Posted on 06/20/2016 11:33:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
I think Pierre Salinger prolly had some good contacts in the Navy who told him the Navy was responsible. Thomas Moorer was one of them. Pierre served in the Navy in WWII.
(1)... we don't know for sure exactly what happened.
(2)... The Feds went to extreme measures to cover up what happened.
(1) + (1) = (2)
TWA800 would have flown without crashing if a missile hadn't torn the fuselage I half.
My A&P school chief instructor was retired from Braniff Airlines, where he had held Braniff company ID card #3, having been hired by the Braniff brothers to maintain their aircraft before hiring any contract pilots or company administrative staff. He stayed on after the brothers' deaths in 1954, served as Braniff's Chief of Maintenance and retired as Maintenance Director at Dallas Love Field, following the 1970 Braniff acquisition of N601BN [AKA *Fat Albert* or *The Great Pumpkin*] the first 747 placed in the company's service [more formally known as *747 Braniff Place* to company ad writers] Nib's knowledge of the maintenance and flight characteristics of the 747-127 was beyond enclycopediac, and when I saw the CIA-produced animation of the Flight 800 disaster, I made a video tape and showed it to him. *Nope,* says he. *If the nose had come off, it would have stalled and dropped like a brick. It wasn't an airplane any more.*
BTW: when a 747 is fully pressurized, the weight of just the air aboard is over a ton. Think about what having a ton of your aircraft load go flying out the front end does to your aircraft stability.
It stalled, tail down, and dropped like a 365-ton rock.
That is just what I have been trying to tell Moonman62. . . It would have fallen like a brick which had been doing 358 knots. . . In a ballistic fall, which all the empirical evidence shows it did.
I tell people that once a wing stalls it takes on the aerodynamic characteristics of a grand piano.
ML/NJ
That is just what I have been trying to tell Moonman62. . . It would have fallen like a brick which had been doing 358 knots. . .
...
Wings still have lift even when the nose is off. It’s well known that aircraft can trade velocity for altitude, and 358 knots is well above the 747 stall speed at that altitude. The absence of the nose increased drag, which the NTSB acknowledged and included in their simulation. Multiple simulations showed the aircraft would have gained altitude briefly, matched radar data, and put the wreckage where it was found.
What I don’t understand is why in 20 years the conspiracy theorists haven’t used MS Flight Simulator and hired someone for a small sum of money to make a model of TWA 800 with a range of aerodynamic properties like the NTSB did. Perhaps they did and found out the NTSB was right.
Pretty impressive this thread has gone this far.
No it did not match radar data. You keep claiming that but the cartoons simply did noIve. I've demonstrated too many times to count why they did not. YOU have not demonstrated a blasted thing.
No it did not match radar data.
...
The NTSB fast simulations did match each of the three radars as well as the wreckage location. A simulation was run for each radar since the radars don’t even match each other’s data within tolerances.
I gave you an easy way to refute the NTSB simulations. It’s hard to imagine that somebody hasn’t attempted it in 20 years.
Not all that much to fear in a PA28-140, but not all airplanes are quite so forgiving.
He said his brother was a DC-9 captain and said you wanted to avoid stalling that one.
IIRC, it was something about the T-tail and its not having much "extra" power being a bad combination, that it couldn't power its way out of a deep stall and down it would go in a tail slide/tail spin. Not a thing you could do.
I don't know if that's true or not or just my instructor's way to re-tune my teenage invincibility, but I'm pretty sure that when a wing stalls it doesn't go up.
Unless some force changes the math, gravity wins and it comes down.
I'm told that it has something to do with verifiable and repeatable science, but that's probably just a theory.
After the launch, Strasser returned to the ship’s control room where fewer than 10 people monitored its computer systems, reprogrammed to put all of their computing power into the Knox intercept shot.And this:The purpose of the test was to help upgrade the U.S. Navy Standard Anti-Radiation Missile, or ARM, from a ship-to-air, anti-aircraft missile to a ship-to-air, anti-missile missile.
