wonder if there are any security reasons for the delays in relaying the information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it could also have something to do with fact the boxes are supposed to record as much as possible until the bitter end .
So in the event of ( almost ) complete system failure it could still record cockpit conversations and pressurization changes etc , while having not studied the issue I still suspect that it 's hardwired into the internal systems for a reaso .
I definitely think the planes probably should send the information ( location , airspeed , altitude , etc ) in almost realtime versus every once in a while like tehy do now .
I wonder if there are any security reasons for the delays in relaying the information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it could also have something to do with fact the boxes are supposed to record as much as possible until the bitter end.
So in the event of (almost) complete system failure it could still record cockpit conversations and pressurization changes etc, while having not studied the issue I still suspect that it's hardwired into the internal systems for a reaso.
I definitely think the planes probably should send the information (location, airspeed, altitude, etc) in almost realtime versus every once in a while like tehy do now.
I wonder if there are any security reasons for the delays in relaying the information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230835</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>SigNick</author>
	<datestamp>1244320080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Airbus A330 is a fly-by-wire plane. At no point the crew would have to physically "fight" the controls - it's just a fancy joystick connected with electrical wires to the flight computers!</p><p>No force feedback either (except the "stick shaker")<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Airbus A330 is a fly-by-wire plane .
At no point the crew would have to physically " fight " the controls - it 's just a fancy joystick connected with electrical wires to the flight computers ! No force feedback either ( except the " stick shaker " ) : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Airbus A330 is a fly-by-wire plane.
At no point the crew would have to physically "fight" the controls - it's just a fancy joystick connected with electrical wires to the flight computers!No force feedback either (except the "stick shaker") :P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225351</id>
	<title>As probable as if the airplane turned into</title>
	<author>laejoh</author>
	<datestamp>1244228100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a Sperm Whale.</p><p>I can imagine it thinking:</p><p>Ahhh! Woooh! What's happening? Who am I? Why am I here? What's my purpose in life? What do I mean by who am I? Okay okay, calm down calm down get a grip now. Ooh, this is an interesting sensation. What is it? Its a sort of tingling in my... well I suppose I better start finding names for things. Lets call it a... tail! Yeah! Tail! And hey, what's this roaring sound, whooshing past what I'm suddenly gonna call my head? Wind! Is that a good name? It'll do. Yeah, this is really exciting. I'm dizzy with anticipation! Or is it the wind? There's an awful lot of that now isn't it? And what's this thing coming toward me very fast? So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like 'Ow', 'Ownge', 'Round', 'Ground'! That's it! Ground! Ha! I wonder if it'll be friends with me? Hello Ground!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a Sperm Whale.I can imagine it thinking : Ahhh !
Woooh ! What 's happening ?
Who am I ?
Why am I here ?
What 's my purpose in life ?
What do I mean by who am I ?
Okay okay , calm down calm down get a grip now .
Ooh , this is an interesting sensation .
What is it ?
Its a sort of tingling in my... well I suppose I better start finding names for things .
Lets call it a... tail ! Yeah !
Tail ! And hey , what 's this roaring sound , whooshing past what I 'm suddenly gon na call my head ?
Wind ! Is that a good name ?
It 'll do .
Yeah , this is really exciting .
I 'm dizzy with anticipation !
Or is it the wind ?
There 's an awful lot of that now is n't it ?
And what 's this thing coming toward me very fast ?
So big and flat and round , it needs a big wide sounding name like 'Ow ' , 'Ownge ' , 'Round ' , 'Ground ' !
That 's it !
Ground ! Ha !
I wonder if it 'll be friends with me ?
Hello Ground !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a Sperm Whale.I can imagine it thinking:Ahhh!
Woooh! What's happening?
Who am I?
Why am I here?
What's my purpose in life?
What do I mean by who am I?
Okay okay, calm down calm down get a grip now.
Ooh, this is an interesting sensation.
What is it?
Its a sort of tingling in my... well I suppose I better start finding names for things.
Lets call it a... tail! Yeah!
Tail! And hey, what's this roaring sound, whooshing past what I'm suddenly gonna call my head?
Wind! Is that a good name?
It'll do.
Yeah, this is really exciting.
I'm dizzy with anticipation!
Or is it the wind?
There's an awful lot of that now isn't it?
And what's this thing coming toward me very fast?
So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like 'Ow', 'Ownge', 'Round', 'Ground'!
That's it!
Ground! Ha!
I wonder if it'll be friends with me?
Hello Ground!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223107</id>
	<title>Hogwash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244219400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's one in twenty -</p><p>You sure wouldn't want to invest in a space station.</p><p>Maybe not even a new tile roof.</p><p>Anyway, everybody already knows what doomed TWA flight 800.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's one in twenty -You sure would n't want to invest in a space station.Maybe not even a new tile roof.Anyway , everybody already knows what doomed TWA flight 800 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's one in twenty -You sure wouldn't want to invest in a space station.Maybe not even a new tile roof.Anyway, everybody already knows what doomed TWA flight 800.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222443</id>
	<title>how about good old lightning ?</title>
	<author>cats-paw</author>
	<datestamp>1244216880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe there was a storm in the area, a rather nasty one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe there was a storm in the area , a rather nasty one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe there was a storm in the area, a rather nasty one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227813</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>dirtyhippie</author>
	<datestamp>1244197980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[citation needed]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[citation needed]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222399</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244216760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gravity Brought Down Air France 447.</p><p>We still don't fully understand it yet, but gravity is probably THE number one reason for aircraft crashes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gravity Brought Down Air France 447.We still do n't fully understand it yet , but gravity is probably THE number one reason for aircraft crashes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gravity Brought Down Air France 447.We still don't fully understand it yet, but gravity is probably THE number one reason for aircraft crashes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223095</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244219340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps it is because the radio communications required to Twitter(transmit) the data isn't reliable enough. Duh?</p><p>Besides, what sort of moron are you to suggest that ANYTHING like Twitter be used for aircraft? Imagine the effects of the infamous Fail Whale in mid flight. I'm still shaking my head at your asinine question.</p><p>But, back to the real world. In the real world modern electronic aircraft like Airbus 320s do in fact transmit radio telemetry while in flight. In the case of this particular flight it transmitted data for several minutes that indicated serious problems on board the flight. http://www.designnews.com/article/278177-Air\_France\_Crash\_Underscores\_Challenge\_of\_Designing\_Complex\_Automated\_Systems.php It kept transmitting until it finally reported cabin depressurization and then it stopped.</p><p>We can only assume, for now, that this is when the plane came apart and its telemetry transmitting system was incapacitated. But, with the black box, there may be some additional information that we can find that may not have been received by the ground station. It seems likely that those poor soles knew they were going down for several minutes before they died. They may even have lived for several minutes after the transmissions ended.</p><p>Perhaps if you wasted a bit less time on Twitter and spent a bit more time educating yourself and staying current with real world events of significance you wouldn't be such a complete moron! Twitter indeed!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it is because the radio communications required to Twitter ( transmit ) the data is n't reliable enough .
Duh ? Besides , what sort of moron are you to suggest that ANYTHING like Twitter be used for aircraft ?
Imagine the effects of the infamous Fail Whale in mid flight .
I 'm still shaking my head at your asinine question.But , back to the real world .
In the real world modern electronic aircraft like Airbus 320s do in fact transmit radio telemetry while in flight .
In the case of this particular flight it transmitted data for several minutes that indicated serious problems on board the flight .
http : //www.designnews.com/article/278177-Air \ _France \ _Crash \ _Underscores \ _Challenge \ _of \ _Designing \ _Complex \ _Automated \ _Systems.php It kept transmitting until it finally reported cabin depressurization and then it stopped.We can only assume , for now , that this is when the plane came apart and its telemetry transmitting system was incapacitated .
But , with the black box , there may be some additional information that we can find that may not have been received by the ground station .
It seems likely that those poor soles knew they were going down for several minutes before they died .
They may even have lived for several minutes after the transmissions ended.Perhaps if you wasted a bit less time on Twitter and spent a bit more time educating yourself and staying current with real world events of significance you would n't be such a complete moron !
Twitter indeed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it is because the radio communications required to Twitter(transmit) the data isn't reliable enough.
Duh?Besides, what sort of moron are you to suggest that ANYTHING like Twitter be used for aircraft?
Imagine the effects of the infamous Fail Whale in mid flight.
I'm still shaking my head at your asinine question.But, back to the real world.
In the real world modern electronic aircraft like Airbus 320s do in fact transmit radio telemetry while in flight.
In the case of this particular flight it transmitted data for several minutes that indicated serious problems on board the flight.
http://www.designnews.com/article/278177-Air\_France\_Crash\_Underscores\_Challenge\_of\_Designing\_Complex\_Automated\_Systems.php It kept transmitting until it finally reported cabin depressurization and then it stopped.We can only assume, for now, that this is when the plane came apart and its telemetry transmitting system was incapacitated.
But, with the black box, there may be some additional information that we can find that may not have been received by the ground station.
It seems likely that those poor soles knew they were going down for several minutes before they died.
They may even have lived for several minutes after the transmissions ended.Perhaps if you wasted a bit less time on Twitter and spent a bit more time educating yourself and staying current with real world events of significance you wouldn't be such a complete moron!
Twitter indeed!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223029</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244219040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already do this by satellite radio but the number of planes vs number of satellites means there isn't enough bandwidth for everything the black box records.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already do this by satellite radio but the number of planes vs number of satellites means there is n't enough bandwidth for everything the black box records .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already do this by satellite radio but the number of planes vs number of satellites means there isn't enough bandwidth for everything the black box records.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222467</id>
	<title>Why complicate things?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244216940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>The plane was flying in an intense storm, and a flash of light was observed striking it.&nbsp; Occam's Razor says go for the obvious explanation:&nbsp; lightning.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>The plane was flying in an intense storm , and a flash of light was observed striking it.   Occam 's Razor says go for the obvious explanation :   lightning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The plane was flying in an intense storm, and a flash of light was observed striking it.  Occam's Razor says go for the obvious explanation:  lightning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222327</id>
	<title>Deceit</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1244216460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In light of an Air Comet pilot's report to Air France, Airbus, and the Spanish civil aviation authority that, during a Monday flight from Lima to Lisbon, 'Suddenly, we saw in the distance a strong and intense flash of white light, which followed a descending and vertical trajectory and which broke up in six seconds</p></div></blockquote><p>A company called <b> <i>Air Comet</i> </b> is saying they saw a <i>meteor</i> do it?</p><p>Does anyone else smell some blame-shifting?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In light of an Air Comet pilot 's report to Air France , Airbus , and the Spanish civil aviation authority that , during a Monday flight from Lima to Lisbon , 'Suddenly , we saw in the distance a strong and intense flash of white light , which followed a descending and vertical trajectory and which broke up in six secondsA company called Air Comet is saying they saw a meteor do it ? Does anyone else smell some blame-shifting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In light of an Air Comet pilot's report to Air France, Airbus, and the Spanish civil aviation authority that, during a Monday flight from Lima to Lisbon, 'Suddenly, we saw in the distance a strong and intense flash of white light, which followed a descending and vertical trajectory and which broke up in six secondsA company called  Air Comet  is saying they saw a meteor do it?Does anyone else smell some blame-shifting?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224851</id>
	<title>It's the decepticons!!</title>
	<author>cylcyl</author>
	<datestamp>1244225940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Proof is in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmgbbGJW6ZE" title="youtube.com">the video</a> [youtube.com], ~36s mark</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Proof is in the video [ youtube.com ] , ~ 36s mark</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proof is in the video [youtube.com], ~36s mark</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225237</id>
	<title>Re:Why complicate things?</title>
	<author>pcolaman</author>
	<datestamp>1244227500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit.  Lightning won't take down an airplane.  They are protected from lightning strikes and actually get hit by lightning more often than you might think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
Lightning wo n't take down an airplane .
They are protected from lightning strikes and actually get hit by lightning more often than you might think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
Lightning won't take down an airplane.
They are protected from lightning strikes and actually get hit by lightning more often than you might think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228077</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244199840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what amount of \_energy\_ do you think is needed to transmit such data continuously?</p><p>Planes fly over sea most of the time (heck, more than 70\% of the Earth's surface is covered with water), and provided that you can't, or don't want to, put appropriate receivers on water (the latter being the most probable), you're potentially talking about \_several thousand miles\_ over which the data must stay intact, in the wild world that is the Earth at 20k feet high or more. And of course, you cannot afford errors: the receiver most probably won't be able to send back a \_moving object\_ a NAK for said or said chunk of data.</p><p>Required bandwidth? Probably not much. Required energy? I'm not into data transmission physics, but my guess is, A LOT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what amount of \ _energy \ _ do you think is needed to transmit such data continuously ? Planes fly over sea most of the time ( heck , more than 70 \ % of the Earth 's surface is covered with water ) , and provided that you ca n't , or do n't want to , put appropriate receivers on water ( the latter being the most probable ) , you 're potentially talking about \ _several thousand miles \ _ over which the data must stay intact , in the wild world that is the Earth at 20k feet high or more .
And of course , you can not afford errors : the receiver most probably wo n't be able to send back a \ _moving object \ _ a NAK for said or said chunk of data.Required bandwidth ?
Probably not much .
Required energy ?
I 'm not into data transmission physics , but my guess is , A LOT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what amount of \_energy\_ do you think is needed to transmit such data continuously?Planes fly over sea most of the time (heck, more than 70\% of the Earth's surface is covered with water), and provided that you can't, or don't want to, put appropriate receivers on water (the latter being the most probable), you're potentially talking about \_several thousand miles\_ over which the data must stay intact, in the wild world that is the Earth at 20k feet high or more.
And of course, you cannot afford errors: the receiver most probably won't be able to send back a \_moving object\_ a NAK for said or said chunk of data.Required bandwidth?
Probably not much.
Required energy?
I'm not into data transmission physics, but my guess is, A LOT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223701</id>
	<title>Damn Rapture was right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244221620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like only one plane full of folks got to heaven and all the rest here are Left Behind......</p><p>(now that's some funny shit)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like only one plane full of folks got to heaven and all the rest here are Left Behind...... ( now that 's some funny shit )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like only one plane full of folks got to heaven and all the rest here are Left Behind......(now that's some funny shit)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225041</id>
	<title>What really happened!</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1244226600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Magic. Island.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Magic .
Island .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Magic.
Island.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223355</id>
	<title>Re: likely scenarios are worth looking at</title>
	<author>HarryatRock</author>
	<datestamp>1244220300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Best post in the story. I haven't seen the raw data, but from some knowledge of the scenario I suspect that "flutter", probably induced by turbulance and extremely low pressure (&amp; hence density) caused the horizontal stabilizer to resonate and fail, probably followed by vertical stabilizer and possibly main aerofoil. Whether sundry control surfaces left the scene at the same time would not change the outcome, but would show as "difficulty in controling the aircraft". It is likely that instant loss of cabin pressure was caused by breach of pressure hull integrity on a large scale. At least we can believe that the end would be very quick for all aboard. The real question is not what happened but why the aircraft entered a storm of such severity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Best post in the story .
I have n't seen the raw data , but from some knowledge of the scenario I suspect that " flutter " , probably induced by turbulance and extremely low pressure ( &amp; hence density ) caused the horizontal stabilizer to resonate and fail , probably followed by vertical stabilizer and possibly main aerofoil .
Whether sundry control surfaces left the scene at the same time would not change the outcome , but would show as " difficulty in controling the aircraft " .
It is likely that instant loss of cabin pressure was caused by breach of pressure hull integrity on a large scale .
At least we can believe that the end would be very quick for all aboard .
The real question is not what happened but why the aircraft entered a storm of such severity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best post in the story.
I haven't seen the raw data, but from some knowledge of the scenario I suspect that "flutter", probably induced by turbulance and extremely low pressure (&amp; hence density) caused the horizontal stabilizer to resonate and fail, probably followed by vertical stabilizer and possibly main aerofoil.
Whether sundry control surfaces left the scene at the same time would not change the outcome, but would show as "difficulty in controling the aircraft".
It is likely that instant loss of cabin pressure was caused by breach of pressure hull integrity on a large scale.
At least we can believe that the end would be very quick for all aboard.
The real question is not what happened but why the aircraft entered a storm of such severity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224031</id>
	<title>Electromagnetism!</title>
	<author>paralaxcreations</author>
	<datestamp>1244222760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still say it was an electromagnetic pocket gone out of control because a Scotsman forgot to push the button.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still say it was an electromagnetic pocket gone out of control because a Scotsman forgot to push the button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still say it was an electromagnetic pocket gone out of control because a Scotsman forgot to push the button.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224875</id>
	<title>Re:how about good old lightning ?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244226060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lightening? no.<br>There where several nasty storms in that area.</p><p>I wish I could get a list of which warnings went of and the times they went off.<br>here's hoping the black box is found.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lightening ?
no.There where several nasty storms in that area.I wish I could get a list of which warnings went of and the times they went off.here 's hoping the black box is found .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lightening?
no.There where several nasty storms in that area.I wish I could get a list of which warnings went of and the times they went off.here's hoping the black box is found.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228767</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244204580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hm.. it was reported that a lot of the passengers saw it too. Any info on that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hm.. it was reported that a lot of the passengers saw it too .
Any info on that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hm.. it was reported that a lot of the passengers saw it too.
Any info on that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28229265</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>kylegordon</author>
	<datestamp>1244210640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds like a great idea, and has been tried before. Unfortunately, it will fail in the few marginal cases where you really need it. In the long haul world, where craft are flying across deep oceans and far from land, the only real solution is rather poor HF radio, or satellite links. HF is unreliable, and satellite links can provide decent bandwidth.</p><p>However... when the aircraft attitude goes all wrong, it's practically impossible to keep the satellite link going. It'll work fine for normal flight, but when it's all going pear-shaped, the data is lost. It'll only happen in a very few cases, but those cases are exactly where you need the data that is stored in the CVR and FDR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like a great idea , and has been tried before .
Unfortunately , it will fail in the few marginal cases where you really need it .
In the long haul world , where craft are flying across deep oceans and far from land , the only real solution is rather poor HF radio , or satellite links .
HF is unreliable , and satellite links can provide decent bandwidth.However... when the aircraft attitude goes all wrong , it 's practically impossible to keep the satellite link going .
It 'll work fine for normal flight , but when it 's all going pear-shaped , the data is lost .
It 'll only happen in a very few cases , but those cases are exactly where you need the data that is stored in the CVR and FDR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like a great idea, and has been tried before.
Unfortunately, it will fail in the few marginal cases where you really need it.
In the long haul world, where craft are flying across deep oceans and far from land, the only real solution is rather poor HF radio, or satellite links.
HF is unreliable, and satellite links can provide decent bandwidth.However... when the aircraft attitude goes all wrong, it's practically impossible to keep the satellite link going.
It'll work fine for normal flight, but when it's all going pear-shaped, the data is lost.
It'll only happen in a very few cases, but those cases are exactly where you need the data that is stored in the CVR and FDR.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222247</id>
	<title>Could a Meteor Have Brought Down Air France 447?</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1244216160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223749</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>moon3</author>
	<datestamp>1244221800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are absolutely right man. Could you imagine if the Internet has been provided to them ? Every other dude would be on ICQ or similar client and we all would have lots of traces to follow.<br> <br>The reasons to ban phones and the Internet on planes is ridiculous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are absolutely right man .
Could you imagine if the Internet has been provided to them ?
Every other dude would be on ICQ or similar client and we all would have lots of traces to follow .
The reasons to ban phones and the Internet on planes is ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are absolutely right man.
Could you imagine if the Internet has been provided to them ?
Every other dude would be on ICQ or similar client and we all would have lots of traces to follow.
The reasons to ban phones and the Internet on planes is ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223633</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Bluesman</author>
	<datestamp>1244221380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those who aren't aware of the technical terminology used in aviation, Vne is the velocity you must achieve for 80\% of the passengers on a typical jet-liner to shit themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those who are n't aware of the technical terminology used in aviation , Vne is the velocity you must achieve for 80 \ % of the passengers on a typical jet-liner to shit themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those who aren't aware of the technical terminology used in aviation, Vne is the velocity you must achieve for 80\% of the passengers on a typical jet-liner to shit themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222943</id>
	<title>Re:Search Technology</title>
	<author>mikael</author>
	<datestamp>1244218740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We did that with the search for Steve Fossett. High resolution images of the Californian desert within the distance that his plane could fly were taken, sliced up and posted on Amazon's Mechanical Turk (much like tiles from a console game). These numbered literally in a million or so.</p><p>The results were that dozens of old wrecks were found, but not Steve Fossett's plane. His plane was found when a mountain hill climber was walking along a trail at around 10,000 feet and came across his plane. The plane had continued at the preset altitude until it hit the mountain.</p><p>Some of the suggestions from helpers - the search could have been automated by comparing before and after photographs of the landscape. That would have helped eliminate the majority of the recognition work.</p><p>Even without engines, as long as the plane remains level,it could still glide although for only a number of minutes. The "glide ratio" for a large plane is somewhere between 10.0 and 20.0 . Some planes which have flown<br>through volcanic ash clouds or had fuel pump failures have been able to glide for hundreds of miles from 35,000<br>feet.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British\_Airways\_Flight\_9" title="wikipedia.org">British Airways Flight 9</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air\_Transat\_Flight\_236" title="wikipedia.org">Air Transat Flight 236</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli\_Glider" title="wikipedia.org">Gimli Glider</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We did that with the search for Steve Fossett .
High resolution images of the Californian desert within the distance that his plane could fly were taken , sliced up and posted on Amazon 's Mechanical Turk ( much like tiles from a console game ) .
These numbered literally in a million or so.The results were that dozens of old wrecks were found , but not Steve Fossett 's plane .
His plane was found when a mountain hill climber was walking along a trail at around 10,000 feet and came across his plane .
The plane had continued at the preset altitude until it hit the mountain.Some of the suggestions from helpers - the search could have been automated by comparing before and after photographs of the landscape .
That would have helped eliminate the majority of the recognition work.Even without engines , as long as the plane remains level,it could still glide although for only a number of minutes .
The " glide ratio " for a large plane is somewhere between 10.0 and 20.0 .
Some planes which have flownthrough volcanic ash clouds or had fuel pump failures have been able to glide for hundreds of miles from 35,000feet.British Airways Flight 9 [ wikipedia.org ] Air Transat Flight 236 [ wikipedia.org ] Gimli Glider [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We did that with the search for Steve Fossett.
High resolution images of the Californian desert within the distance that his plane could fly were taken, sliced up and posted on Amazon's Mechanical Turk (much like tiles from a console game).
