Replies

Well, let’s say you’re right. What would your graph of altitude vs. time look like? At what time did the nose separate? Would your graph show the wreckage landing where it was found?

Sheesh! Don't you read what was posted? it was look like a ballistic fall, a parabolic arc:

"The captain of the NOAA research ship Rude entered Flight 800's last secondary radar position, speed, heading and gross weight into his computer and it predicted the landing point by calculating a ballistic fall. He went to that spot and immediately found the main wreckage including the fuselage, wings and engines."

The calculation for a ballistic fall does NOT add any altitude gain, it only calculates the fall from altitude based on the original trajectory, gravity, and the opposing winds and prevailing winds. The Rude sailed to the predicted impact point and that is where the aircraft splashed in. That is proof that there was not climb under lift. It would have complicated the ballistics which DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR LIFT, POWER, or other forces applied to the body in question.

Since the empirical results of the Rude's calculations of a ballistic fall took them to the actual splash down WITHOUT adding ~18 seconds of climb into their equation, much less adding an additional 18 seconds of fall back to the original starting altitude before commencing the rest of the parabolic arc, the location was closer to the point of initiation of the fall than it WOuLD have been including the climb portion of any arc by several miles.

Thirty-six seconds at a ground speed of 412 MPH (358 knots) while making this mythical climb, would have placed the splashdown site about five miles further north east than where the Rude found it. Even 18 seconds would have been 2.5 miles further north east. It wasn't. Ergo, no climb.