Strasser argues that if the USS Knox had fired the fatal shot, the crew may not have known the missile had a booster rocket capable of propelling it farther and higher than a typical Standard ARM.Just a hunch, but the RIM-162 ESSM would have been in development and being field tested about that time, right?The missile would have been loaded in the vertical Aegis launcher, which was not visible to the crew. This may help answer the question of why no sailor has come forward to report the incident.
Wallops Island uses a special radar site to record these tests. When Strasser inquired, he discovered that all the data and radar tapes from the TWA 800 timeframe had been removed.
It uses radar for final guidance, not IR, and has an operational range of 27 nm.
An accident during testing fits the data. Besides, it's not like the US hasn't made its share of mistakes. For example, per Wiki:
On 1 October 1992 during NATO exercises in the Aegean Sea the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga accidentally launched two Sea Sparrow missiles.Oops...These hit the Turkish destroyer TCG Muavenet in the bridge and CIC, killing five of the ship's officers and injuring twenty-two men.
Muavenet was written off as a result, and the US presented them with the Knox-class frigate USS Capodanno as reparations.
Not all that much to fear in a PA28-140, but not all airplanes are quite so forgiving.
I took my first pre-solo 20 hours or so before I could apply for my SEL license, mostly in Cubs and an Aeronca [*Airknocker*] 7AC Champ, all taildraggers. My instructor was a high school teacher from North of us in the town where I was born. *this guy*
Stalls? Spins? Dicing 20-feet above the ground over a highway under construction for 20 miles? No big deal.
He doesn't work for the government, and his boss isn't a political appointee?
And he has made it obvious that he is not willing to listen.
He reminds me of a guy I used to know who told me that once a spacecraft leaves Earth's orbit that it just keeps going faster and faster (without any additional 'propulsion' from the rocket engines) because there is no friction in space.
I listen to and respect people who support their position.
When people attack me personally, sometimes I’ll acknowledge it and call them out on it as I’m doing now.
Before something becomes 'operational' and in 'production', it has to be created and tested.
Why couldn't this have been something NEW that they were TESTING ?
What is interesting is that after the TWA800 incident, the testing of experimental new AAM systems for subs was halted for many years.
Posters on here have been pretty good about trying to INFORM you , not ATTACK you, don’t you think?
I have no problem with you ‘calling them out’, including me.
That is part of how a debate is carried out.
Let’s agree that the particular instance you cited where the plane stalled because of a load shift and crashed was due to damage to the control surface actuators. That the plane COULD have recovered.
While ‘recovering’ from that stall, could it have climbed 3000’ feet ?
If it had stalled, and the entire fuselage had been torn in half (lost the nose, like TWA800) could it have climbed 3000 feet ?
(If you answer NO to the first question, you can’t answer YES to the second)
The Russians launch theirs out of the torpedo tube. The rocket is encased in a waterproof shell the same size/shape as a torpedo. It pops up to the surface and the shell is blasted away as the rocket engine ignites.
While ‘recovering’ from that stall, could it have climbed 3000’ feet ?
If it had stalled, and the entire fuselage had been torn in half (lost the nose, like TWA800) could it have climbed 3000 feet ?
...
TWA was going a lot faster than the Bagram 747, well above its stall speed. The Bagram 747 had close to zero velocity when it stalled as it appears on the video. I don’t believe it’s reasonable to assume that the TWA 747 stalled instantaneously given the last known data and the range of aerodynamic parameters determined by Boeing for the noseless aircraft.
TWA 800 also “flew” to the north and then back to the south according to radar data. Ballistically falling debris wouldn’t do that.
The only way to figure out what happened under the complex circumstances would be to run simulations. The NTSB has a simulator for ballistics, and a flight simulator. Their flight simulator using the parameters from Boeing was able to come up with solutions that matched radar data and the location of the recovered wreckage. I assume their ballistics program couldn’t do that.
The Boeing data is available on the Internet as are flight simulators. It’s hard to believe that none of the conspiracy theorists haven’t run their own simulations in 20 years. Perhaps someone did and they found out the NTSB was right.
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.