Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Boxsford
This former NTSB was saying it was important that the stabilizer was intact and that was suspicious to him. What does that mean? Any help ?

I'll hazard a guess. The tail section is probably too big to have been sheared off by flying debris. Ergo, unless there was an explosion, it would have to have been torn off by aerodynamic forces as the plane spiraled out of control. But, in that case, the first thing to go would have been the stabilizer, as it has the largest surface to volume ratio of the tail section, and the most fragile structure. Since the stabilizer survived, the tail did not come off due to aerodynamic forces, but due to an explosion.

Sound reasonable?

34 posted on 11/13/2001 6:39:13 PM PST by Clinton's a rapist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: Clinton's a rapist
the tail did not come off due to aerodynamic forces, but due to an explosion.

Sound reasonable?

No. It was intact (minus the rudder) but broke off cleanly, and not scarred, suggesting it was aerodynamic stress, shearing the bolts. It wasn't struck by anything (at least on the right hand side, which is the side we saw in the pictures yesterday).

36 posted on 11/13/2001 6:48:36 PM PST by Procyon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson