3 ms·
It's a total trash article, just sensationally-hysterical crying. "It’s not clear at this point if the plane was on fire before it landed" It is totally clear
by EugeneOZ 7y ago
It's a total trash article, just sensationally-hysterical crying.
"It’s not clear at this point if the plane was on fire before it landed"
It is totally clear, just read more official sources. Plane was not on fire before landing. You can see it even on videos.
"While a deadly fire raged around them, witnesses say people were nonetheless stopping to collect their carry-ons, clogging the aisles and slowing the evacuation"
It's a lie. One of the survivors, who left the plane last (not first), witnessed there was no such issue, path was clear and evacuation was quick.
Engines didn't stop - they were working as blust furs, accelerating fire, so people behind the wings died in about 20 seconds. 2 people survived after row 12, just because they started running before the fire started.
Such an awful example of "sensational" journalism.
- rounce 7y agoWhat are your a source(s)? As the official accident report hasn’t even been completed (let alone released) anything else is just speculation.
- dmitriid 7y agoThere are dozens of videos, including one of landing. No fire on approach
- EugeneOZ 7y agoThere are links in other comments here. There are official statements already about accident, main version is "mistakes of pilots". Before asking "sources" from just comment, try to find at least one "source" link in that click-biting trash we are discussing.
- LoSboccacc 7y ago> Plane was not on fire if you talk in terms of "proof" the videos tell there was no fire visible before the third bounce. sure it's more likely that there was no fire as opposed to a contained fire, but you need to split what video proves and what video suggests.
- EugeneOZ 7y agoPilots survived and already answered questions - they decided to land because all systems started failing after lightning strike, not because of fire - there was no fire before landing.
- LoSboccacc 7y ago> no fire I didn't claim otherwise and yet the point still stands: as far as it is known the was no visible fire. only the final report will establish the absence of fire. can't really fathom how people can't tell the difference.