These numbered literally in a million or so.The results were that dozens of old wrecks were found, but not Steve Fossett's plane.
His plane was found when a mountain hill climber was walking along a trail at around 10,000 feet and came across his plane.
The plane had continued at the preset altitude until it hit the mountain.Some of the suggestions from helpers - the search could have been automated by comparing before and after photographs of the landscape.
That would have helped eliminate the majority of the recognition work.Even without engines, as long as the plane remains level,it could still glide although for only a number of minutes.
The "glide ratio" for a large plane is somewhere between 10.0 and 20.0 .
Some planes which have flownthrough volcanic ash clouds or had fuel pump failures have been able to glide for hundreds of miles from 35,000feet.British Airways Flight 9 [wikipedia.org]Air Transat Flight 236 [wikipedia.org]Gimli Glider [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222609</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>alphax45</author>
	<datestamp>1244217540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to say that sounds very plausable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to say that sounds very plausable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to say that sounds very plausable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223475</id>
	<title>Re:One in twenty?</title>
	<author>Malc</author>
	<datestamp>1244220780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, those odds seem inconceivably low.  If an unguided rock can hit a plane with that frequency (1 in 20 times), you'd think we'd be able to develop an anti-ballistic missile system that worked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , those odds seem inconceivably low .
If an unguided rock can hit a plane with that frequency ( 1 in 20 times ) , you 'd think we 'd be able to develop an anti-ballistic missile system that worked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, those odds seem inconceivably low.
If an unguided rock can hit a plane with that frequency (1 in 20 times), you'd think we'd be able to develop an anti-ballistic missile system that worked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222953</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>stoolpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1244218800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A ton of data is already constantly sent out and recorded, but the amount the black box records is pretty immense and would be pretty expensive.  If cockpit voice data was to be included in this I think there would be resistance from pilot unions.</p><p>Tack on the fact that very few people die this way compared to many other ways - it would make more sense to put cameras and microphones in operating and hospital rooms than beam everything live from a cockpit to ground.  (The hospital thing is one example- there are many others.  Say cameras and microphones in every automobile.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A ton of data is already constantly sent out and recorded , but the amount the black box records is pretty immense and would be pretty expensive .
If cockpit voice data was to be included in this I think there would be resistance from pilot unions.Tack on the fact that very few people die this way compared to many other ways - it would make more sense to put cameras and microphones in operating and hospital rooms than beam everything live from a cockpit to ground .
( The hospital thing is one example- there are many others .
Say cameras and microphones in every automobile .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A ton of data is already constantly sent out and recorded, but the amount the black box records is pretty immense and would be pretty expensive.
If cockpit voice data was to be included in this I think there would be resistance from pilot unions.Tack on the fact that very few people die this way compared to many other ways - it would make more sense to put cameras and microphones in operating and hospital rooms than beam everything live from a cockpit to ground.
(The hospital thing is one example- there are many others.
Say cameras and microphones in every automobile.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228673</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244203860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was speaking to some guys who write air traffic control software about this issue just the other day.</p><p>Aircraft could send that info, but it would cost big $s. At the moment they send (every 1/2 hour) a current position - and that costs a lot for even a tiny amount of info.</p><p>Limited market + not many providers = extortion level prices for simple services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was speaking to some guys who write air traffic control software about this issue just the other day.Aircraft could send that info , but it would cost big $ s .
At the moment they send ( every 1/2 hour ) a current position - and that costs a lot for even a tiny amount of info.Limited market + not many providers = extortion level prices for simple services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was speaking to some guys who write air traffic control software about this issue just the other day.Aircraft could send that info, but it would cost big $s.
At the moment they send (every 1/2 hour) a current position - and that costs a lot for even a tiny amount of info.Limited market + not many providers = extortion level prices for simple services.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227451</id>
	<title>Re: I doubt it</title>
	<author>colinnwn</author>
	<datestamp>1244195640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given current pilot training I think your initial proposal is unlikely. <br> <br>
If the plane were caught in a 100mph updraft, the updraft is providing lift dramatically lowering the stall speed at any AOA. The reaction should be to nose the plane down within structural and g limits to prevent dramatic altitude excursion. This will very quickly raise the speed well above stall.
<br> <br>There is a possibility of entering a downdraft shortly after the updraft (though this is much more likely near the ground). Therefore if you have headroom before hitting the max turbulent air penetration speed, you'd want to increase engine thrust and be ready to pull up.<br> <br>
I think it is much more likely as you allude to that a combination of pilot inputs and fast changing wind currents overstressed the aircraft and a control surface failed (much like AA 587).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given current pilot training I think your initial proposal is unlikely .
If the plane were caught in a 100mph updraft , the updraft is providing lift dramatically lowering the stall speed at any AOA .
The reaction should be to nose the plane down within structural and g limits to prevent dramatic altitude excursion .
This will very quickly raise the speed well above stall .
There is a possibility of entering a downdraft shortly after the updraft ( though this is much more likely near the ground ) .
Therefore if you have headroom before hitting the max turbulent air penetration speed , you 'd want to increase engine thrust and be ready to pull up .
I think it is much more likely as you allude to that a combination of pilot inputs and fast changing wind currents overstressed the aircraft and a control surface failed ( much like AA 587 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given current pilot training I think your initial proposal is unlikely.
If the plane were caught in a 100mph updraft, the updraft is providing lift dramatically lowering the stall speed at any AOA.
The reaction should be to nose the plane down within structural and g limits to prevent dramatic altitude excursion.
This will very quickly raise the speed well above stall.
There is a possibility of entering a downdraft shortly after the updraft (though this is much more likely near the ground).
Therefore if you have headroom before hitting the max turbulent air penetration speed, you'd want to increase engine thrust and be ready to pull up.
I think it is much more likely as you allude to that a combination of pilot inputs and fast changing wind currents overstressed the aircraft and a control surface failed (much like AA 587).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223213</id>
	<title>Re:Cars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244219760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do hit cars and buildings.  The reason they are only local news story is that a hole in the roof of the house is a hole in the roof.  A 4 in. hole in a plane causes a few more problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do hit cars and buildings .
The reason they are only local news story is that a hole in the roof of the house is a hole in the roof .
A 4 in .
hole in a plane causes a few more problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do hit cars and buildings.
The reason they are only local news story is that a hole in the roof of the house is a hole in the roof.
A 4 in.
hole in a plane causes a few more problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223403</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1244220480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That sounds plausible, except the last I heard there weren't any radio transmissions during the episode.  Wouldn't you expect at least 1 of 3 pilots to be screaming into the headset?</p><p>What's the possibility that the cockpit was destroyed before the rest of the plane?  Could such a think happen and the rest of the plane still limp along in approximately stable flight, at least for a minute or so?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds plausible , except the last I heard there were n't any radio transmissions during the episode .
Would n't you expect at least 1 of 3 pilots to be screaming into the headset ? What 's the possibility that the cockpit was destroyed before the rest of the plane ?
Could such a think happen and the rest of the plane still limp along in approximately stable flight , at least for a minute or so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds plausible, except the last I heard there weren't any radio transmissions during the episode.
Wouldn't you expect at least 1 of 3 pilots to be screaming into the headset?What's the possibility that the cockpit was destroyed before the rest of the plane?
Could such a think happen and the rest of the plane still limp along in approximately stable flight, at least for a minute or so?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225277</id>
	<title>Not meteor, more likely weather</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244227680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Air France Flight 447:<br>A detailed meteorological analysis</p><p>http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/</p><p>Done by Tim Vasquez, a man who knows his weather. This was no meteor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Air France Flight 447 : A detailed meteorological analysishttp : //www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/Done by Tim Vasquez , a man who knows his weather .
This was no meteor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Air France Flight 447:A detailed meteorological analysishttp://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/Done by Tim Vasquez, a man who knows his weather.
This was no meteor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227021</id>
	<title>Wrong math</title>
	<author>dafradu</author>
	<datestamp>1244193000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFA says 1 in 10 planes from 30 years to today could have being hit by an meteor.
<br>
What are the chances of a car then? Must be much higher...</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA says 1 in 10 planes from 30 years to today could have being hit by an meteor .
What are the chances of a car then ?
Must be much higher.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA says 1 in 10 planes from 30 years to today could have being hit by an meteor.
What are the chances of a car then?
Must be much higher...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226141</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>ceiling9</author>
	<datestamp>1244231820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have no idea how the specific control laws in the A330 work, but on other aircraft there is an artificial spring force that varies with airspeed and other factors to give the pilot a good feel on the controls for the particular flight condition.
<br> <br>
From the chart at airbusdriver, it looks like there are backup mechanical controls for the elevator and rudder only.  It says the elevator control is via a trim wheel, which would only allow very slow changes, and would be really awkward to try to regain control in a difficult situation.
<br> <br>
The software should limit the control inputs to levels that won't break the aircraft at the given flight condition, but, if say the air data unit was malfunctioning, the control laws may have thought the aircraft was moving much slower, and given the pilot greater authority to move the rudder, and led to a structural failure.  This is all complete speculation, but, just a thought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no idea how the specific control laws in the A330 work , but on other aircraft there is an artificial spring force that varies with airspeed and other factors to give the pilot a good feel on the controls for the particular flight condition .
From the chart at airbusdriver , it looks like there are backup mechanical controls for the elevator and rudder only .
It says the elevator control is via a trim wheel , which would only allow very slow changes , and would be really awkward to try to regain control in a difficult situation .
The software should limit the control inputs to levels that wo n't break the aircraft at the given flight condition , but , if say the air data unit was malfunctioning , the control laws may have thought the aircraft was moving much slower , and given the pilot greater authority to move the rudder , and led to a structural failure .
This is all complete speculation , but , just a thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no idea how the specific control laws in the A330 work, but on other aircraft there is an artificial spring force that varies with airspeed and other factors to give the pilot a good feel on the controls for the particular flight condition.
From the chart at airbusdriver, it looks like there are backup mechanical controls for the elevator and rudder only.
It says the elevator control is via a trim wheel, which would only allow very slow changes, and would be really awkward to try to regain control in a difficult situation.
The software should limit the control inputs to levels that won't break the aircraft at the given flight condition, but, if say the air data unit was malfunctioning, the control laws may have thought the aircraft was moving much slower, and given the pilot greater authority to move the rudder, and led to a structural failure.
This is all complete speculation, but, just a thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226243</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1244232360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's my call.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's also your paragraph quota for the rest of this month.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's my call.That 's also your paragraph quota for the rest of this month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's my call.That's also your paragraph quota for the rest of this month.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228729</id>
	<title>Missing factor</title>
	<author>glitch23</author>
	<datestamp>1244204280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article uses the number of meteors which hit the Earth every day however there are many more that do not turn into meteorites because they simply glance off the atmosphere or burn up in the atmosphere so the probability calculations must take these into account. I failed statistics because I never could figure out exactly which factors must be included and which are excluded when calculating probably. With that said, doesn't the probability of a plane and a meteor being in the same location both in space and time have to be factored in to the equation? The article discusses the probability of a meteor striking an area the size of a jet but not a specific area (identified, for example, by lat and long coordinates) at a specific time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article uses the number of meteors which hit the Earth every day however there are many more that do not turn into meteorites because they simply glance off the atmosphere or burn up in the atmosphere so the probability calculations must take these into account .
I failed statistics because I never could figure out exactly which factors must be included and which are excluded when calculating probably .
With that said , does n't the probability of a plane and a meteor being in the same location both in space and time have to be factored in to the equation ?
The article discusses the probability of a meteor striking an area the size of a jet but not a specific area ( identified , for example , by lat and long coordinates ) at a specific time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article uses the number of meteors which hit the Earth every day however there are many more that do not turn into meteorites because they simply glance off the atmosphere or burn up in the atmosphere so the probability calculations must take these into account.
I failed statistics because I never could figure out exactly which factors must be included and which are excluded when calculating probably.
With that said, doesn't the probability of a plane and a meteor being in the same location both in space and time have to be factored in to the equation?
The article discusses the probability of a meteor striking an area the size of a jet but not a specific area (identified, for example, by lat and long coordinates) at a specific time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226747</id>
	<title>Not likely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244234940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm thinking it was an alien abduction.</p><p>Today's captcha is: wriggles</p><p>Guess which part of me is wriggling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking it was an alien abduction.Today 's captcha is : wrigglesGuess which part of me is wriggling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thinking it was an alien abduction.Today's captcha is: wrigglesGuess which part of me is wriggling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222449</id>
	<title>Search Technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244216880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Current search methods seems so old and slow,</p><p>Why we cant have a bunch of satellite photos ( from google, or yahoo, or microsoft... or anyone else ) and  request the internet community to analyze them.I bet lots of people will want to help reviewing pictures. It should be faster and cheaper to find something</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Current search methods seems so old and slow,Why we cant have a bunch of satellite photos ( from google , or yahoo , or microsoft... or anyone else ) and request the internet community to analyze them.I bet lots of people will want to help reviewing pictures .
It should be faster and cheaper to find something</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Current search methods seems so old and slow,Why we cant have a bunch of satellite photos ( from google, or yahoo, or microsoft... or anyone else ) and  request the internet community to analyze them.I bet lots of people will want to help reviewing pictures.
It should be faster and cheaper to find something</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230695</id>
	<title>Re:Mr Occam, is that you?</title>
	<author>metaforest</author>
	<datestamp>1244231580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speculative Journalism being applied by the media after a pilot reported seeing a meteor in the area is simply irresponsible.</p><p>I do consider airline pilots to be somewhat expert observers, in that they are highly trained to be highly aware of what is going on in a large envelope of airspace around their aircraft, trying to tie a meteor trail to a general area over open ocean without at least two fairly accurate and independent measurements of it's apparent heading and inclination is just nonsense.</p><p>From my own experience:</p><p>in the summer of 1996 I was Volunteer In Park Ranger for Olympic National Park. One stormy night I witnessed a truly spectacular lightening storm while on my duty station in the back country.    From my location I had clear line of sight to about 120 degrees of horizon that included some rather dramatic peaks about 2 to 5 miles away, depending on the particular angle one wanted to look.  Most of the peaks were higher than my POV.</p><p>At one point a particularly energetic bolt  lit up the basin and as my vision cleared I noticed there a brilliant orange star glowing in an area that I knew to a fairly steep bluff a couple of miles away.   I pulled a surplus army issue orienteering compass out of my pocket and quickly got a heading and inclination fix, and wrote them down.  The orange star grew brighter until I could see flames licking into the sky and then it gradually faded to a dim glow, and then to a memory.</p><p>Next morning after having almost no sleep due to Mother Nature's fantastic show, I sat down with a big mug of cowboy coffee, and converted my heading and inclination measurement into a lat-long position.</p><p>For anyone who has not done this the process is pretty simple but you have to have some reference info.   You must know your position and altitude, and you have to have a way to take an accurate  heading fix AND inclination against a reference level.  The compass I used had the features required to take the measurements.  Then with a ruler and pencil I sketched out the heading on a topo map.  Then on an accompanying sheet of graph paper sketched out the triangle that represented my inclination measurement and calculated the altitude.   Examining the map I found the relief-line that represented that altitude and drew a nice dot at the point where my heading line intersected the relief.   I then interpolated the lat-long cords from the map's grid, and radioed this along with as much detail about what I saw to Fire Command over radio, and at the same time filled out an incident report.  The calculations took about 10 minutes.</p><p>About 3 hours later a helicopter approached the area I had reported, and contacted me, saying that they found the burned out tree.  The pilot commented that my position fix was within 50m, and that seemed to impress him.</p><p>My point is that there is no way a pilot over open water is going to get even a region fix on a meteor trail without some critically important reference points, and a careful measurement.</p><p>"In that general vicinity,"  would be vague hand-waving over a volume of several hundred to several thousand cubic miles of air-space.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speculative Journalism being applied by the media after a pilot reported seeing a meteor in the area is simply irresponsible.I do consider airline pilots to be somewhat expert observers , in that they are highly trained to be highly aware of what is going on in a large envelope of airspace around their aircraft , trying to tie a meteor trail to a general area over open ocean without at least two fairly accurate and independent measurements of it 's apparent heading and inclination is just nonsense.From my own experience : in the summer of 1996 I was Volunteer In Park Ranger for Olympic National Park .
One stormy night I witnessed a truly spectacular lightening storm while on my duty station in the back country .
From my location I had clear line of sight to about 120 degrees of horizon that included some rather dramatic peaks about 2 to 5 miles away , depending on the particular angle one wanted to look .
Most of the peaks were higher than my POV.At one point a particularly energetic bolt lit up the basin and as my vision cleared I noticed there a brilliant orange star glowing in an area that I knew to a fairly steep bluff a couple of miles away .
I pulled a surplus army issue orienteering compass out of my pocket and quickly got a heading and inclination fix , and wrote them down .
The orange star grew brighter until I could see flames licking into the sky and then it gradually faded to a dim glow , and then to a memory.Next morning after having almost no sleep due to Mother Nature 's fantastic show , I sat down with a big mug of cowboy coffee , and converted my heading and inclination measurement into a lat-long position.For anyone who has not done this the process is pretty simple but you have to have some reference info .
You must know your position and altitude , and you have to have a way to take an accurate heading fix AND inclination against a reference level .
The compass I used had the features required to take the measurements .
Then with a ruler and pencil I sketched out the heading on a topo map .
Then on an accompanying sheet of graph paper sketched out the triangle that represented my inclination measurement and calculated the altitude .
Examining the map I found the relief-line that represented that altitude and drew a nice dot at the point where my heading line intersected the relief .
I then interpolated the lat-long cords from the map 's grid , and radioed this along with as much detail about what I saw to Fire Command over radio , and at the same time filled out an incident report .
The calculations took about 10 minutes.About 3 hours later a helicopter approached the area I had reported , and contacted me , saying that they found the burned out tree .
The pilot commented that my position fix was within 50m , and that seemed to impress him.My point is that there is no way a pilot over open water is going to get even a region fix on a meteor trail without some critically important reference points , and a careful measurement .
" In that general vicinity , " would be vague hand-waving over a volume of several hundred to several thousand cubic miles of air-space .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speculative Journalism being applied by the media after a pilot reported seeing a meteor in the area is simply irresponsible.I do consider airline pilots to be somewhat expert observers, in that they are highly trained to be highly aware of what is going on in a large envelope of airspace around their aircraft, trying to tie a meteor trail to a general area over open ocean without at least two fairly accurate and independent measurements of it's apparent heading and inclination is just nonsense.From my own experience:in the summer of 1996 I was Volunteer In Park Ranger for Olympic National Park.
One stormy night I witnessed a truly spectacular lightening storm while on my duty station in the back country.
From my location I had clear line of sight to about 120 degrees of horizon that included some rather dramatic peaks about 2 to 5 miles away, depending on the particular angle one wanted to look.
Most of the peaks were higher than my POV.At one point a particularly energetic bolt  lit up the basin and as my vision cleared I noticed there a brilliant orange star glowing in an area that I knew to a fairly steep bluff a couple of miles away.
I pulled a surplus army issue orienteering compass out of my pocket and quickly got a heading and inclination fix, and wrote them down.
The orange star grew brighter until I could see flames licking into the sky and then it gradually faded to a dim glow, and then to a memory.Next morning after having almost no sleep due to Mother Nature's fantastic show, I sat down with a big mug of cowboy coffee, and converted my heading and inclination measurement into a lat-long position.For anyone who has not done this the process is pretty simple but you have to have some reference info.
You must know your position and altitude, and you have to have a way to take an accurate  heading fix AND inclination against a reference level.
The compass I used had the features required to take the measurements.
Then with a ruler and pencil I sketched out the heading on a topo map.
Then on an accompanying sheet of graph paper sketched out the triangle that represented my inclination measurement and calculated the altitude.
Examining the map I found the relief-line that represented that altitude and drew a nice dot at the point where my heading line intersected the relief.
I then interpolated the lat-long cords from the map's grid, and radioed this along with as much detail about what I saw to Fire Command over radio, and at the same time filled out an incident report.
The calculations took about 10 minutes.About 3 hours later a helicopter approached the area I had reported, and contacted me, saying that they found the burned out tree.
The pilot commented that my position fix was within 50m, and that seemed to impress him.My point is that there is no way a pilot over open water is going to get even a region fix on a meteor trail without some critically important reference points, and a careful measurement.
"In that general vicinity,"  would be vague hand-waving over a volume of several hundred to several thousand cubic miles of air-space.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225185</id>
	<title>Re:Deceit</title>
	<author>pcolaman</author>
	<datestamp>1244227320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone else smell some <b>viral marketing</b>?</p></div><p>There, fixed it for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone else smell some viral marketing ? There , fixed it for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone else smell some viral marketing?There, fixed it for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28234143</id>
	<title>so it wasn't...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244310900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>damn, I thought the langoliers had got them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>damn , I thought the langoliers had got them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>damn, I thought the langoliers had got them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225631</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>tweak13</author>
	<datestamp>1244229240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They disengaged the main flight control system because they thought it was flying too fast in the turbulence, or was causing too much passenger discomfort.</p></div><p>Possible, but I'm sure the autopilot is more than capable of handling turbulence.  I highly doubt there is anything the pilots could do to improve passenger comfort other than to change course or altitude and move out of the turbulence.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They slowed down to a very narrow margin above stall speed.</p></div><p>Only an idiot would do this.  There is no reason whatsoever to slow down below maneuvering speed, which on a heavy aircraft is probably still quite fast.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They went into a high-speed dive.</p></div><p>Aircraft that stall don't just fall out of the sky.  In fact, a stalled wing continues to produce lift, just not as much of it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They hit a 100 mph updraft, causing the AOA to go beyond the stall angle.</p></div><p>That's a very violent updraft, and the reason pilots of any size aircraft route around storms.  It's also why you wouldn't slow down below maneuvering speed.  The faster you're going, the stronger the wind would need to be to cause a stall.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.</p></div><p>The aircraft is fly by wire.  It's also hydraulic powered.  There is no change in force other than possibly some type of force feedback system, which obviously would not be strong enough to prevent the pilots from moving the controls.

