Skip to comments.
Retired Airline Pilot sues NTSB for "Zoom-climb" data
http://www.twa800.com/lahr/lahr-amended.htm ^
| 7/27/02
| John Fiorentino
Posted on 07/27/2002 8:30:11 AM PDT by JohnFiorentino
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600, 601-620, 621-640 ... 981-990 next last
To: FormerLurker
Tinfoil hats - "conspiracy theorists"
"What gets me is this 'tinfoil hat' crap that some are slinging around here. Same old time tested technique I suppose, where if you can't argue against the facts, call the person presenting those facts a 'tin hatter'."
Crybabies who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Almost immediately after the Flight 800 disaster, the "shootdown" tinfoil hats started wildly hurling the accusation "government agent disinformationalist engaged in the felonious criminal coverup of heinous crimes" at anyone who dared disagree with them - for the purpose of deliberately attempting to incite suspicion, fear and hatred of those so accused - and without one shred of supporting evidence, a tactic that has continued for over six years now.
Comment #602 Removed by Moderator
To: FormerLurker
The timeline and location of the major events of the disaster was approximately as follows:
8:31:11 Intact and climbing 747 approaches 13,800 feet.
8:31:12 Initiating Event at 13,800 feet followed immediately by the commencement of the decapitation process.
8:31:43-8:31:47 Streak of light appears.
8:31:47 Explosion of Massive Fireball at 5500-7500 feet.
8:31:55-8:31:57 Splashdown of the Massive Fireball flames.
The readers have now seen your huffnpuff attacks on the above timeline and The "Missile Witnesses" Myth. Please provide them with your timeline.
Comment #604 Removed by Moderator
To: mach.08
Shhhh! Shouting is very discourteous.
To: Asmodeus
The readers have now seen your huffnpuff attacks on the above timeline and The "Missile Witnesses" Myth. Please provide them with your timeline. Er, you REALLY have a reading comprehension problem don't you. Are your glasses adequate to be reading from a computer screen? I HAVE given timeline calculations, which you obviously ignore as you can't refute what I wrote. Can you see the little numbers on the Islip radar returns. Those are TIMES.
And a person by the name of Isaac Newton came up with these really neat equations having to do with objects in motion. The field of study is called Physics, and by using those equations we can see what is possible and what isn't.
You're timeline is IMPOSSIBLE due to the Laws of Physics, courtesy of Sir Newton..
In fact, since you insist, I'll repost something that I've already posted on another thread...
8:31:43-8:31:47 Streak of light appears.
8:31:47 Explosion of Massive Fireball at 5500-7500 feet.
8:31:55-8:31:57 Splashdown of the Massive Fireball flames.
Asmodeus, I see you're posting your impossible timeline again. Let's just reiterate why it's impossible..
Let me repost a little something I've already posted, and we can see just how high TWA800 was at 20:31:43, 20:31:47, and 20:31:55.
We'll take a look at the radar returns from the Islip radar to see exactly where TWA800 was during this period.
Radar graphic from www.twa800.com
According to the radar returns, the last return of the main body of TWA800 before it hit the water was at 20:31:48:94. Considering an error of up to 4.69 seconds due to the period of the Isplip radar sweep, TWA800 hit the water between roughly 20:31:49 and 20:31:54.
Looking at the radar returns, it becomes obvious that TWA800 was in a ballistic fall with negligible horizontal component between at least 20:31:44 and up to the time it met it's demise in the ocean between 20:31:49 and 20:31:54. We can safely assume that TWA800 would have been in this ballistic fall at 20:31:43 as well by looking at the radar chart.
A simple physics calculation should tell us how high TWA800 was at the specified times if we look at the difference between those times and the time that TWA800 hit the water.
The relevent equation is;
d = (g * t2)/2, where;
d = distance in feet
g = acceleration due to gravity = 32 feet / s2
t = time in seconds
To find the approximate height of TWA800 at any given time during this ballistic fall, we first calculate the difference between that time and the last return on radar which occured at 20:31:49, and then the difference for 20:31:54, which is the latest time TWA800 could have hit the water..
For clarity, I'll call the action of TWA800 hitting the water as the terminal event (TE). Time t will be the difference between the specified time and the TE, and d will be the height of TWA800 at that specified time.
For 20:31:43:
t(TE 20:31:49) = (20:31:49 - 20:31:43) = 6 seconds
t(TE 20:31:54) = (20:31:54 - 20:31:43) = 11 seconds
d(20:31:43, TE 20:31:49) = (32 * 62)/2 = 576 feet,
d(20:31:43, TE 20:31:54) = (32 * 112)/2 = 1936 feet.
For 20:31:47:
t(TE 20:31:49) = (20:31:49 - 20:31:47) = 2 seconds
t(TE 20:31:54) = (20:31:54 - 20:31:47) = 7 seconds
d(20:31:47, TE 20:31:49) = (32 * 22)/2 = 256 feet,
d(20:31:47, TE 20:31:54) = (32 * 72)/2 = 784 feet.
For 20:31:55:
We don't have to calculate THAT, as we already know that the latest that TWA800 hit the water was at 20:31:54.
These calculations are NOT taking friction of the air into consideration, so if anything it would take LONGER for TWA800 to fall from a certain height. This would mean that the altitudes given are a HIGH estimate.
