[U S Army EOD]

It painted parts of it falling. The aircraft was already in a nose up attitude with a lot of power on. When the front section of the aircraft broke off, the remaining section would have been tail heavy, lighter and still had power on. No problem climbing an additional 3000 feet. Which brings up the question on how they knew it climbed 3000 feet. Radar immage would be a good guess.

Although it is not a good example, remember when the shuttle blew up? The boosters continued to climb and fly around.

[True Republican Patriot]

You ought to do some reading on this before you make blatantly wrong statements on this subject. I will not address anymore of this nonsense. The rockets were going up at the time and as you point out a totally irrelevant example. I suggest you read Jack's other works past and future and go to the websites such as TWA800.com to read first hand the interviews and other evidence. Alas, why am I sure you will not.

[Wurlitzer]

"It painted parts of it falling. The aircraft was already in a nose up attitude with a lot of power on. When the front section of the aircraft broke off, the remaining section would have been tail heavy, lighter and still had power on. No problem climbing an additional 3000 feet. Which brings up the question on how they knew it climbed 3000 feet. Radar immage would be a good guess. Although it is not a good example, remember when the shuttle blew up? The boosters continued to climb and fly around."

This is easy to prove or disprove but unfortunately we a dealing in a world of liars (government and business, not you).

According to the Boeing engineers, the engines will immediately go to idle RPMs and thrust when communications are severed. They are NOT like solid fuel rocket engines on the shuttle that once ignited continue to burn no matter what you try to do but I think you know that.

[GarySpFc]

When the front section of the aircraft broke off, the remaining section would have been tail heavy, lighter and still had power on. No problem climbing an additional 3000 feet.

According to the 40 747 captains I heard discussing what happened it would be impossible for the plane to climb with the nose off, because it is aeronautically unstable.

[Techster]

Your are absolutely right, the shuttle boosters is not a good example. By the way, once the center tank "explodes", how do you get fuel to the engines? I would suspect electrical system and fuel systems are totally compromised at that point.

[Bryan24]

"The aircraft was already in a nose up attitude with a lot of power on. When the front section of the aircraft broke off, the remaining section would have been tail heavy, lighter and still had power on. No problem climbing an additional 3000 feet."

HAAAHahahaha..... Do you actually believe that?

[cpdiii]

It painted parts of it falling. The aircraft was already in a nose up attitude with a lot of power on. When the front section of the aircraft broke off, the remaining section would have been tail heavy, lighter and still had power on. No problem climbing an additional 3000 feet. Which brings up the question on how they knew it climbed 3000 feet. Radar image would be a good guess. Although it is not a good example, remember when the shuttle blew up? The boosters continued to climb and fly around.

The turbines on the 747 are electronically controlled. When the nose blew off they would no longer have any electronic input. The engines would automatically go to idle in this situation. The aircraft minus the nose would pitch up violently due to the change of the center of gravity and flat plate effect of the fuselage minus the nose. I did some calculations and the flat plate drag at 250 knots would have been close to the thrust of one the aircrafts engines. This force would be cause the very violent pitch up. This pitch up would cause the wings to stall and and probable structural failure of the wing.

After that aircraft lost it nose it dropped like a rock. I do not know what brought that aircraft down but it sure as hell did not climb 3800 feet after it lost its nose. That DID NOT HAPPEN!

[HighWheeler]

"When the front section of the aircraft broke off, the remaining section would have been tail heavy, lighter and still had power on. No problem climbing an additional 3000 feet."


Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. You should stick to your "expertise" with explosives, even though you don't seem be familiar with residue.

I have a question for you. Since that aircraft used wire to actuate all the aircraft's control surfaces and engine throttles, and that all of these wires were connected to the cockpit, which was violently removed, then would you explain what process caused ALL those wires to break simultaneously without yanking EVEN ONE of the the control surfaces to its limit before the forward portion separated from the aft?