<br> <br>

I'd go on, but your argument is completely ridiculous.  Yes, it's true that nobody knows what happened, but that doesn't mean that absolutely anything is a reasonable argument.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They disengaged the main flight control system because they thought it was flying too fast in the turbulence , or was causing too much passenger discomfort.Possible , but I 'm sure the autopilot is more than capable of handling turbulence .
I highly doubt there is anything the pilots could do to improve passenger comfort other than to change course or altitude and move out of the turbulence.They slowed down to a very narrow margin above stall speed.Only an idiot would do this .
There is no reason whatsoever to slow down below maneuvering speed , which on a heavy aircraft is probably still quite fast.They went into a high-speed dive.Aircraft that stall do n't just fall out of the sky .
In fact , a stalled wing continues to produce lift , just not as much of it.They hit a 100 mph updraft , causing the AOA to go beyond the stall angle.That 's a very violent updraft , and the reason pilots of any size aircraft route around storms .
It 's also why you would n't slow down below maneuvering speed .
The faster you 're going , the stronger the wind would need to be to cause a stall.Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.The aircraft is fly by wire .
It 's also hydraulic powered .
There is no change in force other than possibly some type of force feedback system , which obviously would not be strong enough to prevent the pilots from moving the controls .
I 'd go on , but your argument is completely ridiculous .
Yes , it 's true that nobody knows what happened , but that does n't mean that absolutely anything is a reasonable argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They disengaged the main flight control system because they thought it was flying too fast in the turbulence, or was causing too much passenger discomfort.Possible, but I'm sure the autopilot is more than capable of handling turbulence.
I highly doubt there is anything the pilots could do to improve passenger comfort other than to change course or altitude and move out of the turbulence.They slowed down to a very narrow margin above stall speed.Only an idiot would do this.
There is no reason whatsoever to slow down below maneuvering speed, which on a heavy aircraft is probably still quite fast.They went into a high-speed dive.Aircraft that stall don't just fall out of the sky.
In fact, a stalled wing continues to produce lift, just not as much of it.They hit a 100 mph updraft, causing the AOA to go beyond the stall angle.That's a very violent updraft, and the reason pilots of any size aircraft route around storms.
It's also why you wouldn't slow down below maneuvering speed.
The faster you're going, the stronger the wind would need to be to cause a stall.Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.The aircraft is fly by wire.
It's also hydraulic powered.
There is no change in force other than possibly some type of force feedback system, which obviously would not be strong enough to prevent the pilots from moving the controls.
I'd go on, but your argument is completely ridiculous.
Yes, it's true that nobody knows what happened, but that doesn't mean that absolutely anything is a reasonable argument.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224563</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244224860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Because it's prohibitively expensive to transmit off-aircraft.  An airline's ACARS bill can easily reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per month.</p><p>2. Because ACARS only has around a 200 miles range so it wouldn't help trans-sea flights such as this.</p><p>3. Because a HUGE amount of data gets stored on the FDR and CVR.  No, don't argue unless you've ever worked on an FDR or interfaced with one.  A huge amount of data.  We're talking continuous data ranging at 1 - 100 Hz.  Now reference reason #1 again with this in mind.</p><p>4. Lastly, you'd almost certainly have to certify the transmission transmitter and receivers to DO-178B Level A.  This will easily reach into the $10M range for just the transmission hardware and software.  All for an event (deep sea crash) that happens, what, once every 20-30 years or more?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Because it 's prohibitively expensive to transmit off-aircraft .
An airline 's ACARS bill can easily reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per month.2 .
Because ACARS only has around a 200 miles range so it would n't help trans-sea flights such as this.3 .
Because a HUGE amount of data gets stored on the FDR and CVR .
No , do n't argue unless you 've ever worked on an FDR or interfaced with one .
A huge amount of data .
We 're talking continuous data ranging at 1 - 100 Hz .
Now reference reason # 1 again with this in mind.4 .
Lastly , you 'd almost certainly have to certify the transmission transmitter and receivers to DO-178B Level A. This will easily reach into the $ 10M range for just the transmission hardware and software .
All for an event ( deep sea crash ) that happens , what , once every 20-30 years or more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Because it's prohibitively expensive to transmit off-aircraft.
An airline's ACARS bill can easily reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per month.2.
Because ACARS only has around a 200 miles range so it wouldn't help trans-sea flights such as this.3.
Because a HUGE amount of data gets stored on the FDR and CVR.
No, don't argue unless you've ever worked on an FDR or interfaced with one.
A huge amount of data.
We're talking continuous data ranging at 1 - 100 Hz.
Now reference reason #1 again with this in mind.4.
Lastly, you'd almost certainly have to certify the transmission transmitter and receivers to DO-178B Level A.  This will easily reach into the $10M range for just the transmission hardware and software.
All for an event (deep sea crash) that happens, what, once every 20-30 years or more?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222319</id>
	<title>Pot. Kettle. Black</title>
	<author>justleavealonemmmkay</author>
	<datestamp>1244216460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, right, Air Comet has no intrest whatsoever to accuse a meteor...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , right , Air Comet has no intrest whatsoever to accuse a meteor.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, right, Air Comet has no intrest whatsoever to accuse a meteor...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223513</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244220900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds plausible except a "highly experienced" crew wouldn't make that mistake of flying so close to stall speed, would they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds plausible except a " highly experienced " crew would n't make that mistake of flying so close to stall speed , would they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds plausible except a "highly experienced" crew wouldn't make that mistake of flying so close to stall speed, would they?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224119</id>
	<title>At least it wasn't...</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1244223060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least it wasn't my model rocket.  I always wondered where it went.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least it was n't my model rocket .
I always wondered where it went .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least it wasn't my model rocket.
I always wondered where it went.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223911</id>
	<title>Re:Cars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244222280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If meteors can be so dangerous to airoplanes, why we don't see them hitting cars or buildings more often?</p></div><p>Because the meteor is burned up before it reaches the surface of the earth</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If meteors can be so dangerous to airoplanes , why we do n't see them hitting cars or buildings more often ? Because the meteor is burned up before it reaches the surface of the earth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If meteors can be so dangerous to airoplanes, why we don't see them hitting cars or buildings more often?Because the meteor is burned up before it reaches the surface of the earth
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223993</id>
	<title>Re:Cars</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1244222580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If cars and buildings were flying at 30,000 feet, they probably WOULD be hit more often. How many of those meteors burn up in the bottom 6 miles of atmosphere?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If cars and buildings were flying at 30,000 feet , they probably WOULD be hit more often .
How many of those meteors burn up in the bottom 6 miles of atmosphere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If cars and buildings were flying at 30,000 feet, they probably WOULD be hit more often.
How many of those meteors burn up in the bottom 6 miles of atmosphere?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222799</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>sirkazuo</author>
	<datestamp>1244218320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is what happens when the planes electronics or radios fail, causing the problem in the first place.  The black boxes will record all of that information even when all the other systems have failed, where that crucial data would otherwise be lost in transmission.  The flight recordings are useless, after all, until the last few minutes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is what happens when the planes electronics or radios fail , causing the problem in the first place .
The black boxes will record all of that information even when all the other systems have failed , where that crucial data would otherwise be lost in transmission .
The flight recordings are useless , after all , until the last few minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is what happens when the planes electronics or radios fail, causing the problem in the first place.
The black boxes will record all of that information even when all the other systems have failed, where that crucial data would otherwise be lost in transmission.
The flight recordings are useless, after all, until the last few minutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28313527</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244798520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The black boxes will record data for retrieval even if the comm systems die before the plane dies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or if the plane goes down during a solar event that takes out radio.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The black boxes will record data for retrieval even if the comm systems die before the plane dies ... or if the plane goes down during a solar event that takes out radio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The black boxes will record data for retrieval even if the comm systems die before the plane dies ... or if the plane goes down during a solar event that takes out radio.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223629</id>
	<title>Re:One in twenty?</title>
	<author>kneemoe</author>
	<datestamp>1244221320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you're misunderstanding what they're saying - which is that over the past 20 years there's a 1:20 chance that a single plane has been brought down by a meteorite, not that every plane has a 1:20 chance of being hit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're misunderstanding what they 're saying - which is that over the past 20 years there 's a 1 : 20 chance that a single plane has been brought down by a meteorite , not that every plane has a 1 : 20 chance of being hit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're misunderstanding what they're saying - which is that over the past 20 years there's a 1:20 chance that a single plane has been brought down by a meteorite, not that every plane has a 1:20 chance of being hit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223537</id>
	<title>Re:Why complicate things?</title>
	<author>FuzzyHead</author>
	<datestamp>1244221020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because in order to properly apply Occam's Razor one's explanation must explain all the facts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because in order to properly apply Occam 's Razor one 's explanation must explain all the facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because in order to properly apply Occam's Razor one's explanation must explain all the facts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228147</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1244200260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't explain the electrical failures described in the ACARS messages. Additionally it seems strange that the crew would pay much attention to indicated air speed derived from a pitot tube at that speed and altitude. There are many better ways to determine your speed in that environment. I think it is more likely they would use GPS and other positioning data to determine aircraft speed.<br> <br>
My bet is that they had a structural failure in normal flight. A bit like the composite tail fin failure on the aircraft which crashed after departure from JFK a few years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't explain the electrical failures described in the ACARS messages .
Additionally it seems strange that the crew would pay much attention to indicated air speed derived from a pitot tube at that speed and altitude .
There are many better ways to determine your speed in that environment .
I think it is more likely they would use GPS and other positioning data to determine aircraft speed .
My bet is that they had a structural failure in normal flight .
A bit like the composite tail fin failure on the aircraft which crashed after departure from JFK a few years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't explain the electrical failures described in the ACARS messages.
Additionally it seems strange that the crew would pay much attention to indicated air speed derived from a pitot tube at that speed and altitude.
There are many better ways to determine your speed in that environment.
I think it is more likely they would use GPS and other positioning data to determine aircraft speed.
My bet is that they had a structural failure in normal flight.
A bit like the composite tail fin failure on the aircraft which crashed after departure from JFK a few years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224093</id>
	<title>Re:Nope.</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1244222940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Increase the number of bullets going each way, and the odds would drop (though I cannot vouch for the 1:20 figure presented, it may be possible).  Have you even considered how many flights are in the air at any moment? Just spend some time near a major airport and the feasability may seem more plausible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Increase the number of bullets going each way , and the odds would drop ( though I can not vouch for the 1 : 20 figure presented , it may be possible ) .
Have you even considered how many flights are in the air at any moment ?
Just spend some time near a major airport and the feasability may seem more plausible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Increase the number of bullets going each way, and the odds would drop (though I cannot vouch for the 1:20 figure presented, it may be possible).
Have you even considered how many flights are in the air at any moment?
Just spend some time near a major airport and the feasability may seem more plausible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225895</id>
	<title>In a few weeks.</title>
	<author>IIsi</author>
	<datestamp>1244230500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Sweden we have a semi-public infrasound network that could detect civilian supersonic flights across the atlantic. It is used for nuclear weapons controll. Since several of the sources is public (but not those under control of the UN), media should be able to pinpoint any peculiar large explosions at that relevant time.

I'm not entirely sure of the range, but the system can detect and pin-point Russian SSBM launches. The relevant link is <a href="http://www.umea.irf.se/" title="umea.irf.se" rel="nofollow">http://www.umea.irf.se/</a> [umea.irf.se]. During the first North Korean nuclear crisis Swedish intelligence quickly knew what was going on. The instrument used for finding trace isotopes in the air was also Swedish.

I have some memory of a really useful but delayed data source from this network. With it you could "hear" the workshifts in mines, accelerations from Concorde aircrafts etc. But I don't remember the link. Does anyone remember it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Sweden we have a semi-public infrasound network that could detect civilian supersonic flights across the atlantic .
It is used for nuclear weapons controll .
Since several of the sources is public ( but not those under control of the UN ) , media should be able to pinpoint any peculiar large explosions at that relevant time .
I 'm not entirely sure of the range , but the system can detect and pin-point Russian SSBM launches .
The relevant link is http : //www.umea.irf.se/ [ umea.irf.se ] .
During the first North Korean nuclear crisis Swedish intelligence quickly knew what was going on .
The instrument used for finding trace isotopes in the air was also Swedish .
I have some memory of a really useful but delayed data source from this network .
With it you could " hear " the workshifts in mines , accelerations from Concorde aircrafts etc .
But I do n't remember the link .
Does anyone remember it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Sweden we have a semi-public infrasound network that could detect civilian supersonic flights across the atlantic.
It is used for nuclear weapons controll.
Since several of the sources is public (but not those under control of the UN), media should be able to pinpoint any peculiar large explosions at that relevant time.
I'm not entirely sure of the range, but the system can detect and pin-point Russian SSBM launches.
The relevant link is http://www.umea.irf.se/ [umea.irf.se].
During the first North Korean nuclear crisis Swedish intelligence quickly knew what was going on.
The instrument used for finding trace isotopes in the air was also Swedish.
I have some memory of a really useful but delayed data source from this network.
With it you could "hear" the workshifts in mines, accelerations from Concorde aircrafts etc.
But I don't remember the link.
Does anyone remember it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227517</id>
	<title>Re:One in twenty?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1244196120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're using stats to misguide you. They're playing it as if every event is dependant upon another (which alot of staticians like to believe occurs in the real world)</p><p>Everytime a plane is NOT hit by a meteor, that increases the chances of it hitting one, right? Like its supposedly more likely to get a tails every time you flip heads on a coin.</p><p>Essentially they took the stats and twisted them on you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're using stats to misguide you .
They 're playing it as if every event is dependant upon another ( which alot of staticians like to believe occurs in the real world ) Everytime a plane is NOT hit by a meteor , that increases the chances of it hitting one , right ?
Like its supposedly more likely to get a tails every time you flip heads on a coin.Essentially they took the stats and twisted them on you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're using stats to misguide you.
They're playing it as if every event is dependant upon another (which alot of staticians like to believe occurs in the real world)Everytime a plane is NOT hit by a meteor, that increases the chances of it hitting one, right?
Like its supposedly more likely to get a tails every time you flip heads on a coin.Essentially they took the stats and twisted them on you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224777</id>
	<title>Where's the oragne box?</title>
	<author>CHK6</author>
	<datestamp>1244225520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now the geeky side of me wants to know where the black box is. If an airplane is known to travel over the ocean, then why doesn't it have a secondary flight recorder that is attached to the wing and in case of a crash becomes a buoy to not only mark the crash location, but also as an emergency beacon? I'm not an airplane engineer, but if the chances of the flight recorder could be a mile or more underwater, then it makes sense that it deploys itself before impact. But like many changes, tragedy must happen first and then improvements made.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the geeky side of me wants to know where the black box is .
If an airplane is known to travel over the ocean , then why does n't it have a secondary flight recorder that is attached to the wing and in case of a crash becomes a buoy to not only mark the crash location , but also as an emergency beacon ?
I 'm not an airplane engineer , but if the chances of the flight recorder could be a mile or more underwater , then it makes sense that it deploys itself before impact .
But like many changes , tragedy must happen first and then improvements made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the geeky side of me wants to know where the black box is.
If an airplane is known to travel over the ocean, then why doesn't it have a secondary flight recorder that is attached to the wing and in case of a crash becomes a buoy to not only mark the crash location, but also as an emergency beacon?
I'm not an airplane engineer, but if the chances of the flight recorder could be a mile or more underwater, then it makes sense that it deploys itself before impact.
But like many changes, tragedy must happen first and then improvements made.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222993</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244218920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't explain the massive electrical failure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't explain the massive electrical failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't explain the massive electrical failure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226299</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244232540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on<br>&gt;&gt; the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.</p><p>Is this actually a possibility on exclusively fly-by-wire aircraft such as the Airbus?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on &gt; &gt; the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.Is this actually a possibility on exclusively fly-by-wire aircraft such as the Airbus ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on&gt;&gt; the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.Is this actually a possibility on exclusively fly-by-wire aircraft such as the Airbus?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28231957</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1244295240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A 100mph vertical gust at the speed the aircraft was operating at would be sufficient to cause structural damage.</p><p>It's not unknown for airliners to break up in thunderstorms - it doesn't happen often, but it does happen - most recently to a Russian airliner in 2006.</p><p>I've seen only two credible theories - one from a meteorologist, which you can read here:<br><a href="http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/" title="weathergraphics.com">http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/</a> [weathergraphics.com]</p><p>And another which was linked by barrapunto.com (Slashdot's Spanish sistersite) where a Spanish A340 captain related encountering a sudden large increase in temperature while flying through similar weather years earlier, when he was B747 captain - a change in temperature from -48C to -19C, which immediately put them 15 tonnes overweight for the altitude they were at, leaving them firmly in "coffin corner" - he surmised if he had remained on autopilot, they would be today keeping AF447 company at the bottom of the ocean.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A 100mph vertical gust at the speed the aircraft was operating at would be sufficient to cause structural damage.It 's not unknown for airliners to break up in thunderstorms - it does n't happen often , but it does happen - most recently to a Russian airliner in 2006.I 've seen only two credible theories - one from a meteorologist , which you can read here : http : //www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/ [ weathergraphics.com ] And another which was linked by barrapunto.com ( Slashdot 's Spanish sistersite ) where a Spanish A340 captain related encountering a sudden large increase in temperature while flying through similar weather years earlier , when he was B747 captain - a change in temperature from -48C to -19C , which immediately put them 15 tonnes overweight for the altitude they were at , leaving them firmly in " coffin corner " - he surmised if he had remained on autopilot , they would be today keeping AF447 company at the bottom of the ocean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A 100mph vertical gust at the speed the aircraft was operating at would be sufficient to cause structural damage.It's not unknown for airliners to break up in thunderstorms - it doesn't happen often, but it does happen - most recently to a Russian airliner in 2006.I've seen only two credible theories - one from a meteorologist, which you can read here:http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/ [weathergraphics.com]And another which was linked by barrapunto.com (Slashdot's Spanish sistersite) where a Spanish A340 captain related encountering a sudden large increase in temperature while flying through similar weather years earlier, when he was B747 captain - a change in temperature from -48C to -19C, which immediately put them 15 tonnes overweight for the altitude they were at, leaving them firmly in "coffin corner" - he surmised if he had remained on autopilot, they would be today keeping AF447 company at the bottom of the ocean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230373</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244226480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? The crew was struggling physically with their electronic joysticks connected to their aircraft's fly-by-wire system that has no physical connection at all to the control surfaces? And the autopilot, as opposed to the human pilot, was the main flight control system?</p><p>You are clearly an expert when it comes to aviation.</p><p>(Sorry for posting anonymously, it's because I'm lazy and haven't registered yet, not because of cowardice. Honest!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
The crew was struggling physically with their electronic joysticks connected to their aircraft 's fly-by-wire system that has no physical connection at all to the control surfaces ?
And the autopilot , as opposed to the human pilot , was the main flight control system ? You are clearly an expert when it comes to aviation .
( Sorry for posting anonymously , it 's because I 'm lazy and have n't registered yet , not because of cowardice .
Honest ! )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
The crew was struggling physically with their electronic joysticks connected to their aircraft's fly-by-wire system that has no physical connection at all to the control surfaces?
And the autopilot, as opposed to the human pilot, was the main flight control system?You are clearly an expert when it comes to aviation.
(Sorry for posting anonymously, it's because I'm lazy and haven't registered yet, not because of cowardice.
Honest!)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224195</id>
	<title>debris from another plane?</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1244223360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those following the story you might have already read they believe the debris they picked up is not from the Air France flight.  Is it possible there was a mid-air collision with an unregistered plane/jet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those following the story you might have already read they believe the debris they picked up is not from the Air France flight .
Is it possible there was a mid-air collision with an unregistered plane/jet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those following the story you might have already read they believe the debris they picked up is not from the Air France flight.
Is it possible there was a mid-air collision with an unregistered plane/jet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228419</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Lcf34</author>
	<datestamp>1244202060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One also often hears "he/she died from heart arrest".

Like everyone, basically<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/</htmltext>
<tokenext>One also often hears " he/she died from heart arrest " .
Like everyone , basically : -/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One also often hears "he/she died from heart arrest".
Like everyone, basically :-/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224705</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>Colz Grigor</author>
	<datestamp>1244225280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if all data were instantly sent to one of several large data centers strewn about the world as opposed to one black box, it sure would bring a new meaning to the phrase "cloud computing"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if all data were instantly sent to one of several large data centers strewn about the world as opposed to one black box , it sure would bring a new meaning to the phrase " cloud computing " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if all data were instantly sent to one of several large data centers strewn about the world as opposed to one black box, it sure would bring a new meaning to the phrase "cloud computing"...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224447</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>doti</author>
	<datestamp>1244224380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The odds of me writing this exact reply, at this exact moment, are astronomically low.</p><p>Yet I did it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The odds of me writing this exact reply , at this exact moment , are astronomically low.Yet I did it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The odds of me writing this exact reply, at this exact moment, are astronomically low.Yet I did it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223309</id>
	<title>They were off course...</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1244220180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I think the smoke monster got 'em.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I think the smoke monster got 'em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I think the smoke monster got 'em.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223091</id>
	<title>Check your math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244219280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>some quick math suggests there may be one in twenty odds of a plane being brought down in the period from 1989 to 2009</i></p><p>You better check your math. According to your odds, at least 1 plane would have been hit by a meteor everyday. If you can count on kdawson for something, it's posting articles that are wildly inaccurate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>some quick math suggests there may be one in twenty odds of a plane being brought down in the period from 1989 to 2009You better check your math .
According to your odds , at least 1 plane would have been hit by a meteor everyday .
If you can count on kdawson for something , it 's posting articles that are wildly inaccurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some quick math suggests there may be one in twenty odds of a plane being brought down in the period from 1989 to 2009You better check your math.
According to your odds, at least 1 plane would have been hit by a meteor everyday.
If you can count on kdawson for something, it's posting articles that are wildly inaccurate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222959</id>
	<title>Re:Because...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244218860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would guess 99.999\% of water is not covered by airplanes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would guess 99.999 \ % of water is not covered by airplanes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would guess 99.999\% of water is not covered by airplanes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28239883</id>
	<title>debris from the USS Eldridge?</title>
	<author>vortexau</author>
	<datestamp>1244366940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Is it possible there was a mid-air collision with an unregistered plane/jet?</p><p>Just as likely as it colliding with the USS Eldridge briefly appearing at 35,000ft during its return to Philadelphia Naval Yard, 1943.</p><p>Timeslips can be responsible for flashes of bright light.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Is it possible there was a mid-air collision with an unregistered plane/jet ? Just as likely as it colliding with the USS Eldridge briefly appearing at 35,000ft during its return to Philadelphia Naval Yard , 1943.Timeslips can be responsible for flashes of bright light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Is it possible there was a mid-air collision with an unregistered plane/jet?Just as likely as it colliding with the USS Eldridge briefly appearing at 35,000ft during its return to Philadelphia Naval Yard, 1943.Timeslips can be responsible for flashes of bright light.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323</id>
	<title>Cars</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1244216460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If meteors can be so dangerous to airoplanes, why we don't see them hitting cars or buildings more often?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If meteors can be so dangerous to airoplanes , why we do n't see them hitting cars or buildings more often ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If meteors can be so dangerous to airoplanes, why we don't see them hitting cars or buildings more often?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228107</id>
	<title>Pan Am Flight 214 lightning / fuel tank explosion</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1244200020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am reminded of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan\_am\_214" title="wikipedia.org">Pan Am Flight 214 crash</a> [wikipedia.org] of a Boeing 707 in Elkton, MD, in December, 1963.</p><p>The CAB found the probable cause as "Lightning-induced ignition of the fuel/air mixture in the no. 1 reserve fuel tank with resultant explosive disintegration of the left outer wing and loss of control."</p><p>There was a similar lightning-induced fuel tank explosion of a <a href="http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19760509-0" title="aviation-safety.net">Iranian 747 near Madrid</a> [aviation-safety.net] in</p><p>Here is a report on airplane <a href="http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws\_prod/g/doc/Events/fueltanksafety\_24062005/easa\_fueltanksafety\_24062005\_large\_transport\_ppt.pdf" title="europa.eu">fuel tank explosions</a> [europa.eu].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am reminded of the Pan Am Flight 214 crash [ wikipedia.org ] of a Boeing 707 in Elkton , MD , in December , 1963.The CAB found the probable cause as " Lightning-induced ignition of the fuel/air mixture in the no .
1 reserve fuel tank with resultant explosive disintegration of the left outer wing and loss of control .
" There was a similar lightning-induced fuel tank explosion of a Iranian 747 near Madrid [ aviation-safety.net ] inHere is a report on airplane fuel tank explosions [ europa.eu ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am reminded of the Pan Am Flight 214 crash [wikipedia.org] of a Boeing 707 in Elkton, MD, in December, 1963.The CAB found the probable cause as "Lightning-induced ignition of the fuel/air mixture in the no.
1 reserve fuel tank with resultant explosive disintegration of the left outer wing and loss of control.
"There was a similar lightning-induced fuel tank explosion of a Iranian 747 near Madrid [aviation-safety.net] inHere is a report on airplane fuel tank explosions [europa.eu].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28229171</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244208960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you're saying it was evil space aliens....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're saying it was evil space aliens... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're saying it was evil space aliens....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226147</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244231820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it was Steven Wright who said, "Why don't they make the whole plane out of the stuff they use to make the black boxes?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it was Steven Wright who said , " Why do n't they make the whole plane out of the stuff they use to make the black boxes ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it was Steven Wright who said, "Why don't they make the whole plane out of the stuff they use to make the black boxes?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226133</id>
	<title>Re:One in twenty?</title>
	<author>Krem42</author>
	<datestamp>1244231760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think a lot of you are misunderstanding odds... 1:20 means once in every 20 times, it's probably going to happen. Hence, if there's been 20 years, there should be at least one year where a plane had been hit. If there's been 20 days, it's likely that one of those days a plane was hit.. However, here we are some 7,300 days since 1989 and still not one plane has been downed by a meteorite. By those odds, we're past due on meteorite airline collisions.

Another possibility is that in the late 80's and early 90's the odds were higher... maybe 1:100 and as time has gone on, the probability only grows stronger since has yet to happen.

Either way, quit looking at things in terms of sharing space rather than occupying the same space. There's a 1:20 chance a meteorite will occupy our atmosphere at the same time a plane is in the sky... but to have a meteorite collide with a plane, it must occupy the same longitude and latitude, as well as altitude.. which adds more variables to the equation and increases the odds greatly. Sad Physists and Astronomers over looked this large detail..</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a lot of you are misunderstanding odds... 1 : 20 means once in every 20 times , it 's probably going to happen .
Hence , if there 's been 20 years , there should be at least one year where a plane had been hit .
If there 's been 20 days , it 's likely that one of those days a plane was hit.. However , here we are some 7,300 days since 1989 and still not one plane has been downed by a meteorite .
By those odds , we 're past due on meteorite airline collisions .
Another possibility is that in the late 80 's and early 90 's the odds were higher... maybe 1 : 100 and as time has gone on , the probability only grows stronger since has yet to happen .
Either way , quit looking at things in terms of sharing space rather than occupying the same space .
There 's a 1 : 20 chance a meteorite will occupy our atmosphere at the same time a plane is in the sky... but to have a meteorite collide with a plane , it must occupy the same longitude and latitude , as well as altitude.. which adds more variables to the equation and increases the odds greatly .
Sad Physists and Astronomers over looked this large detail. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a lot of you are misunderstanding odds... 1:20 means once in every 20 times, it's probably going to happen.
Hence, if there's been 20 years, there should be at least one year where a plane had been hit.
If there's been 20 days, it's likely that one of those days a plane was hit.. However, here we are some 7,300 days since 1989 and still not one plane has been downed by a meteorite.
By those odds, we're past due on meteorite airline collisions.
Another possibility is that in the late 80's and early 90's the odds were higher... maybe 1:100 and as time has gone on, the probability only grows stronger since has yet to happen.
Either way, quit looking at things in terms of sharing space rather than occupying the same space.
There's a 1:20 chance a meteorite will occupy our atmosphere at the same time a plane is in the sky... but to have a meteorite collide with a plane, it must occupy the same longitude and latitude, as well as altitude.. which adds more variables to the equation and increases the odds greatly.
Sad Physists and Astronomers over looked this large detail..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223735</id>
	<title>Bayes, bitches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244221740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What i'd like to see from these brainiacs is a complete probability distribution of what happened to the plane. If there is a 1/10^x chance of a meteor hit, 1/10^y chance of human fuckup, 1/10^z chance of terrorist attack, I'd really like to see i tall put together using Bayes' so that they can say "We calculated that there was a 45\% chance of it being a meteorite hit".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What i 'd like to see from these brainiacs is a complete probability distribution of what happened to the plane .
If there is a 1/10 ^ x chance of a meteor hit , 1/10 ^ y chance of human fuckup , 1/10 ^ z chance of terrorist attack , I 'd really like to see i tall put together using Bayes ' so that they can say " We calculated that there was a 45 \ % chance of it being a meteorite hit " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What i'd like to see from these brainiacs is a complete probability distribution of what happened to the plane.
If there is a 1/10^x chance of a meteor hit, 1/10^y chance of human fuckup, 1/10^z chance of terrorist attack, I'd really like to see i tall put together using Bayes' so that they can say "We calculated that there was a 45\% chance of it being a meteorite hit".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222879</id>
	<title>Re:The suck!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244218560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How much does God hate you to put you in a meteor strike, a plane crash, and a lost-at-sea drowning all in the same day?</p></div><p>enough to take 227 other people with you...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much does God hate you to put you in a meteor strike , a plane crash , and a lost-at-sea drowning all in the same day ? enough to take 227 other people with you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much does God hate you to put you in a meteor strike, a plane crash, and a lost-at-sea drowning all in the same day?enough to take 227 other people with you...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228175</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1244200380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That sounds plausible, except the last I heard there weren't any radio transmissions during the episode.  Wouldn't you expect at least 1 of 3 pilots to be screaming into the headset?</p></div><p>No, that only happens in the movies. Pilots are supposed to:
</p><ol>
<li>Aviate</li><li>Navigate</li><li>Communicate</li></ol><p>
In that order. I doubt they got past step one. In any event the ACARS messaging from the aircraft is the big success here. I expect more functionality to be moved from the flight data recorder to ACARS in the future.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds plausible , except the last I heard there were n't any radio transmissions during the episode .
Would n't you expect at least 1 of 3 pilots to be screaming into the headset ? No , that only happens in the movies .
Pilots are supposed to : AviateNavigateCommunicate In that order .
I doubt they got past step one .
In any event the ACARS messaging from the aircraft is the big success here .
I expect more functionality to be moved from the flight data recorder to ACARS in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds plausible, except the last I heard there weren't any radio transmissions during the episode.
Wouldn't you expect at least 1 of 3 pilots to be screaming into the headset?No, that only happens in the movies.
Pilots are supposed to:

AviateNavigateCommunicate
In that order.
I doubt they got past step one.
In any event the ACARS messaging from the aircraft is the big success here.
I expect more functionality to be moved from the flight data recorder to ACARS in the future.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228083</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1244199900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which bit does he not mean?  I heard on TV earlier that (according the Brazilian investigators)  the debris found wasn't from the missing jet.  Which made me wonder what the hell it was from, but they didn't say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which bit does he not mean ?
I heard on TV earlier that ( according the Brazilian investigators ) the debris found was n't from the missing jet .
Which made me wonder what the hell it was from , but they did n't say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which bit does he not mean?
I heard on TV earlier that (according the Brazilian investigators)  the debris found wasn't from the missing jet.
Which made me wonder what the hell it was from, but they didn't say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224395</id>
	<title>Re:Mr Occam, is that you?</title>
	<author>doc\_u</author>
	<datestamp>1244224200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. I have not seen this reported anywhere, are you stating this as a fact, or a wild guess.

2. The Airbus A300 and A330 (AA587 and AF447) are two different aircraft. Although the A330 is based on a stretched A300-600 fuselage, It has new wings, stabilisers and a total fly-by-wire system.

Since we still have not located the crash site, we do not have any idea what caused the aircraft to crash (or vanish, if it's never located)...</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
I have not seen this reported anywhere , are you stating this as a fact , or a wild guess .
2. The Airbus A300 and A330 ( AA587 and AF447 ) are two different aircraft .
Although the A330 is based on a stretched A300-600 fuselage , It has new wings , stabilisers and a total fly-by-wire system .
Since we still have not located the crash site , we do not have any idea what caused the aircraft to crash ( or vanish , if it 's never located ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
I have not seen this reported anywhere, are you stating this as a fact, or a wild guess.
2. The Airbus A300 and A330 (AA587 and AF447) are two different aircraft.
Although the A330 is based on a stretched A300-600 fuselage, It has new wings, stabilisers and a total fly-by-wire system.
Since we still have not located the crash site, we do not have any idea what caused the aircraft to crash (or vanish, if it's never located)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225335</id>
	<title>Re:Nope.</title>
	<author>pcolaman</author>
	<datestamp>1244227980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493464/" title="imdb.com">Wanted</a> [imdb.com] they hit bullets with other bullets all the time.  So of course your explanation is null and void.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , in Wanted [ imdb.com ] they hit bullets with other bullets all the time .
So of course your explanation is null and void .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, in Wanted [imdb.com] they hit bullets with other bullets all the time.
So of course your explanation is null and void.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223961</id>
	<title>UFO?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244222520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why didn't they just claim it was hit by a U.F.O. It is just about as probably, since they didn't identify it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did n't they just claim it was hit by a U.F.O .
It is just about as probably , since they did n't identify it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why didn't they just claim it was hit by a U.F.O.
It is just about as probably, since they didn't identify it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223135</id>
	<title>Re:Cars</title>
	<author>asynchronous13</author>
	<datestamp>1244219520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>10 cars struck in the last 50 years.

</p><p>over a longer timespan -
</p><ul> <li>14 humans struck</li>
<li>6 animals struck</li>
<li>107 man-made objects struck</li>
</ul><p>
<a href="http://imca.repetti.net/metinfo/metstruck.html" title="repetti.net">http://imca.repetti.net/metinfo/metstruck.html</a> [repetti.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10 cars struck in the last 50 years .
over a longer timespan - 14 humans struck 6 animals struck 107 man-made objects struck http : //imca.repetti.net/metinfo/metstruck.html [ repetti.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10 cars struck in the last 50 years.
over a longer timespan -
 14 humans struck
6 animals struck
107 man-made objects struck

http://imca.repetti.net/metinfo/metstruck.html [repetti.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223473</id>
	<title>Mr Occam, is that you?</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1244220780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Need we grasp at straws this early?</p><p>The far more likely scenarios, while being vigorously downplayed by the press and governments involved, are on board bombs or aircraft structural failure.</p><p>1) There was a bomb threat<br>2) This same type of aircraft had its tail torn off by simple wake turbulence on American Airlines flight 587</p><p>The fact that Airbus and Air France are groping around for ANY more politically acceptable explanation should be your first clue that they are in full out Spin Doctor mode.</p><p>Why look to the infantessimaly small probability items when the 800 pound gorilla is still in the room: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's\_razor" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's\_razor</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Need we grasp at straws this early ? The far more likely scenarios , while being vigorously downplayed by the press and governments involved , are on board bombs or aircraft structural failure.1 ) There was a bomb threat2 ) This same type of aircraft had its tail torn off by simple wake turbulence on American Airlines flight 587The fact that Airbus and Air France are groping around for ANY more politically acceptable explanation should be your first clue that they are in full out Spin Doctor mode.Why look to the infantessimaly small probability items when the 800 pound gorilla is still in the room : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam 's \ _razor [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Need we grasp at straws this early?The far more likely scenarios, while being vigorously downplayed by the press and governments involved, are on board bombs or aircraft structural failure.1) There was a bomb threat2) This same type of aircraft had its tail torn off by simple wake turbulence on American Airlines flight 587The fact that Airbus and Air France are groping around for ANY more politically acceptable explanation should be your first clue that they are in full out Spin Doctor mode.Why look to the infantessimaly small probability items when the 800 pound gorilla is still in the room: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's\_razor [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224179</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1244223300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And remember, potentially dealing with conflicting airspeed indications, autopilot off, system failures, etc. etc. etc.</p><p>All of this in a thunderstorm.</p><p>Sort of trying to pick up the last Cheetos from the floor of your car, dodging traffic zipping by ya, the rusty Duster in front slowing down for no reason, and the kids in the back screaming, power steering out, and no wipers.</p><p>In a torrential downpour.</p><p>You're not going to know what hit ya.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And remember , potentially dealing with conflicting airspeed indications , autopilot off , system failures , etc .
etc. etc.All of this in a thunderstorm.Sort of trying to pick up the last Cheetos from the floor of your car , dodging traffic zipping by ya , the rusty Duster in front slowing down for no reason , and the kids in the back screaming , power steering out , and no wipers.In a torrential downpour.You 're not going to know what hit ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And remember, potentially dealing with conflicting airspeed indications, autopilot off, system failures, etc.
etc. etc.All of this in a thunderstorm.Sort of trying to pick up the last Cheetos from the floor of your car, dodging traffic zipping by ya, the rusty Duster in front slowing down for no reason, and the kids in the back screaming, power steering out, and no wipers.In a torrential downpour.You're not going to know what hit ya.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225967</id>
	<title>ADS-B</title>
	<author>sponga</author>
	<datestamp>1244230860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>UPS uses this system on all their planes, not only for air safety but also for tracking.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADS-B" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADS-B</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Pilots and air traffic control love the system, it allows them to see visually where everyone is located/speed/atlitude/GPS and all broadcasting is done from the plane to ground based radar.</p><p>Doesn't take much bandwidth at all, as they can use the VHF channel, 978 MHz UAT and another mode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UPS uses this system on all their planes , not only for air safety but also for tracking.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADS-B [ wikipedia.org ] Pilots and air traffic control love the system , it allows them to see visually where everyone is located/speed/atlitude/GPS and all broadcasting is done from the plane to ground based radar.Does n't take much bandwidth at all , as they can use the VHF channel , 978 MHz UAT and another mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UPS uses this system on all their planes, not only for air safety but also for tracking.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADS-B [wikipedia.org]Pilots and air traffic control love the system, it allows them to see visually where everyone is located/speed/atlitude/GPS and all broadcasting is done from the plane to ground based radar.Doesn't take much bandwidth at all, as they can use the VHF channel, 978 MHz UAT and another mode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224141</id>
	<title>Re:Cars</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1244223180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, maybe not *your* car.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , maybe not * your * car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, maybe not *your* car.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227967</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1244199120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To pose the obvious question: Why not do both?  I don't think that anybody would seriously propose giving up the black box.  However, since an increasing number of planes now have internet connectivity (via satellite I presume), why not continuously upload a stream of navigational coordinates and diagnostic data?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To pose the obvious question : Why not do both ?
I do n't think that anybody would seriously propose giving up the black box .
However , since an increasing number of planes now have internet connectivity ( via satellite I presume ) , why not continuously upload a stream of navigational coordinates and diagnostic data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To pose the obvious question: Why not do both?
I don't think that anybody would seriously propose giving up the black box.
However, since an increasing number of planes now have internet connectivity (via satellite I presume), why not continuously upload a stream of navigational coordinates and diagnostic data?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223079</id>
	<title>Re:Why complicate things?</title>
	<author>BlackSnake112</author>
	<datestamp>1244219280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The plane was flying, so not grounded. I thought all planes have counter measures/protection from lightning. Hell boats have them and have for like what 100 years now? Yes it is simpler on a boat, direct the charge to the keel then out into the water. Yes, not every boat has this protection (big 50 feet+, and most sail boats yes, the rest no).</p><p>Commercial airlines do not have lightning protection? Unlikely. Did they only do computer models no real world testing? Sometimes the computer models are off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The plane was flying , so not grounded .
I thought all planes have counter measures/protection from lightning .
Hell boats have them and have for like what 100 years now ?
Yes it is simpler on a boat , direct the charge to the keel then out into the water .
Yes , not every boat has this protection ( big 50 feet + , and most sail boats yes , the rest no ) .Commercial airlines do not have lightning protection ?
Unlikely. Did they only do computer models no real world testing ?
Sometimes the computer models are off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The plane was flying, so not grounded.
I thought all planes have counter measures/protection from lightning.
Hell boats have them and have for like what 100 years now?
Yes it is simpler on a boat, direct the charge to the keel then out into the water.
Yes, not every boat has this protection (big 50 feet+, and most sail boats yes, the rest no).Commercial airlines do not have lightning protection?
Unlikely. Did they only do computer models no real world testing?
Sometimes the computer models are off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222513</id>
	<title>One in twenty?</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1244217120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know what the assumptions were, but it seems to be an over estimate by orders of magnitude. Space, 3D space is really really huge, unimaginably huge.