So, your claim that at 20:31:47 there was the "Explosion of Massive Fireball" at 5500-7500 feet, is clearly impossible, as TWA800 was at MOST between 256 and 784 feet above the water at 20:31:47.
Additionally, your claim that "Streak of light appears" between 20:31:43-20:31:47 is also dubious, as TWA800 was at an altitude of at most 576 to 1936 feet at 20:31:43. And it was going DOWN, not up or sideways...
To: mach.08
"With dozens of F800 witnesses describing an upward-shooting streak of light that culminated in the explosive demise of TWA Flight 800, these comparisons could literally go on all day." For a change, please identify the witnesses you're referring to for the readers.
The "Missile Witnesses" Myth
To: Asmodeus
One more thing.
We can see through a few calculations how long it would take TWA800 to fall from its last reported altitude, and see where it was when it began to fall.
We again refer to the equation describing a fall due to gravity;
d = (g * t2)/2, where;
d = distance in feet
g = acceleration due to gravity = 32 feet / s2
t = time in seconds
To see where TWA800 began its ballistic fall, we can look at how long it would take for an object to fall from its last stated altitude of 13,500 feet.
Rearranging the equation to determine time, we have;
t = sqrt((2 * d)/g)
So we have;
t = sqrt((2 * 13,500)/32) = 29 seconds
Given the terminating event to be between 20:31:49 and 20:31:54, we have;
20:31:49 - 29 = 20:31:20
20:31:54 - 29 = 20:31:25
So if TWA800 had been in a ballistic fall all the way down, it would have had to wait from 4 to 9 seconds after losing its nose to do so. The time of the nose separating from the main body is taken as 20:31:16, which is what the NTSB has claimed to be the time that it occured.
BUT, it appears as if TWA800 FLEW for aways and changed direction here and there, so we have to take into consideration that it took LONGER to fall into the ocean than if it HAD been in a purely ballistic fall. That would bring the time of the beginning of the fall closer to the time that it lost its nose, being 20:31:16.
It certainly couldn't have CLIMBED, as it would have taken even MORE time for it to fall from such an altitude. It had no power, so it couldn't have accelerated towards the ground other than the acceleration due to gravity..
I think that pretty much puts to rest this silly zoom climb theory.
To: Asmodeus; mach.08
For a change, please identify the witnesses you're referring to for the readers. Nice try, but many of the witnesses are simply referred to by their FBI witness ID number. Only those who have came forward publically are known by name.
To: FormerLurker
I have no idea how you can possibly lump Asmodeus and myself together.
We have about as much in common as night and day.
Where are you getting your information?
Unless I'm reading you wrong?
To: Asmodeus
By the way, if you're really a 70+ old investigator who is an EXPERT in interviewing witnesses and analyzing witness reports, you haven't posted your credentials as you've been asked to do.
You really should get a clue and understand that we aren't easily fooled here, at least most of us aren't..
Comment #612 Removed by Moderator
To: FormerLurker
Please simply post your complete timeline for the readers instead of repeating your huffnpuff.
To: JohnFiorentino
Where are you getting your information? In some of your posts you've referred to those who feel that a missle brought down TWA800 as "tin hatters".
I really don't like that term applied towards me. We should drop these invectives if we are going to get anywhere beyond petty name calling here.
To: Asmodeus
Please simply post your complete timeline for the readers instead of repeating your huffnpuff. Uh, please admit that you are wrong and that TWA800 COULD NOT POSSIBLY have been at 5500-7500 feet at 20:31:47, and not even at 20:31:43, as demonstrated by the facts that I have presented.
Speak of huffnpuff, that is all that you have provided, your silly timeline that is based on YOUR OPINION and CONJECTURE, totally unsubstantiated, void of any scientific merit whatsoever.
You admit that you're blowing smoke here, and then maybe I'll take the time to guide you through the radar returns...
To: FormerLurker
I'm afraid you are mistaken........I NEVER referred to anyone as a "tin-hatter" you have me confused with Asmodeus.
To: JohnFiorentino
Yahoo TWA800 forum - 15 March 2002
From: John Fiorentino
Subject: Re: [twa800] A little sensitive, aren't we?
[excerpt][quote][emphasis added - caps yours]
However, based on Meyer's statements, I don't believe he witnessed the IE. Fl. 800 didn't explode in a MF at 13000+, the MF was somewhere 7500-8500ft. Look at his timeline, Please explain, HOW he could have witnessed the IE?
[end quote]So isn't it long past time for you to provide the readers with your explanation of the streak and your timeline?
To: JohnFiorentino
To: JohnFiorentino
I'm afraid you are mistaken........I NEVER referred to anyone as a "tin-hatter" you have me confused with Asmodeus. I'm sorry, upon looking back at your posts to Asmodeus there is some confusion as to whether you're stating something or whether you're quoting Asmodeus. You really should use quotations or italics to isolate another person's remarks from your own. It obviously leads to confusion if one can't tell who is saying what..
Again, I apologize for berating you, as I originally thought those were your own words that I was reading.
To: FormerLurker
Let's try it again. Please provide the readers with your complete timeline. Then I'll respond to your huffnpuff.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600, 601-620, 621-640 ... 981-990 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson