This line made my bullshit detector go off:<p><pre><code>    ... but in a prelude of future problems, the first B-1 unveiled in 1985,
    in front of a crowd of 30,000, failed to start.
</code></pre>
That is not what happened, not even close. The plane was damaged during delivery two <i>days</i> prior to the unveiling. It didn&#x27;t &quot;fail to start&quot;, they didn&#x27;t try to start it after it was damaged. All of this didn&#x27;t occur &quot;in front of a crowd of 30,000&quot;; again, it occurred two days before.<p>Much like the points you made, this line is another ham-fisted attempt to paint what happened in the most embarrassing way possible, by drawing an image in the reader&#x27;s mind of a bumbling pilot turning the key and the starter cranking over without starting. The author knows this (I got it from his link[1]).<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;1985&#x2F;06&#x2F;30&#x2F;us&#x2F;30000-hail-bomber-debut-but-settle-for-a-substitute.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;1985&#x2F;06&#x2F;30&#x2F;us&#x2F;30000-hail-bomber-debut...</a>