In WW-II they had to protect the lumbering bombers from the swift fighters. So they tried arming a few bombers with very high number of machine guns. Short Sudeland flying boat was actually called a "Flying Porcupine" because of the number of gun barrels sticking out of it. With guns firing at 1000 to 3000 rounds a minute, with tracer bullets, with trained gunners aiming the guns, they still could not reliably hit the fighters. Both Luftwaffe and RAF and USAF independently had to learn the same lesson with very high cost.

Yes, meteors could hit an airplane. But if their calculations shows odds of 1 in 20 for the last 20 year period, I am very sure they have over estimated the odds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what the assumptions were , but it seems to be an over estimate by orders of magnitude .
Space , 3D space is really really huge , unimaginably huge .
In WW-II they had to protect the lumbering bombers from the swift fighters .
So they tried arming a few bombers with very high number of machine guns .
Short Sudeland flying boat was actually called a " Flying Porcupine " because of the number of gun barrels sticking out of it .
With guns firing at 1000 to 3000 rounds a minute , with tracer bullets , with trained gunners aiming the guns , they still could not reliably hit the fighters .
Both Luftwaffe and RAF and USAF independently had to learn the same lesson with very high cost .
Yes , meteors could hit an airplane .
But if their calculations shows odds of 1 in 20 for the last 20 year period , I am very sure they have over estimated the odds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what the assumptions were, but it seems to be an over estimate by orders of magnitude.
Space, 3D space is really really huge, unimaginably huge.
In WW-II they had to protect the lumbering bombers from the swift fighters.
So they tried arming a few bombers with very high number of machine guns.
Short Sudeland flying boat was actually called a "Flying Porcupine" because of the number of gun barrels sticking out of it.
With guns firing at 1000 to 3000 rounds a minute, with tracer bullets, with trained gunners aiming the guns, they still could not reliably hit the fighters.
Both Luftwaffe and RAF and USAF independently had to learn the same lesson with very high cost.
Yes, meteors could hit an airplane.
But if their calculations shows odds of 1 in 20 for the last 20 year period, I am very sure they have over estimated the odds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224269</id>
	<title>Last transmitted messages of AF447 &amp; speculati</title>
	<author>SigNick</author>
	<datestamp>1244223660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here you can see the last automatically transmitted ACARS messages of AF447:<br> <a href="http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/7547/acarsaf447d.png" title="imageshack.us" rel="nofollow">http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/7547/acarsaf447d.png</a> [imageshack.us] </p><p>Personally, I think this incident was caused by a combination of factors.<br>ALL speculations tread on thin air before the CVR and FDR are recovered, but based on current data I would QUESS:<br>-it is a dark, stormy night with no horizon or any landmarks visible<br>-160km/h updraft brings moist air to a much higher flight level than usual<br>-this causes sudden icing of the pitot tubes<br>-this causes the flight computer to think that the plane is in danger of stalling, and it lowers the nose automatically<br>-the crew switches auto-pilot and flight envelope protection partially off, or a (positive) lightning strike disables them<br>-the crew has no good idea about the true speed and orientation of the plane<br>-inside the cumulonimbus' horrible gusts the crew over-stresses the composite flight controls while fighting turbulence<br>-the place exceeds it's maximum speed and/or structural load (G-) limits<br>-two-three minutes later the agony of the 228 souls on board finally ends as the slowly disintegrating plane hits the sea near the speed of sound, instantly ripping them to stamp-sized bits</p><p>Here's more detailed speculation about possible causes and a crude analysis, taken from Usenet:</p><p>1. Terrorism or other malicious use of explosives</p><p>A bomb explodes in the cargo hold, crippling the aircraft's control systems or starting a structural break-up that eventually leads to loss of control.</p><p>Supportive evidence: According to Wikipedia, a bomb threat had been made on an earlier flight. Lack of communications from the flight crew indicates either a sudden event or something which lead to significant problems that the crew had to focus on. This would be consistent with the effects of a bomb. The automatic messages about computer system failures sent by the aircraft could be interpreted either as indications that the aircraft's movements have exceeded the limits that the systems can handle, or as indications about direct damage to the systems. A flash of light has been seen by other aircraft in the area.</p><p>Evidence against: While terrorist organizations exist both in France and Brazil, there has been no recent activity. No organization has claimed responsibility for the act. There is no specific evidence about a bomb. Nothing is known about any individuals or organizations who would have non-terrorism related reasons for malicious acts. It seems too big of a coincidence that a bomb would go off at the same time as the aircraft flies through very rough weather. Finally, what we know about the sequence of ACARS messages indicates that loss of cabin pressure was the last message in the sequence. This appears to rule out an explosion, unless it was contained in the hull and only damaged internal structures and components. This seems unlikely. The flash of light was apparently seen from too far to be caused by AF 447 related problems.</p><p>Open questions: Where are the cargo holds that are used to carry the passengers' luggage? Are they physically close to the computer and navigation systems that ACARS messages reported as failing? And obviously, physical evidence would be useful.</p><p>Verdict: Can most likely be ruled out</p><p>2. Explosion or other rapid, harmful reaction from the cargo</p><p>The sequence of events is as in the terrorism theory.</p><p>Supportive evidence: The sequence of events fits this theory, as it does the terrorism theory. The cargo might have shifted at the time of turbulence, initiating the reaction.</p><p>Evidence against: See the evidence regarding the malicious use of explosives. In addition, there is no information that the cargo could have contained something harmful.</p><p>Open questions: More information is needed about what was in the cargo, and who cargo was taken from.</p><p>Verdict: Can most likely be ruled out</p><p>3. Fire</p><p>Fire starts in cargo hold, in sys</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here you can see the last automatically transmitted ACARS messages of AF447 : http : //img32.imageshack.us/img32/7547/acarsaf447d.png [ imageshack.us ] Personally , I think this incident was caused by a combination of factors.ALL speculations tread on thin air before the CVR and FDR are recovered , but based on current data I would QUESS : -it is a dark , stormy night with no horizon or any landmarks visible-160km/h updraft brings moist air to a much higher flight level than usual-this causes sudden icing of the pitot tubes-this causes the flight computer to think that the plane is in danger of stalling , and it lowers the nose automatically-the crew switches auto-pilot and flight envelope protection partially off , or a ( positive ) lightning strike disables them-the crew has no good idea about the true speed and orientation of the plane-inside the cumulonimbus ' horrible gusts the crew over-stresses the composite flight controls while fighting turbulence-the place exceeds it 's maximum speed and/or structural load ( G- ) limits-two-three minutes later the agony of the 228 souls on board finally ends as the slowly disintegrating plane hits the sea near the speed of sound , instantly ripping them to stamp-sized bitsHere 's more detailed speculation about possible causes and a crude analysis , taken from Usenet : 1 .
Terrorism or other malicious use of explosivesA bomb explodes in the cargo hold , crippling the aircraft 's control systems or starting a structural break-up that eventually leads to loss of control.Supportive evidence : According to Wikipedia , a bomb threat had been made on an earlier flight .
Lack of communications from the flight crew indicates either a sudden event or something which lead to significant problems that the crew had to focus on .
This would be consistent with the effects of a bomb .
The automatic messages about computer system failures sent by the aircraft could be interpreted either as indications that the aircraft 's movements have exceeded the limits that the systems can handle , or as indications about direct damage to the systems .
A flash of light has been seen by other aircraft in the area.Evidence against : While terrorist organizations exist both in France and Brazil , there has been no recent activity .
No organization has claimed responsibility for the act .
There is no specific evidence about a bomb .
Nothing is known about any individuals or organizations who would have non-terrorism related reasons for malicious acts .
It seems too big of a coincidence that a bomb would go off at the same time as the aircraft flies through very rough weather .
Finally , what we know about the sequence of ACARS messages indicates that loss of cabin pressure was the last message in the sequence .
This appears to rule out an explosion , unless it was contained in the hull and only damaged internal structures and components .
This seems unlikely .
The flash of light was apparently seen from too far to be caused by AF 447 related problems.Open questions : Where are the cargo holds that are used to carry the passengers ' luggage ?
Are they physically close to the computer and navigation systems that ACARS messages reported as failing ?
And obviously , physical evidence would be useful.Verdict : Can most likely be ruled out2 .
Explosion or other rapid , harmful reaction from the cargoThe sequence of events is as in the terrorism theory.Supportive evidence : The sequence of events fits this theory , as it does the terrorism theory .
The cargo might have shifted at the time of turbulence , initiating the reaction.Evidence against : See the evidence regarding the malicious use of explosives .
In addition , there is no information that the cargo could have contained something harmful.Open questions : More information is needed about what was in the cargo , and who cargo was taken from.Verdict : Can most likely be ruled out3 .
FireFire starts in cargo hold , in sys</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here you can see the last automatically transmitted ACARS messages of AF447: http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/7547/acarsaf447d.png [imageshack.us] Personally, I think this incident was caused by a combination of factors.ALL speculations tread on thin air before the CVR and FDR are recovered, but based on current data I would QUESS:-it is a dark, stormy night with no horizon or any landmarks visible-160km/h updraft brings moist air to a much higher flight level than usual-this causes sudden icing of the pitot tubes-this causes the flight computer to think that the plane is in danger of stalling, and it lowers the nose automatically-the crew switches auto-pilot and flight envelope protection partially off, or a (positive) lightning strike disables them-the crew has no good idea about the true speed and orientation of the plane-inside the cumulonimbus' horrible gusts the crew over-stresses the composite flight controls while fighting turbulence-the place exceeds it's maximum speed and/or structural load (G-) limits-two-three minutes later the agony of the 228 souls on board finally ends as the slowly disintegrating plane hits the sea near the speed of sound, instantly ripping them to stamp-sized bitsHere's more detailed speculation about possible causes and a crude analysis, taken from Usenet:1.
Terrorism or other malicious use of explosivesA bomb explodes in the cargo hold, crippling the aircraft's control systems or starting a structural break-up that eventually leads to loss of control.Supportive evidence: According to Wikipedia, a bomb threat had been made on an earlier flight.
Lack of communications from the flight crew indicates either a sudden event or something which lead to significant problems that the crew had to focus on.
This would be consistent with the effects of a bomb.
The automatic messages about computer system failures sent by the aircraft could be interpreted either as indications that the aircraft's movements have exceeded the limits that the systems can handle, or as indications about direct damage to the systems.
A flash of light has been seen by other aircraft in the area.Evidence against: While terrorist organizations exist both in France and Brazil, there has been no recent activity.
No organization has claimed responsibility for the act.
There is no specific evidence about a bomb.
Nothing is known about any individuals or organizations who would have non-terrorism related reasons for malicious acts.
It seems too big of a coincidence that a bomb would go off at the same time as the aircraft flies through very rough weather.
Finally, what we know about the sequence of ACARS messages indicates that loss of cabin pressure was the last message in the sequence.
This appears to rule out an explosion, unless it was contained in the hull and only damaged internal structures and components.
This seems unlikely.
The flash of light was apparently seen from too far to be caused by AF 447 related problems.Open questions: Where are the cargo holds that are used to carry the passengers' luggage?
Are they physically close to the computer and navigation systems that ACARS messages reported as failing?
And obviously, physical evidence would be useful.Verdict: Can most likely be ruled out2.
Explosion or other rapid, harmful reaction from the cargoThe sequence of events is as in the terrorism theory.Supportive evidence: The sequence of events fits this theory, as it does the terrorism theory.
The cargo might have shifted at the time of turbulence, initiating the reaction.Evidence against: See the evidence regarding the malicious use of explosives.
In addition, there is no information that the cargo could have contained something harmful.Open questions: More information is needed about what was in the cargo, and who cargo was taken from.Verdict: Can most likely be ruled out3.
FireFire starts in cargo hold, in sys</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223927</id>
	<title>Possible?  Yes.  Likely?  Not really...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244222340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is possible that the plane was hit by a meteor.  There are many, many pieces of debris falling into Earth's atmosphere every day.<br> <br>
But it begs the question: If meteors are capable of catastrophic damage to an aircraft, why do we not see frequent occurrences of meteor damage that is not catastrophic?  Planes are regularly damaged by birds and thunderstorms, and both phenomena have and do take down aircraft (the Hudson river crash being a recent example of a bird strike).  We should be seeing minor damage done by meteors before we're seeing aircraft lost to meteors.<br> <br>
Thunderstorms, computer glitches and bird strikes are much more likely to be the culprits here, not to mention human error.<br> <br>
There's even the suggestion of a bomb having brought down the aircraft.  Again, this is more likely than a meteor.<br> <br>
But I think it's unlikely that we'll ever find out for sure, if they can't get the black boxes back.<br> <br>
Meteors... Heh, there's way more important things to worry about when flying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is possible that the plane was hit by a meteor .
There are many , many pieces of debris falling into Earth 's atmosphere every day .
But it begs the question : If meteors are capable of catastrophic damage to an aircraft , why do we not see frequent occurrences of meteor damage that is not catastrophic ?
Planes are regularly damaged by birds and thunderstorms , and both phenomena have and do take down aircraft ( the Hudson river crash being a recent example of a bird strike ) .
We should be seeing minor damage done by meteors before we 're seeing aircraft lost to meteors .
Thunderstorms , computer glitches and bird strikes are much more likely to be the culprits here , not to mention human error .
There 's even the suggestion of a bomb having brought down the aircraft .
Again , this is more likely than a meteor .
But I think it 's unlikely that we 'll ever find out for sure , if they ca n't get the black boxes back .
Meteors... Heh , there 's way more important things to worry about when flying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is possible that the plane was hit by a meteor.
There are many, many pieces of debris falling into Earth's atmosphere every day.
But it begs the question: If meteors are capable of catastrophic damage to an aircraft, why do we not see frequent occurrences of meteor damage that is not catastrophic?
Planes are regularly damaged by birds and thunderstorms, and both phenomena have and do take down aircraft (the Hudson river crash being a recent example of a bird strike).
We should be seeing minor damage done by meteors before we're seeing aircraft lost to meteors.
Thunderstorms, computer glitches and bird strikes are much more likely to be the culprits here, not to mention human error.
There's even the suggestion of a bomb having brought down the aircraft.
Again, this is more likely than a meteor.
But I think it's unlikely that we'll ever find out for sure, if they can't get the black boxes back.
Meteors... Heh, there's way more important things to worry about when flying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28240147</id>
	<title>Re:Cars</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1244372520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If meteors can be so dangerous to airoplanes, why we don't see them hitting cars or buildings more often?</p></div> </blockquote><p>Because most of the atmosphere sits between the airplane and the car. 10 kilometres of thick air is a pretty efficient shield; there are far fewer meteors hitting the ground than making it within 10 kilometres of it.</p><p>Besides, if you find a wrecked car by the roadside, do you speculate that it was hit by a meteor, or do you conclude that the driver must have dozed off? Airplane crashes get a lot more intense study than car accidents, and buildings getting some cement chipped off is almost universally blamed on weather or bad construction.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If meteors can be so dangerous to airoplanes , why we do n't see them hitting cars or buildings more often ?
Because most of the atmosphere sits between the airplane and the car .
10 kilometres of thick air is a pretty efficient shield ; there are far fewer meteors hitting the ground than making it within 10 kilometres of it.Besides , if you find a wrecked car by the roadside , do you speculate that it was hit by a meteor , or do you conclude that the driver must have dozed off ?
Airplane crashes get a lot more intense study than car accidents , and buildings getting some cement chipped off is almost universally blamed on weather or bad construction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If meteors can be so dangerous to airoplanes, why we don't see them hitting cars or buildings more often?
Because most of the atmosphere sits between the airplane and the car.
10 kilometres of thick air is a pretty efficient shield; there are far fewer meteors hitting the ground than making it within 10 kilometres of it.Besides, if you find a wrecked car by the roadside, do you speculate that it was hit by a meteor, or do you conclude that the driver must have dozed off?
Airplane crashes get a lot more intense study than car accidents, and buildings getting some cement chipped off is almost universally blamed on weather or bad construction.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230681</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244231460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't really work in bad weather</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't really work in bad weather</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't really work in bad weather</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222421</id>
	<title>calculations wrong I think</title>
	<author>ILongForDarkness</author>
	<datestamp>1244216820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>3000 meteors with sufficient mass to hit the earth. But they are forgetting that planes fly at 10km or so high. Many more meteors would be able to reach that far into the atmosphere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>3000 meteors with sufficient mass to hit the earth .
But they are forgetting that planes fly at 10km or so high .
Many more meteors would be able to reach that far into the atmosphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3000 meteors with sufficient mass to hit the earth.
But they are forgetting that planes fly at 10km or so high.
Many more meteors would be able to reach that far into the atmosphere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223247</id>
	<title>Re:Because...</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1244219880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And 99.999\% of the Earth <b>isn't</b> an airplane in flight.  If there's a 1/20 chance that an airplane would be brought down by a meteor in the past 20 years, I would think that there would be several dozen building hit over the same period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And 99.999 \ % of the Earth is n't an airplane in flight .
If there 's a 1/20 chance that an airplane would be brought down by a meteor in the past 20 years , I would think that there would be several dozen building hit over the same period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And 99.999\% of the Earth isn't an airplane in flight.
If there's a 1/20 chance that an airplane would be brought down by a meteor in the past 20 years, I would think that there would be several dozen building hit over the same period.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224015</id>
	<title>Another possibility...</title>
	<author>GameMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1244222640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I think it was time traveling, alien, mushrooms.  Until they find, even a small amount, of evidence my theory is almost as strong as this one.  In other words, until there is some evidence, one way or the other, any conjecture over the cause is nothing more than mental self manipulation (if you know what I mean).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think it was time traveling , alien , mushrooms .
Until they find , even a small amount , of evidence my theory is almost as strong as this one .
In other words , until there is some evidence , one way or the other , any conjecture over the cause is nothing more than mental self manipulation ( if you know what I mean ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think it was time traveling, alien, mushrooms.
Until they find, even a small amount, of evidence my theory is almost as strong as this one.
In other words, until there is some evidence, one way or the other, any conjecture over the cause is nothing more than mental self manipulation (if you know what I mean).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228225</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1244200740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is possible they had the same problem as the aircraft in Western Australia. In that case the flight control system thought the aircraft was ascending sharply, so it initiated a steep descent. That happened in clear air so it was possible easy for the crew to work around the problem. But if you try it in turbulent air...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is possible they had the same problem as the aircraft in Western Australia .
In that case the flight control system thought the aircraft was ascending sharply , so it initiated a steep descent .
That happened in clear air so it was possible easy for the crew to work around the problem .
But if you try it in turbulent air.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is possible they had the same problem as the aircraft in Western Australia.
In that case the flight control system thought the aircraft was ascending sharply, so it initiated a steep descent.
That happened in clear air so it was possible easy for the crew to work around the problem.
But if you try it in turbulent air...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223109</id>
	<title>Nope.</title>
	<author>192939495969798999</author>
	<datestamp>1244219400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could a meteor, going some-odd thousand miles per hour, collide with an airplane while airborne?  Sure, in the way that a bullet could collide with another much faster bullet when fired from two different guns in two different directions.  You could aim them and fire in such a way as to "make" them hit, but the odds are way less than 1 in 20 that this would ever happen.  Maybe the odds are 1 in 20 that a meteor would cross through a path taken by a plane, but to hit the plane?  Yeah right.</p><p>Furthermore, given the littany of reasons most planes crash are highly attributable to user error, I think the chances that this plane crashed because of a direct hit from a meteor are essentially zero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could a meteor , going some-odd thousand miles per hour , collide with an airplane while airborne ?
Sure , in the way that a bullet could collide with another much faster bullet when fired from two different guns in two different directions .
You could aim them and fire in such a way as to " make " them hit , but the odds are way less than 1 in 20 that this would ever happen .
Maybe the odds are 1 in 20 that a meteor would cross through a path taken by a plane , but to hit the plane ?
Yeah right.Furthermore , given the littany of reasons most planes crash are highly attributable to user error , I think the chances that this plane crashed because of a direct hit from a meteor are essentially zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could a meteor, going some-odd thousand miles per hour, collide with an airplane while airborne?
Sure, in the way that a bullet could collide with another much faster bullet when fired from two different guns in two different directions.
You could aim them and fire in such a way as to "make" them hit, but the odds are way less than 1 in 20 that this would ever happen.
Maybe the odds are 1 in 20 that a meteor would cross through a path taken by a plane, but to hit the plane?
Yeah right.Furthermore, given the littany of reasons most planes crash are highly attributable to user error, I think the chances that this plane crashed because of a direct hit from a meteor are essentially zero.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28229765</id>
	<title>Re:Because...</title>
	<author>vikstar</author>
	<datestamp>1244217300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evidence slashdot moderators have lost the plot. How did this</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If meteors can be so dangerous to airoplanes, why we don't see them hitting cars or buildings more often?</p></div><p>only get 3 Insightful, and this</p><p><div class="quote"><p>70\% of the earth is water. I would guess 98\% of the land is not covered by buildings or roads. So, a lot of things can hit the ground without us noticing.</p></div><p>get 5 Insightful???</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Evidence slashdot moderators have lost the plot .
How did thisIf meteors can be so dangerous to airoplanes , why we do n't see them hitting cars or buildings more often ? only get 3 Insightful , and this70 \ % of the earth is water .
I would guess 98 \ % of the land is not covered by buildings or roads .
So , a lot of things can hit the ground without us noticing.get 5 Insightful ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evidence slashdot moderators have lost the plot.
How did thisIf meteors can be so dangerous to airoplanes, why we don't see them hitting cars or buildings more often?only get 3 Insightful, and this70\% of the earth is water.
I would guess 98\% of the land is not covered by buildings or roads.
So, a lot of things can hit the ground without us noticing.get 5 Insightful??
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223833</id>
	<title>Coincidentally</title>
	<author>eyrieowl</author>
	<datestamp>1244221980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it also happened to be traveling through a tremendous serious of thunderstorms, and happened to be a plane from a company which has had some recent problems with its fly-by-wire systems reacting incorrectly to data from sensors on their planes, and it happened to report a series of electronic messages over a span of time indicating a deteriorating flight situation.  By george, I think you've got it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it also happened to be traveling through a tremendous serious of thunderstorms , and happened to be a plane from a company which has had some recent problems with its fly-by-wire systems reacting incorrectly to data from sensors on their planes , and it happened to report a series of electronic messages over a span of time indicating a deteriorating flight situation .
By george , I think you 've got it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it also happened to be traveling through a tremendous serious of thunderstorms, and happened to be a plane from a company which has had some recent problems with its fly-by-wire systems reacting incorrectly to data from sensors on their planes, and it happened to report a series of electronic messages over a span of time indicating a deteriorating flight situation.
By george, I think you've got it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224945</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>H0p313ss</author>
	<datestamp>1244226360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So any guess is equally likely/unlikely until there is more information.  I think even a lot of the 'debris' they've found is probably not from the jet.


