"Steve Pope" wrote in message
...
Gary L. Burnore wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:07:29 GMT, "vaughn"

wrote:


"Steve Pope" wrote in message
...

Lookin' more likely

How so?

They found no evidence of organic matter after the second engine was
pulled
from the bottom of the river. Heh.

Of course, they did say they saw evidence of a soft body strike. So it's
NOT
likely.

The soft body strike was limited to the lip of the engine. Blades
are apparently intact, according to what I read. The second engine
did not at first glance ingest a bird,

The absence of immediate evidence to the contrary does not in any way make
" some
design flaw or maintenance issue of the other engine" likely. It is
possible I suppose, but not likely. Remember, "conventional wisdom" is
sometimes spectacularly wrong, but it is dangerous to bet against it.

but we'll have to wait for
more total information.

Exactly.

Vaughn