They disengaged the main flight control system because they thought it was flying too fast in the turbulence, or was causing too much passenger discomfort.</p><p>They slowed down to a very narrow margin above stall speed.</p></div><p>I find it highly unlikely that a jet in mid journey above the ocean would be SO far below cruising speed to be anywhere close to "a very narrow margin above stall speed". We're not talking about a Cessna.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So any guess is equally likely/unlikely until there is more information .
I think even a lot of the 'debris ' they 've found is probably not from the jet .
They disengaged the main flight control system because they thought it was flying too fast in the turbulence , or was causing too much passenger discomfort.They slowed down to a very narrow margin above stall speed.I find it highly unlikely that a jet in mid journey above the ocean would be SO far below cruising speed to be anywhere close to " a very narrow margin above stall speed " .
We 're not talking about a Cessna .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So any guess is equally likely/unlikely until there is more information.
I think even a lot of the 'debris' they've found is probably not from the jet.
They disengaged the main flight control system because they thought it was flying too fast in the turbulence, or was causing too much passenger discomfort.They slowed down to a very narrow margin above stall speed.I find it highly unlikely that a jet in mid journey above the ocean would be SO far below cruising speed to be anywhere close to "a very narrow margin above stall speed".
We're not talking about a Cessna.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225297</id>
	<title>Re:One in twenty?</title>
	<author>pcolaman</author>
	<datestamp>1244227800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually it was the AAF (Army Air Forces, a pat of the US Army), not the USAF.  The USAF was not established until 18 Sep 47, while WWII ended in 15 Aug 45 after we bombed Japan and they surrendered (by this time Germany had already given up).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it was the AAF ( Army Air Forces , a pat of the US Army ) , not the USAF .
The USAF was not established until 18 Sep 47 , while WWII ended in 15 Aug 45 after we bombed Japan and they surrendered ( by this time Germany had already given up ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it was the AAF (Army Air Forces, a pat of the US Army), not the USAF.
The USAF was not established until 18 Sep 47, while WWII ended in 15 Aug 45 after we bombed Japan and they surrendered (by this time Germany had already given up).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223017</id>
	<title>"Want to see something really scary?"</title>
	<author>spafbi</author>
	<datestamp>1244219040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's scientifically more plausible that a malicious flying gremlin is responsible for the disappearance of the plane.  If it's a good enough explanation for WWII airmen, it's good enough for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's scientifically more plausible that a malicious flying gremlin is responsible for the disappearance of the plane .
If it 's a good enough explanation for WWII airmen , it 's good enough for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's scientifically more plausible that a malicious flying gremlin is responsible for the disappearance of the plane.
If it's a good enough explanation for WWII airmen, it's good enough for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222727</id>
	<title>Re:Why complicate things?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244218020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take it a step further. Lightning struck the cockpit, instantly killing the flight crew and taking out all of the avionics. At the same time, thanks to tight security that makes everyone so much safer, they had the door securely locked. The Airbus may then have plunged 90 degrees down into the water with most if not all components going straight to the bottom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take it a step further .
Lightning struck the cockpit , instantly killing the flight crew and taking out all of the avionics .
At the same time , thanks to tight security that makes everyone so much safer , they had the door securely locked .
The Airbus may then have plunged 90 degrees down into the water with most if not all components going straight to the bottom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take it a step further.
Lightning struck the cockpit, instantly killing the flight crew and taking out all of the avionics.
At the same time, thanks to tight security that makes everyone so much safer, they had the door securely locked.
The Airbus may then have plunged 90 degrees down into the water with most if not all components going straight to the bottom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315</id>
	<title>The suck!</title>
	<author>Scutter</author>
	<datestamp>1244216400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much does God hate you to put you in a meteor strike, a plane crash, and a lost-at-sea drowning all in the same day?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much does God hate you to put you in a meteor strike , a plane crash , and a lost-at-sea drowning all in the same day ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much does God hate you to put you in a meteor strike, a plane crash, and a lost-at-sea drowning all in the same day?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230751</id>
	<title>Locating the plane...</title>
	<author>mv\_scotti</author>
	<datestamp>1244318700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the speculation could be ended if the plane or flight recorders were found. I'm surprised that this day and age this should be so difficult. The methods I would apply are:

1) radio triangulation of airplane signals - weather conditions may not have been favourable, but if the automated messages were received by Airbus, surely they must have been registered with various military electronic listening posts to pin-point the last known position of the plane prior to impact.

2) impact detection using Hydroacoustic listening stations - according to articles these kind of devices can detect the explosion of 300kg TNT half way around the globe, so my thinking is that a high speed impact on a large plane on the surface of the Atlantic should not go unoticed. Also there seem to be &gt;3 CTBTO stations available in the atlantic (http://www.ctbto.org/map) for this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the speculation could be ended if the plane or flight recorders were found .
I 'm surprised that this day and age this should be so difficult .
The methods I would apply are : 1 ) radio triangulation of airplane signals - weather conditions may not have been favourable , but if the automated messages were received by Airbus , surely they must have been registered with various military electronic listening posts to pin-point the last known position of the plane prior to impact .
2 ) impact detection using Hydroacoustic listening stations - according to articles these kind of devices can detect the explosion of 300kg TNT half way around the globe , so my thinking is that a high speed impact on a large plane on the surface of the Atlantic should not go unoticed .
Also there seem to be &gt; 3 CTBTO stations available in the atlantic ( http : //www.ctbto.org/map ) for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the speculation could be ended if the plane or flight recorders were found.
I'm surprised that this day and age this should be so difficult.
The methods I would apply are:

1) radio triangulation of airplane signals - weather conditions may not have been favourable, but if the automated messages were received by Airbus, surely they must have been registered with various military electronic listening posts to pin-point the last known position of the plane prior to impact.
2) impact detection using Hydroacoustic listening stations - according to articles these kind of devices can detect the explosion of 300kg TNT half way around the globe, so my thinking is that a high speed impact on a large plane on the surface of the Atlantic should not go unoticed.
Also there seem to be &gt;3 CTBTO stations available in the atlantic (http://www.ctbto.org/map) for this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228089</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1244199960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well for one thing tht kind of in flight bandwidth is very new. Also it doesn't cover the poles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well for one thing tht kind of in flight bandwidth is very new .
Also it does n't cover the poles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well for one thing tht kind of in flight bandwidth is very new.
Also it doesn't cover the poles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222451</id>
	<title>Re:Cars</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1244216880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cars don't typically cruise around at 35,000 ft. Given that the closer you get to earth, the denser air gets, most Meteors burn up by time they should reach the ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cars do n't typically cruise around at 35,000 ft. Given that the closer you get to earth , the denser air gets , most Meteors burn up by time they should reach the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cars don't typically cruise around at 35,000 ft. Given that the closer you get to earth, the denser air gets, most Meteors burn up by time they should reach the ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222949</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244218740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well done, Mr. Ventura.  You've solved the case...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well done , Mr. Ventura. You 've solved the case.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well done, Mr. Ventura.  You've solved the case...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224817</id>
	<title>Everyone knows...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244225760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every one knows a North Korean missile test brought down that flight!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every one knows a North Korean missile test brought down that flight !
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every one knows a North Korean missile test brought down that flight!
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224963</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244226360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained."</p><p>Why were they on backup control? You didn't say anything about losing power or being struck by lightening.  I was under the understanding that the airbus is 100\% fly by wire, and even if power is lost a wind-powered generator still provides power to control the air surfaces.  So why would they be fighting physically with the controls if they are just electronic switches?</p><p>"The crew was struggling, all three physically,"</p><p>Do all three pilots have their own controls?  If not, then it is impossible for a third person to be involved with that, especially during a "high-speed dive".</p><p>I think there are holes in your theory, and that something much more sudden occurred to physically prevent communication than fighting with the controls for a minute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained .
" Why were they on backup control ?
You did n't say anything about losing power or being struck by lightening .
I was under the understanding that the airbus is 100 \ % fly by wire , and even if power is lost a wind-powered generator still provides power to control the air surfaces .
So why would they be fighting physically with the controls if they are just electronic switches ?
" The crew was struggling , all three physically , " Do all three pilots have their own controls ?
If not , then it is impossible for a third person to be involved with that , especially during a " high-speed dive " .I think there are holes in your theory , and that something much more sudden occurred to physically prevent communication than fighting with the controls for a minute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.
"Why were they on backup control?
You didn't say anything about losing power or being struck by lightening.
I was under the understanding that the airbus is 100\% fly by wire, and even if power is lost a wind-powered generator still provides power to control the air surfaces.
So why would they be fighting physically with the controls if they are just electronic switches?
"The crew was struggling, all three physically,"Do all three pilots have their own controls?
If not, then it is impossible for a third person to be involved with that, especially during a "high-speed dive".I think there are holes in your theory, and that something much more sudden occurred to physically prevent communication than fighting with the controls for a minute.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224159</id>
	<title>Occam's Rasor</title>
	<author>mseeger</author>
	<datestamp>1244223240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi,<br>
<br>
this explanation is clearly a case for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's\_Rasor" title="wikipedia.org">Occam's Rasor</a> [wikipedia.org]. There are currently more simple and more probable explanations than a meteor strike. So unless other evidence comes up, this theory should rest in peace until then.<br>
<br>
CU, Martin</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , this explanation is clearly a case for Occam 's Rasor [ wikipedia.org ] .
There are currently more simple and more probable explanations than a meteor strike .
So unless other evidence comes up , this theory should rest in peace until then .
CU , Martin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi,

this explanation is clearly a case for Occam's Rasor [wikipedia.org].
There are currently more simple and more probable explanations than a meteor strike.
So unless other evidence comes up, this theory should rest in peace until then.
CU, Martin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224973</id>
	<title>Re:Why complicate things?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244226420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, isn't it nasty when facts and knowledge counter Occam?</p><p>The visual information has been discounter.<br>How far can you see in a cloud?</p><p>The plane was what, 1800 to 2000 Ks away?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , is n't it nasty when facts and knowledge counter Occam ? The visual information has been discounter.How far can you see in a cloud ? The plane was what , 1800 to 2000 Ks away ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, isn't it nasty when facts and knowledge counter Occam?The visual information has been discounter.How far can you see in a cloud?The plane was what, 1800 to 2000 Ks away?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225019</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244226540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every detail of everything is recorded. The bandwidth would be intense. Really to much to be broadcast via a radio link over the middle of the ocean.</p><p>Why they don't float is another matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every detail of everything is recorded .
The bandwidth would be intense .
Really to much to be broadcast via a radio link over the middle of the ocean.Why they do n't float is another matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every detail of everything is recorded.
The bandwidth would be intense.
Really to much to be broadcast via a radio link over the middle of the ocean.Why they don't float is another matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222519</id>
	<title>The Commies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244217180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They just came up with the meteor story because they don't want us to know that North Korea has perfected their death ray.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They just came up with the meteor story because they do n't want us to know that North Korea has perfected their death ray .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They just came up with the meteor story because they don't want us to know that North Korea has perfected their death ray.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224725</id>
	<title>Has anyone considered the possibility...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244225340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that it was downed by a missile?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that it was downed by a missile ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that it was downed by a missile?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223361</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>jonasw</author>
	<datestamp>1244220300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't have helped a bit in this case- AF447 was out of range of any sufficiently reliable radio tower. Satellite would be possible in theory but this would be prohibitively expensive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't have helped a bit in this case- AF447 was out of range of any sufficiently reliable radio tower .
Satellite would be possible in theory but this would be prohibitively expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't have helped a bit in this case- AF447 was out of range of any sufficiently reliable radio tower.
Satellite would be possible in theory but this would be prohibitively expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223229</id>
	<title>Guys - where are we?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244219820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks to me like Desmond forgot to press the button again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks to me like Desmond forgot to press the button again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks to me like Desmond forgot to press the button again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224327</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244223900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, a lot of warning would ahve been automatically sent.<br>Second, Between 35000 feet and the ground, there is plenty of time for the crew to broadcast a message. If I am not mistaken, you don't actually need to hold down a button while radioing anymore.<br>Plus, Pilots generally know when they are going to crash, and the know if one person can't pull up, then three won't be able to either. Hell 10 wouldn't be able to. The stick is just an indicator to the flaps to change position.</p><p>Now, it could have been sudden structural failure do to a design flaw. Maybe it was a metereo, maybe it was a multisystem wide electronic failure.<br>All of which seem a lot more likely then your scenario.</p><p>I wish we could bet karma points.</p><p>I know. Lets make a bet, if you win, I'll make post that will almost certianly get me modded down for a week. if I win you do the same?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , a lot of warning would ahve been automatically sent.Second , Between 35000 feet and the ground , there is plenty of time for the crew to broadcast a message .
If I am not mistaken , you do n't actually need to hold down a button while radioing anymore.Plus , Pilots generally know when they are going to crash , and the know if one person ca n't pull up , then three wo n't be able to either .
Hell 10 would n't be able to .
The stick is just an indicator to the flaps to change position.Now , it could have been sudden structural failure do to a design flaw .
Maybe it was a metereo , maybe it was a multisystem wide electronic failure.All of which seem a lot more likely then your scenario.I wish we could bet karma points.I know .
Lets make a bet , if you win , I 'll make post that will almost certianly get me modded down for a week .
if I win you do the same ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, a lot of warning would ahve been automatically sent.Second, Between 35000 feet and the ground, there is plenty of time for the crew to broadcast a message.
If I am not mistaken, you don't actually need to hold down a button while radioing anymore.Plus, Pilots generally know when they are going to crash, and the know if one person can't pull up, then three won't be able to either.
Hell 10 wouldn't be able to.
The stick is just an indicator to the flaps to change position.Now, it could have been sudden structural failure do to a design flaw.
Maybe it was a metereo, maybe it was a multisystem wide electronic failure.All of which seem a lot more likely then your scenario.I wish we could bet karma points.I know.
Lets make a bet, if you win, I'll make post that will almost certianly get me modded down for a week.
if I win you do the same?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228321</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1244201460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have no idea on how vulnerable airliners are to unrecoverable spins.</p></div><p>If you spin an A330 at 0.8 mach you are gone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no idea on how vulnerable airliners are to unrecoverable spins.If you spin an A330 at 0.8 mach you are gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no idea on how vulnerable airliners are to unrecoverable spins.If you spin an A330 at 0.8 mach you are gone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225559</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244229000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lost island was moved again, this time in the middle of the Atlantic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lost island was moved again , this time in the middle of the Atlantic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lost island was moved again, this time in the middle of the Atlantic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223405</id>
	<title>I put money on stalling</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1244220480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but I would put more money on another shoe bomber before placing it on a meteor.</p><p>As for reporting times and such ruling out a bomb, from 35,000 feet to Ocean Floor isn't instant. Also, all a bomb has to do is damage it sufficiently not to fly... not blow it to bits.  The one that came down over Britain, Lockerbie, broke up in flight from a small bomb spreading debris over a very large area (over 800 square miles)</p><p>So here is to hoping there is no bomb and simply pilot error.  If its the former then someone would have stepped forward already, as for the later, well Air France or Airbus (forget who) already issued new directives to maintain higher speeds in storms.</p><p>The real threats are finding out that the composites used are not up the task.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but I would put more money on another shoe bomber before placing it on a meteor.As for reporting times and such ruling out a bomb , from 35,000 feet to Ocean Floor is n't instant .
Also , all a bomb has to do is damage it sufficiently not to fly... not blow it to bits .
The one that came down over Britain , Lockerbie , broke up in flight from a small bomb spreading debris over a very large area ( over 800 square miles ) So here is to hoping there is no bomb and simply pilot error .
If its the former then someone would have stepped forward already , as for the later , well Air France or Airbus ( forget who ) already issued new directives to maintain higher speeds in storms.The real threats are finding out that the composites used are not up the task .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but I would put more money on another shoe bomber before placing it on a meteor.As for reporting times and such ruling out a bomb, from 35,000 feet to Ocean Floor isn't instant.
Also, all a bomb has to do is damage it sufficiently not to fly... not blow it to bits.
The one that came down over Britain, Lockerbie, broke up in flight from a small bomb spreading debris over a very large area (over 800 square miles)So here is to hoping there is no bomb and simply pilot error.
If its the former then someone would have stepped forward already, as for the later, well Air France or Airbus (forget who) already issued new directives to maintain higher speeds in storms.The real threats are finding out that the composites used are not up the task.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224893</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>TechForensics</author>
	<datestamp>1244226120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.</p></div><p>I don't think you'd hit Vne that fast after an updraft-induced stall.  And rather than struggle with control pressure, the flight director could have been re-engaged (though this is probably what killed Jos. Kennedy off Nantucket).  I'm thinking explosive decompression from a large meteor puncture.  But I don't have any special information and your hypothesis is probably as likely as mine.  (I'm a commercial instrument pilot but small planes only.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.I do n't think you 'd hit Vne that fast after an updraft-induced stall .
And rather than struggle with control pressure , the flight director could have been re-engaged ( though this is probably what killed Jos .
Kennedy off Nantucket ) .
I 'm thinking explosive decompression from a large meteor puncture .
But I do n't have any special information and your hypothesis is probably as likely as mine .
( I 'm a commercial instrument pilot but small planes only .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.I don't think you'd hit Vne that fast after an updraft-induced stall.
And rather than struggle with control pressure, the flight director could have been re-engaged (though this is probably what killed Jos.
Kennedy off Nantucket).
I'm thinking explosive decompression from a large meteor puncture.
But I don't have any special information and your hypothesis is probably as likely as mine.
(I'm a commercial instrument pilot but small planes only.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230795</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244319360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The crew was struggling, all three physically, to pull the aircraft out of a high-speed dive</p><p>There is no physical exertion required on the sidestick controllers by the *two* flight crew in an A330.</p><p>Nor is there a ``manual reversion'' mode though there is an emergency control law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The crew was struggling , all three physically , to pull the aircraft out of a high-speed diveThere is no physical exertion required on the sidestick controllers by the * two * flight crew in an A330.Nor is there a ` ` manual reversion' ' mode though there is an emergency control law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The crew was struggling, all three physically, to pull the aircraft out of a high-speed diveThere is no physical exertion required on the sidestick controllers by the *two* flight crew in an A330.Nor is there a ``manual reversion'' mode though there is an emergency control law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222497</id>
	<title>Shark Attack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244217060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually this is how the plane was brought down:</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skYRZ\_-RXtk" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Shark Attack</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually this is how the plane was brought down : Shark Attack [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually this is how the plane was brought down:Shark Attack [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227477</id>
	<title>Re:Deceit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244195760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it was Air Condor, they wouldn't have <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skYRZ\_-RXtk" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">jumped the shark</a> [youtube.com] already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was Air Condor , they would n't have jumped the shark [ youtube.com ] already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was Air Condor, they wouldn't have jumped the shark [youtube.com] already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230273</id>
	<title>I saw a meteor from the cockpit once</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244225100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was flightcrew of a commercial airliner that had a meteor fall close enough to us that it raised the temperature of the air in the cockpit and cause the crews eyes to water (as in exposure to extremely bright light).  Night turned to day.  We were carrying cargo.  It was pretty spectacular.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was flightcrew of a commercial airliner that had a meteor fall close enough to us that it raised the temperature of the air in the cockpit and cause the crews eyes to water ( as in exposure to extremely bright light ) .
Night turned to day .
We were carrying cargo .
It was pretty spectacular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was flightcrew of a commercial airliner that had a meteor fall close enough to us that it raised the temperature of the air in the cockpit and cause the crews eyes to water (as in exposure to extremely bright light).
Night turned to day.
We were carrying cargo.
It was pretty spectacular.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223131</id>
	<title>A meteor, now what?</title>
	<author>flibuste</author>
	<datestamp>1244219460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A meteor ? Noway.
We in Slashdot all know that it's a coup from our new Alien overlords since Mankind has difficulties welcoming any alien, for one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A meteor ?
Noway . We in Slashdot all know that it 's a coup from our new Alien overlords since Mankind has difficulties welcoming any alien , for one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A meteor ?
Noway.
We in Slashdot all know that it's a coup from our new Alien overlords since Mankind has difficulties welcoming any alien, for one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222353</id>
	<title>Could Have? Sure.  Did?  Prove It.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244216580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is mere speculation and is not all that different than when the Columbia accident happening folks in the press asking repeatedly if terrorists could have caused the orbiter to break up during re-entry.</p><p>Sure, the odds look good on paper, but at the same time, how many aircraft have been damaged by or downed by meteors over land, and conclusive proof shown that being struck by something of extraterrestrial origin was the culprit?</p><p>In short, there is a huge difference between "could have" and "that's what happened."  In between you will find all sorts of people with axes to grind and/or crackpots.  The truth is probably fare more mundane though no less tragic for those involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is mere speculation and is not all that different than when the Columbia accident happening folks in the press asking repeatedly if terrorists could have caused the orbiter to break up during re-entry.Sure , the odds look good on paper , but at the same time , how many aircraft have been damaged by or downed by meteors over land , and conclusive proof shown that being struck by something of extraterrestrial origin was the culprit ? In short , there is a huge difference between " could have " and " that 's what happened .
" In between you will find all sorts of people with axes to grind and/or crackpots .
The truth is probably fare more mundane though no less tragic for those involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is mere speculation and is not all that different than when the Columbia accident happening folks in the press asking repeatedly if terrorists could have caused the orbiter to break up during re-entry.Sure, the odds look good on paper, but at the same time, how many aircraft have been damaged by or downed by meteors over land, and conclusive proof shown that being struck by something of extraterrestrial origin was the culprit?In short, there is a huge difference between "could have" and "that's what happened.
"  In between you will find all sorts of people with axes to grind and/or crackpots.
The truth is probably fare more mundane though no less tragic for those involved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227723</id>
	<title>does not explain small debris amounts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244197380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds plausible but does not explain the extremely small amounts of debris found so far. A plane disintegrating at altitude should have resulted in many floating objects.</p><p>It is more likely the plane body reached the water in one piece and the debris found has reached the surface from where it's currently sitting broken in two on the ocean floor, the distance between the objects due to ocean currents.</p><p>Or maybe you're right and the bulk of the remains has been carried and deposited by the storm elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds plausible but does not explain the extremely small amounts of debris found so far .
A plane disintegrating at altitude should have resulted in many floating objects.It is more likely the plane body reached the water in one piece and the debris found has reached the surface from where it 's currently sitting broken in two on the ocean floor , the distance between the objects due to ocean currents.Or maybe you 're right and the bulk of the remains has been carried and deposited by the storm elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds plausible but does not explain the extremely small amounts of debris found so far.
A plane disintegrating at altitude should have resulted in many floating objects.It is more likely the plane body reached the water in one piece and the debris found has reached the surface from where it's currently sitting broken in two on the ocean floor, the distance between the objects due to ocean currents.Or maybe you're right and the bulk of the remains has been carried and deposited by the storm elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228341</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1244201580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Second, Between 35000 feet and the ground, there is plenty of time for the crew to broadcast a message. If I am not mistaken, you don't actually need to hold down a button while radioing anymore.</p></div><p>The crew would only broadcast if they thought that would help <b>them</b> right then and there. Their first priority is to fly the plane.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Second , Between 35000 feet and the ground , there is plenty of time for the crew to broadcast a message .
If I am not mistaken , you do n't actually need to hold down a button while radioing anymore.The crew would only broadcast if they thought that would help them right then and there .
Their first priority is to fly the plane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Second, Between 35000 feet and the ground, there is plenty of time for the crew to broadcast a message.
If I am not mistaken, you don't actually need to hold down a button while radioing anymore.The crew would only broadcast if they thought that would help them right then and there.
Their first priority is to fly the plane.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228613</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244203440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is primarily due to cost, and why ACARS are sporadic and very limited in content (I think the limit is somewhere around 200 bytes). Sending messages via satellite costs real pennies, and it adds up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is primarily due to cost , and why ACARS are sporadic and very limited in content ( I think the limit is somewhere around 200 bytes ) .
Sending messages via satellite costs real pennies , and it adds up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is primarily due to cost, and why ACARS are sporadic and very limited in content (I think the limit is somewhere around 200 bytes).
Sending messages via satellite costs real pennies, and it adds up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223913</id>
	<title>Re:The suck!</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244222280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Enough to also do it to everyone around you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Enough to also do it to everyone around you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enough to also do it to everyone around you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223663</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244221500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wasn't the airbus they were flying a fly-by-wire system?  Is it possible to get such a system in a state where the pilots can be frantically struggling against the controls for an extended period of time?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't the airbus they were flying a fly-by-wire system ?
Is it possible to get such a system in a state where the pilots can be frantically struggling against the controls for an extended period of time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't the airbus they were flying a fly-by-wire system?
Is it possible to get such a system in a state where the pilots can be frantically struggling against the controls for an extended period of time?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222581</id>
	<title>Re:The suck!</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1244217420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not as much as he loves you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not as much as he loves you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not as much as he loves you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224013</id>
	<title>I foresaw this...</title>
	<author>thousandinone</author>
	<datestamp>1244222640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>through astrology!<br> <br>I just KNEW something was up when I noticed a meteor setting in Capricorn...</htmltext>
<tokenext>through astrology !
I just KNEW something was up when I noticed a meteor setting in Capricorn.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>through astrology!
I just KNEW something was up when I noticed a meteor setting in Capricorn...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222917</id>
	<title>Re:Cars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244218680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a car in the Field Museum with a meteor whole in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a car in the Field Museum with a meteor whole in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a car in the Field Museum with a meteor whole in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222431</id>
	<title>Reduces liabilty.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244216820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without reading the article it almost sounds like the 'ol insurance company trying to play this off as an act of GOD.<br>Much less liability if it was hit by a meteor than if it was a malfunction, poor maintenance, pilot error, any human caused reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without reading the article it almost sounds like the 'ol insurance company trying to play this off as an act of GOD.Much less liability if it was hit by a meteor than if it was a malfunction , poor maintenance , pilot error , any human caused reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without reading the article it almost sounds like the 'ol insurance company trying to play this off as an act of GOD.Much less liability if it was hit by a meteor than if it was a malfunction, poor maintenance, pilot error, any human caused reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222387</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>Richard\_at\_work</author>
	<datestamp>1244216700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Air Comet aircraft was over 2,000km away from where Air France 447 was supposed to be, and the pilots report has been discounted by everyone in the industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Air Comet aircraft was over 2,000km away from where Air France 447 was supposed to be , and the pilots report has been discounted by everyone in the industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Air Comet aircraft was over 2,000km away from where Air France 447 was supposed to be, and the pilots report has been discounted by everyone in the industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223251</id>
	<title>So then . . .</title>
	<author>Rambo Tribble</author>
	<datestamp>1244219940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>. . . where are the reports of sub-catastrophic damage? Certainly, not every hit would be fatal and there should be a body of accident reports for commercial aviation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
where are the reports of sub-catastrophic damage ?
Certainly , not every hit would be fatal and there should be a body of accident reports for commercial aviation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
where are the reports of sub-catastrophic damage?
Certainly, not every hit would be fatal and there should be a body of accident reports for commercial aviation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222649</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Zothar42</author>
	<datestamp>1244217660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My understanding is that the plane is fly-by-wire, thus would the pilots still have to exert the same physical force they would need to exert if the plane's controls were mechanically connected to the flight control surfaces?</htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding is that the plane is fly-by-wire , thus would the pilots still have to exert the same physical force they would need to exert if the plane 's controls were mechanically connected to the flight control surfaces ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding is that the plane is fly-by-wire, thus would the pilots still have to exert the same physical force they would need to exert if the plane's controls were mechanically connected to the flight control surfaces?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28231637</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows (yet)</title>
	<author>An anonymous Frank</author>
	<datestamp>1244290440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry, we're about to discover, somewhere underwater, a mostly intact plane filled with bodies (from some distant cemetery), though only once they're absolutely impossible to identify.</p><p>Could someone be sure to get the whole pilot's-wedding-ring thing correct this time around?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , we 're about to discover , somewhere underwater , a mostly intact plane filled with bodies ( from some distant cemetery ) , though only once they 're absolutely impossible to identify.Could someone be sure to get the whole pilot 's-wedding-ring thing correct this time around ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, we're about to discover, somewhere underwater, a mostly intact plane filled with bodies (from some distant cemetery), though only once they're absolutely impossible to identify.Could someone be sure to get the whole pilot's-wedding-ring thing correct this time around?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223105</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244219340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope. With AA Flight 587 the first officer was able to snap the vertical stabilizer off an A300 with less than 40 pounds of force on the rudder pedals. Just, left-right-left *SNAP*. Analysis of the debris indicated the tail failed well after the designed force loading was reached. Basically, some programmer put code in that jet which would let the pilot destroy the aircraft with control inputs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .
With AA Flight 587 the first officer was able to snap the vertical stabilizer off an A300 with less than 40 pounds of force on the rudder pedals .
Just , left-right-left * SNAP * .
Analysis of the debris indicated the tail failed well after the designed force loading was reached .
Basically , some programmer put code in that jet which would let the pilot destroy the aircraft with control inputs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.
With AA Flight 587 the first officer was able to snap the vertical stabilizer off an A300 with less than 40 pounds of force on the rudder pedals.
Just, left-right-left *SNAP*.
Analysis of the debris indicated the tail failed well after the designed force loading was reached.
Basically, some programmer put code in that jet which would let the pilot destroy the aircraft with control inputs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224979</id>
	<title>Occam's razor, slow flight + downdraft</title>
	<author>RichMan</author>
	<datestamp>1244226420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Storms like those encountered by the flight have very strong up and down drafts.<br>The warning issued by air bus about flight speed indicates the plane was flying close to stall.</p><p>A very strong down draft + slow flight == crash.<br>As the recovery for a crash is a dive. But in a strong downdraft your fall speed can't get you the lift needed to overcome the stall.</p><p>Downdrafts are serious business<br><a href="http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf09/extended\_abs/xu\_km.pdf" title="arm.gov">http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf09/extended\_abs/xu\_km.pdf</a> [arm.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Storms like those encountered by the flight have very strong up and down drafts.The warning issued by air bus about flight speed indicates the plane was flying close to stall.A very strong down draft + slow flight = = crash.As the recovery for a crash is a dive .
But in a strong downdraft your fall speed ca n't get you the lift needed to overcome the stall.Downdrafts are serious businesshttp : //www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf09/extended \ _abs/xu \ _km.pdf [ arm.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Storms like those encountered by the flight have very strong up and down drafts.The warning issued by air bus about flight speed indicates the plane was flying close to stall.A very strong down draft + slow flight == crash.As the recovery for a crash is a dive.
But in a strong downdraft your fall speed can't get you the lift needed to overcome the stall.Downdrafts are serious businesshttp://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf09/extended\_abs/xu\_km.pdf [arm.gov]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224047</id>
	<title>probablity</title>
	<author>ArcadiaAlex</author>
	<datestamp>1244222760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought that you can't use this kind of probablity questions when you already know the outcome of the last 100 years of air travel.  This kind of calculations as I udnerstand it is only valid for predicting future events.</p><p>So while in the next hundred years it is 1/20 (or whatever the result of the calculation is depending on how detailed you go) of a meteor and aircraft collision, you can't then say well we have already been flying for a hundred years so we a pretty due a collision.</p><p>So given it hasn't happened yet it remains increadibly unlikley that there will be a meteor vs aircraft collision.</p><p>Or did I miss something - I am sure you will tell me if I have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought that you ca n't use this kind of probablity questions when you already know the outcome of the last 100 years of air travel .
This kind of calculations as I udnerstand it is only valid for predicting future events.So while in the next hundred years it is 1/20 ( or whatever the result of the calculation is depending on how detailed you go ) of a meteor and aircraft collision , you ca n't then say well we have already been flying for a hundred years so we a pretty due a collision.So given it has n't happened yet it remains increadibly unlikley that there will be a meteor vs aircraft collision.Or did I miss something - I am sure you will tell me if I have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought that you can't use this kind of probablity questions when you already know the outcome of the last 100 years of air travel.
This kind of calculations as I udnerstand it is only valid for predicting future events.So while in the next hundred years it is 1/20 (or whatever the result of the calculation is depending on how detailed you go) of a meteor and aircraft collision, you can't then say well we have already been flying for a hundred years so we a pretty due a collision.So given it hasn't happened yet it remains increadibly unlikley that there will be a meteor vs aircraft collision.Or did I miss something - I am sure you will tell me if I have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228837</id>
	<title>Re:The suck!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244205180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How much does God hate you to put you in a meteor strike, a plane crash, and a lost-at-sea drowning all in the same day?</p></div><p>Considering the economy and the general outlook for many years in the future, I'd say he gave you a hell of a thrill ride and a get out of jail card at the same time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much does God hate you to put you in a meteor strike , a plane crash , and a lost-at-sea drowning all in the same day ? Considering the economy and the general outlook for many years in the future , I 'd say he gave you a hell of a thrill ride and a get out of jail card at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much does God hate you to put you in a meteor strike, a plane crash, and a lost-at-sea drowning all in the same day?Considering the economy and the general outlook for many years in the future, I'd say he gave you a hell of a thrill ride and a get out of jail card at the same time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226033</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244231220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how do you struggle physically against a fly by wire plane?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how do you struggle physically against a fly by wire plane ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how do you struggle physically against a fly by wire plane?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223129</id>
	<title>Move over bacon!</title>
	<author>Scragglykat</author>
	<datestamp>1244219460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here comes something meteor! *groan*</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here comes something meteor !
* groan *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here comes something meteor!
*groan*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225605</id>
	<title>Krem</title>
	<author>Krem42</author>
	<datestamp>1244229180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did a physists and an astronomer REALLY miscalculate these odds by using a 1 dimensional formula?

~90,000 flights worldwide on a dialy basis..
~3,000 meteorites which impact our atmosphere as estimated in article
~7,300 days in 20 years.

meteorites/day * day : flights/day * day
meteorites : flights
3:90, 1:30...

But assuming there's not that many flights per day and the odds are 1:20... that still is not accounting for longitutde, latitude and altitude of the aircraft and or the meteorite. Therefore, the 1:20 odds meerely represent the likelyhood that a meteorite and an airplane are travelling thru our skies at the same time. To be at the same lat, long and alt. is MUCH MUCH more unlikely... There's a greater chance it was electrical malfunction due to the storm cells. Heck, it's even greater chance the plane would have impacted and been broken apart by a decent size block of ice/hail in the clouds.. that's more probable than something speeding super sonic thru space to enter our atmosphere and nail the plane. That'd be like sniping of a wing of a gnat from 100 yrs away with a bb gun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did a physists and an astronomer REALLY miscalculate these odds by using a 1 dimensional formula ?
~ 90,000 flights worldwide on a dialy basis. . ~ 3,000 meteorites which impact our atmosphere as estimated in article ~ 7,300 days in 20 years .
meteorites/day * day : flights/day * day meteorites : flights 3 : 90 , 1 : 30.. . But assuming there 's not that many flights per day and the odds are 1 : 20... that still is not accounting for longitutde , latitude and altitude of the aircraft and or the meteorite .
Therefore , the 1 : 20 odds meerely represent the likelyhood that a meteorite and an airplane are travelling thru our skies at the same time .
To be at the same lat , long and alt .
is MUCH MUCH more unlikely... There 's a greater chance it was electrical malfunction due to the storm cells .
Heck , it 's even greater chance the plane would have impacted and been broken apart by a decent size block of ice/hail in the clouds.. that 's more probable than something speeding super sonic thru space to enter our atmosphere and nail the plane .
That 'd be like sniping of a wing of a gnat from 100 yrs away with a bb gun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did a physists and an astronomer REALLY miscalculate these odds by using a 1 dimensional formula?
~90,000 flights worldwide on a dialy basis..
~3,000 meteorites which impact our atmosphere as estimated in article
~7,300 days in 20 years.
meteorites/day * day : flights/day * day
meteorites : flights
3:90, 1:30...

But assuming there's not that many flights per day and the odds are 1:20... that still is not accounting for longitutde, latitude and altitude of the aircraft and or the meteorite.
Therefore, the 1:20 odds meerely represent the likelyhood that a meteorite and an airplane are travelling thru our skies at the same time.
To be at the same lat, long and alt.
is MUCH MUCH more unlikely... There's a greater chance it was electrical malfunction due to the storm cells.
Heck, it's even greater chance the plane would have impacted and been broken apart by a decent size block of ice/hail in the clouds.. that's more probable than something speeding super sonic thru space to enter our atmosphere and nail the plane.
That'd be like sniping of a wing of a gnat from 100 yrs away with a bb gun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230269</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244225040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw a creature on the wing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw a creature on the wing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw a creature on the wing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222395</id>
	<title>don't forget</title>
	<author>overcaffein8d</author>
	<datestamp>1244216760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget that the plane crash was during a thunderstorm in a dark night. Yes, it's possible that it got hit by a meteor, but it isn't probable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that the plane crash was during a thunderstorm in a dark night .
Yes , it 's possible that it got hit by a meteor , but it is n't probable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that the plane crash was during a thunderstorm in a dark night.
Yes, it's possible that it got hit by a meteor, but it isn't probable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227719</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>dirtyhippie</author>
	<datestamp>1244197320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That sounds plausible, except the last I heard there weren't any radio transmissions during the episode.  Wouldn't you expect at least 1 of 3 pilots to be screaming into the headset?</p></div><p>Screaming into the headset? Yes. On the radio? No. You have to press a button in order to talk on the radio. The headsets pilots have on are only used for intra-cabin communications.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds plausible , except the last I heard there were n't any radio transmissions during the episode .
Would n't you expect at least 1 of 3 pilots to be screaming into the headset ? Screaming into the headset ?
Yes. On the radio ?
No. You have to press a button in order to talk on the radio .
The headsets pilots have on are only used for intra-cabin communications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds plausible, except the last I heard there weren't any radio transmissions during the episode.
Wouldn't you expect at least 1 of 3 pilots to be screaming into the headset?Screaming into the headset?
Yes. On the radio?
No. You have to press a button in order to talk on the radio.
The headsets pilots have on are only used for intra-cabin communications.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222391</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1244216700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The odds of a meteor strike occurring at some point in history is irrelevant.<br>What are the odds that this particular airplane was hit by a meteor?<br>Probably astronomically low.</p><p>The odds of *a* car getting hit by a meteor at some point since the invention of the automobile could also be 1/10 or similar.</p><p>But if I hear about a car wreck, I'm not going to say "hey, maybe it was a meteor!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The odds of a meteor strike occurring at some point in history is irrelevant.What are the odds that this particular airplane was hit by a meteor ? Probably astronomically low.The odds of * a * car getting hit by a meteor at some point since the invention of the automobile could also be 1/10 or similar.But if I hear about a car wreck , I 'm not going to say " hey , maybe it was a meteor !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The odds of a meteor strike occurring at some point in history is irrelevant.What are the odds that this particular airplane was hit by a meteor?Probably astronomically low.The odds of *a* car getting hit by a meteor at some point since the invention of the automobile could also be 1/10 or similar.But if I hear about a car wreck, I'm not going to say "hey, maybe it was a meteor!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226691</id>
	<title>Re:Deceit</title>
	<author>az1324</author>
	<datestamp>1244234700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Err Comet</p><p>It's the new Fail Whale</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Err CometIt 's the new Fail Whale</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Err CometIt's the new Fail Whale</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230415</id>
	<title>Re:Last transmitted messages of AF447 &amp; specul</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244227020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TL;DR</p><p>However, in response to the first bit about "sudden icing of the pitot tubes"</p><p>Pitot heat is on basically whenever the aircraft has electrical power. For the tubes to ice over, the entire nose of the aircraft would just about have to be covered in ice.</p><p>Also, An iced over pitot tube would give a zero airspeed reading. Any competent pilot (read: any pilot who is good enough to have a career flying airliners) would realize that this is a malfunctioning sensor and not an accurate indication of his airspeed, and take action accordingly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TL ; DRHowever , in response to the first bit about " sudden icing of the pitot tubes " Pitot heat is on basically whenever the aircraft has electrical power .
For the tubes to ice over , the entire nose of the aircraft would just about have to be covered in ice.Also , An iced over pitot tube would give a zero airspeed reading .
Any competent pilot ( read : any pilot who is good enough to have a career flying airliners ) would realize that this is a malfunctioning sensor and not an accurate indication of his airspeed , and take action accordingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TL;DRHowever, in response to the first bit about "sudden icing of the pitot tubes"Pitot heat is on basically whenever the aircraft has electrical power.
For the tubes to ice over, the entire nose of the aircraft would just about have to be covered in ice.Also, An iced over pitot tube would give a zero airspeed reading.
Any competent pilot (read: any pilot who is good enough to have a career flying airliners) would realize that this is a malfunctioning sensor and not an accurate indication of his airspeed, and take action accordingly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</id>
	<title>Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1244217480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, why do we still have to have the black box in the aircraft? Is it possible to radio the parameters continuously and record it on land? Thus even when the plane is lost, the data is safe. What kind of bandwidth is needed to transmit that level of data?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , why do we still have to have the black box in the aircraft ?
Is it possible to radio the parameters continuously and record it on land ?
Thus even when the plane is lost , the data is safe .
What kind of bandwidth is needed to transmit that level of data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, why do we still have to have the black box in the aircraft?
Is it possible to radio the parameters continuously and record it on land?
Thus even when the plane is lost, the data is safe.
What kind of bandwidth is needed to transmit that level of data?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223645</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>AJWM</author>
	<datestamp>1244221380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They disengaged the main flight control system because they thought it was flying too fast in the turbulence, or was causing too much passenger discomfort.<br>They slowed down to a very narrow margin above stall speed.<br>They hit a 100 mph updraft, causing the AOA to go beyond the stall angle.</i></p><p>So far, so good -- although "very narrow margin" isn't even necessary given the 100mph updraft, they could have been 100 mph above stall speed and had problems.  (Of course one has to factor in that their stall speed when configured for cruise flight is going to be higher than stall speed when configured with flaps and slats in landing/take-off position.)</p><p><i>They went into a high-speed dive.<br>Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.</i></p><p>Here it gets a little trickier.  If they stalled out in an updraft they'd have control problems but not necessarily be in a dive.  In fact a dive would have been the best thing to regain control by changing the AOA relative to the airflow -- until they exited the updraft (or it stopped).  I don't think exerting enough force on the controls was the issue, it was knowing the best <i>way</i> to move them given unusual airflow.  (Standard stall recovery technique is, after all, to put the nose down (and throttle up)).</p><p><i>Something (wing, tail surface, aileron, spoiler... whatever) tore off.<br>[...]<br>At a speed probably above Vne, that resulted in the aircraft structure being instantly destroyed.</i></p><p>More likely a control surface (aileron, elevator, rudder) than an entire wing, although it's also possible with sufficient vibration that an engine tore off and damaged flight controls as it went, but yeah.</p><p>And there's a reason they call it <i>V</i>elocity <i>n</i>ever <i>e</i>xceed.</p><p>Nice analysis, btw, my nit-picking aside.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They disengaged the main flight control system because they thought it was flying too fast in the turbulence , or was causing too much passenger discomfort.They slowed down to a very narrow margin above stall speed.They hit a 100 mph updraft , causing the AOA to go beyond the stall angle.So far , so good -- although " very narrow margin " is n't even necessary given the 100mph updraft , they could have been 100 mph above stall speed and had problems .
( Of course one has to factor in that their stall speed when configured for cruise flight is going to be higher than stall speed when configured with flaps and slats in landing/take-off position .
) They went into a high-speed dive.Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.Here it gets a little trickier .
If they stalled out in an updraft they 'd have control problems but not necessarily be in a dive .
In fact a dive would have been the best thing to regain control by changing the AOA relative to the airflow -- until they exited the updraft ( or it stopped ) .
I do n't think exerting enough force on the controls was the issue , it was knowing the best way to move them given unusual airflow .
( Standard stall recovery technique is , after all , to put the nose down ( and throttle up ) ) .Something ( wing , tail surface , aileron , spoiler... whatever ) tore off. [ .. .
] At a speed probably above Vne , that resulted in the aircraft structure being instantly destroyed.More likely a control surface ( aileron , elevator , rudder ) than an entire wing , although it 's also possible with sufficient vibration that an engine tore off and damaged flight controls as it went , but yeah.And there 's a reason they call it Velocity never exceed.Nice analysis , btw , my nit-picking aside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They disengaged the main flight control system because they thought it was flying too fast in the turbulence, or was causing too much passenger discomfort.They slowed down to a very narrow margin above stall speed.They hit a 100 mph updraft, causing the AOA to go beyond the stall angle.So far, so good -- although "very narrow margin" isn't even necessary given the 100mph updraft, they could have been 100 mph above stall speed and had problems.
(Of course one has to factor in that their stall speed when configured for cruise flight is going to be higher than stall speed when configured with flaps and slats in landing/take-off position.
)They went into a high-speed dive.Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.Here it gets a little trickier.
If they stalled out in an updraft they'd have control problems but not necessarily be in a dive.
In fact a dive would have been the best thing to regain control by changing the AOA relative to the airflow -- until they exited the updraft (or it stopped).
I don't think exerting enough force on the controls was the issue, it was knowing the best way to move them given unusual airflow.
(Standard stall recovery technique is, after all, to put the nose down (and throttle up)).Something (wing, tail surface, aileron, spoiler... whatever) tore off.[...
]At a speed probably above Vne, that resulted in the aircraft structure being instantly destroyed.More likely a control surface (aileron, elevator, rudder) than an entire wing, although it's also possible with sufficient vibration that an engine tore off and damaged flight controls as it went, but yeah.And there's a reason they call it Velocity never exceed.Nice analysis, btw, my nit-picking aside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225311</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244227860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gravity brought her down, but the Earth caused the crash.  Without the Earth, it'd still be falling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gravity brought her down , but the Earth caused the crash .
Without the Earth , it 'd still be falling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gravity brought her down, but the Earth caused the crash.
Without the Earth, it'd still be falling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227625</id>
	<title>not in an electric storm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244196840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably not what you want to be relying on during an electric storm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably not what you want to be relying on during an electric storm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably not what you want to be relying on during an electric storm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223885</id>
	<title>What are the odds...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244222160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stewardess: [Captain], the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1.</p><p>Captain: Never tell me the odds!</p><p>That said, my money's still on the boring updrafts &amp; colossal turbulence theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stewardess : [ Captain ] , the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1.Captain : Never tell me the odds ! That said , my money 's still on the boring updrafts &amp; colossal turbulence theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stewardess: [Captain], the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1.Captain: Never tell me the odds!That said, my money's still on the boring updrafts &amp; colossal turbulence theory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224143</id>
	<title>Re:Why complicate things?</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1244223180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My boss is a former pilot, he said lightning strikes planes often and it there is almost no chance the plane was downed by a lightning strike.  Sure anything is possible, but I'd bet thousands of planes are struck each year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My boss is a former pilot , he said lightning strikes planes often and it there is almost no chance the plane was downed by a lightning strike .
Sure anything is possible , but I 'd bet thousands of planes are struck each year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My boss is a former pilot, he said lightning strikes planes often and it there is almost no chance the plane was downed by a lightning strike.
Sure anything is possible, but I'd bet thousands of planes are struck each year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223147</id>
	<title>Occam's razor = weather in this case</title>
	<author>Nibbler(C)</author>
	<datestamp>1244219580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As exciting as meteor or motherships would be, I still think that simplest reason hold true in this case.

An ex-Air Force weatherman, gives quite a low down on the weathersystem directly on AF447's path at the time the last messages came.

<a href="http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/" title="weathergraphics.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/</a> [weathergraphics.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>As exciting as meteor or motherships would be , I still think that simplest reason hold true in this case .
An ex-Air Force weatherman , gives quite a low down on the weathersystem directly on AF447 's path at the time the last messages came .
http : //www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/ [ weathergraphics.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As exciting as meteor or motherships would be, I still think that simplest reason hold true in this case.
An ex-Air Force weatherman, gives quite a low down on the weathersystem directly on AF447's path at the time the last messages came.
http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/ [weathergraphics.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224337</id>
	<title>Someone Forgot to Push the Button</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244223960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4 8 15 16 23 42</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4 8 15 16 23 42</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4 8 15 16 23 42</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230081</id>
	<title>I think SHRIMP may have brought it down.</title>
	<author>Archeopteryx</author>
	<datestamp>1244222340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read that this storm was abnormal in that there was a lot of seawater sucked up into it.</p><p>You know how weather sometimes causes fish and frogs and such to rain from the sky?</p><p>What if amazing numbers of small crustaceans were in that cloud? What if they PLUGGED the pitot tubes?</p><p>Radar would not see that the squall line up ahead was full of waterbugs.</p><p>A blocked pitot tube would mean you had no real airspeed indication. The static port would still feed the altimeter, but if you climbed your indicated airspeed would go down and the computer would throttle up, and if you descended the indicated airspeed would go up and the computer would command throttle down.</p><p>And as they became blocked there would be a change in the pressure of the system that would result in a throttle-up.</p><p>And if the static port were blocked, the vertical airspeed alert would not have happened.</p><p>What do you think?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read that this storm was abnormal in that there was a lot of seawater sucked up into it.You know how weather sometimes causes fish and frogs and such to rain from the sky ? What if amazing numbers of small crustaceans were in that cloud ?
What if they PLUGGED the pitot tubes ? Radar would not see that the squall line up ahead was full of waterbugs.A blocked pitot tube would mean you had no real airspeed indication .
The static port would still feed the altimeter , but if you climbed your indicated airspeed would go down and the computer would throttle up , and if you descended the indicated airspeed would go up and the computer would command throttle down.And as they became blocked there would be a change in the pressure of the system that would result in a throttle-up.And if the static port were blocked , the vertical airspeed alert would not have happened.What do you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read that this storm was abnormal in that there was a lot of seawater sucked up into it.You know how weather sometimes causes fish and frogs and such to rain from the sky?What if amazing numbers of small crustaceans were in that cloud?
What if they PLUGGED the pitot tubes?Radar would not see that the squall line up ahead was full of waterbugs.A blocked pitot tube would mean you had no real airspeed indication.
The static port would still feed the altimeter, but if you climbed your indicated airspeed would go down and the computer would throttle up, and if you descended the indicated airspeed would go up and the computer would command throttle down.And as they became blocked there would be a change in the pressure of the system that would result in a throttle-up.And if the static port were blocked, the vertical airspeed alert would not have happened.What do you think?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223225</id>
	<title>Air France plane more than just 'LOST'...</title>
	<author>adosch</author>
	<datestamp>1244219820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like the US and France better call up Charles Whitmore or Benjamin Linus and start asking about "the island"... can anyone say "Oceanic Flight 815" Take 2.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the US and France better call up Charles Whitmore or Benjamin Linus and start asking about " the island " ... can anyone say " Oceanic Flight 815 " Take 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the US and France better call up Charles Whitmore or Benjamin Linus and start asking about "the island"... can anyone say "Oceanic Flight 815" Take 2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223211</id>
	<title>Re:Why complicate things?</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1244219760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AFAIK, lightning is seeking ground.  The airplane is not ground, and therefore wouldn't make a likely target for a strike.  It is possible that they passed through the area lightning was seeking toward ground, but not super likely.</p><p>If the plane were a good ground, every bolt would seek the plane every time, as it would be closer.  This is why we use lightning rods - to provide a target closer to the sky that won't catch fire, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK , lightning is seeking ground .
The airplane is not ground , and therefore would n't make a likely target for a strike .
It is possible that they passed through the area lightning was seeking toward ground , but not super likely.If the plane were a good ground , every bolt would seek the plane every time , as it would be closer .
This is why we use lightning rods - to provide a target closer to the sky that wo n't catch fire , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK, lightning is seeking ground.
The airplane is not ground, and therefore wouldn't make a likely target for a strike.
It is possible that they passed through the area lightning was seeking toward ground, but not super likely.If the plane were a good ground, every bolt would seek the plane every time, as it would be closer.
This is why we use lightning rods - to provide a target closer to the sky that won't catch fire, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226945</id>
	<title>Re:The suck!</title>
	<author>RileyBryan</author>
	<datestamp>1244192580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US is currently operating 747s with nuclear reactors hooked directly into advanced laser technology. This is the very reason that the N. Korean missles are a joke to us. This was a directed energy attack. Perhaps this was the first directed energy weapon used on a civilian target, for political, economic, testing, or some other reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US is currently operating 747s with nuclear reactors hooked directly into advanced laser technology .
This is the very reason that the N. Korean missles are a joke to us .
This was a directed energy attack .
Perhaps this was the first directed energy weapon used on a civilian target , for political , economic , testing , or some other reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US is currently operating 747s with nuclear reactors hooked directly into advanced laser technology.
This is the very reason that the N. Korean missles are a joke to us.
This was a directed energy attack.
Perhaps this was the first directed energy weapon used on a civilian target, for political, economic, testing, or some other reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228273</id>
	<title>Re:Why cant the plane twitter?</title>
	<author>stevedmc</author>
	<datestamp>1244201100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>On any given day, more than 87,000 flights are in the skies in the United States. There are even more flights when you count all the international flights. The satellites in orbit simply are not able to handle enough bandwidth for that many planes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On any given day , more than 87,000 flights are in the skies in the United States .
There are even more flights when you count all the international flights .
The satellites in orbit simply are not able to handle enough bandwidth for that many planes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On any given day, more than 87,000 flights are in the skies in the United States.
There are even more flights when you count all the international flights.
The satellites in orbit simply are not able to handle enough bandwidth for that many planes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223063</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244219160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi,</p><p>Airbus aircrafts are all electronics nowadays, you can't "disable the main flight control system," it's a fly-by-wire technology... No matter which amount of force you will put on your joystick, it's up to the computer to send the information to the wings or wherever it's supposed to go.</p><p>Cheers,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi,Airbus aircrafts are all electronics nowadays , you ca n't " disable the main flight control system , " it 's a fly-by-wire technology... No matter which amount of force you will put on your joystick , it 's up to the computer to send the information to the wings or wherever it 's supposed to go.Cheers,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi,Airbus aircrafts are all electronics nowadays, you can't "disable the main flight control system," it's a fly-by-wire technology... No matter which amount of force you will put on your joystick, it's up to the computer to send the information to the wings or wherever it's supposed to go.Cheers,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224253</id>
	<title>is it a airplane? Is it a Meteor? It's SUPERMAN</title>
	<author>eiapoce</author>
	<datestamp>1244223600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not a physicist but i respectfully I think that the possibility for the plane to be taken down by superman is much higher than the meteor hypotesis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not a physicist but i respectfully I think that the possibility for the plane to be taken down by superman is much higher than the meteor hypotesis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not a physicist but i respectfully I think that the possibility for the plane to be taken down by superman is much higher than the meteor hypotesis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223009</id>
	<title>Probably a lot less likely.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244219040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Phil Plait has just put up a blog post explaining that it's probably a lot less likely than than these other guys have made it seem.

<a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/05/flying-the-meteoric-skies/" title="discovermagazine.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/05/flying-the-meteoric-skies/</a> [discovermagazine.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Phil Plait has just put up a blog post explaining that it 's probably a lot less likely than than these other guys have made it seem .
http : //blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/05/flying-the-meteoric-skies/ [ discovermagazine.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phil Plait has just put up a blog post explaining that it's probably a lot less likely than than these other guys have made it seem.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/05/flying-the-meteoric-skies/ [discovermagazine.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225299</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244227800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The A300 is not a fly-by-wire aeroplane. The rudder pedals are mechanically connected to the rudder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The A300 is not a fly-by-wire aeroplane .
The rudder pedals are mechanically connected to the rudder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The A300 is not a fly-by-wire aeroplane.
The rudder pedals are mechanically connected to the rudder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28231369</id>
	<title>Re:The suck!</title>
	<author>AGMW</author>
	<datestamp>1244285400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if their last thoughts were - Wish I'd bought a lottery ticket!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if their last thoughts were - Wish I 'd bought a lottery ticket !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if their last thoughts were - Wish I'd bought a lottery ticket!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28232061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28231957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28229765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28236577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28231369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28231637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28229449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28229171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28229265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28229305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28239883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28313527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28240147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1419247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230695
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223165
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28232061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224031
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28239883
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222787
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227477
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223009
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224979
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222953
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222799
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28313527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28229265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226133
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28231369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28229449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223913
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222451
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224881
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222959
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28229765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28240147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225351
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224093
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227813
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28236577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223733
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28229305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228083
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28229171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224327
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28231637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227719
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222695
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28231957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28227451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222649
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223105
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225299
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28226141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223435
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28228225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230835
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28230415
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28225113
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28222443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28224875
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1419247.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1419247.28223495
</commentlist>
</conversation>
