Posted on 11/17/2001 10:58:21 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
Yes, I know there is no such force in physics as decceleration ...
Actually there is one of part of the rudder. I'll repeat the Link It's the upper right picture.
There is some truth to being skeptical about eyewitness accounts (not the same things as completely discounting an eyewitness account). I saw a program once, I think on Discovery Channel, about a college class. It was either a criminal justice class or psychology course. Anyway, the professor and only several students (the participants), staged an event during a class hour (I can't recall what the "event" was exactly, let's say threatening and stealing from the professor). During this staged event, several students came into the classroom, yelling and ranting and taking something. They quickly left. Shortly afterward, the test subjects (the ignorant classmates) were questioned, individually and in a group, about the individuals involved, what did they look like, what were they wearing, etc. None of the students who broke into the classrooms were wearing red, but when police investigators asked a leading question (like, wasn't someone wearing a red hat), they were answered positively (yes, actually, I didn't remember that at first, but they were). Or descriptions of the subjects varied. The point of this was to have the class (who were later told about the staging) realize how eyewitness testimony is not 100% accurate and can be persuaded from factual account. With this in mind, I still believe that eyewitness testimony should not be ruled out or disbelieved, especially if the account was not recorded under leading questions. (Sorry for the long comment.)
You people are so predictable. By the way, 41 people say that the shots came from the Book Depository. 2 people on the Grassy Knoll said the shots came from there and Zapruder wasn't one of them.
It would be easier for the government to say that terrorists did it rather than thinking that the next plane you get on, parts are going to fall off.
Your proof is really good. I used a search engine and just pulled up the first of many. Thanks!( I bookmarked that page)
The plane took off and flew normally. The plane encountered and flew through a jet wake. Seconds pass, the plane is pushed left, then left -right. The VS detaches, the engines fall off. The wings do not (in this report) detach. Note that the rudder and VS have no marks indicating damage.
This evidenciary report is consistent with a VS that fails (finally) after encountering normally survivable WT. The VS itself may have deflected (airframe shakes) or it may have been rudder flutter (airfrmae shakes), but I still see this crash as a tragic accident brought on by the failure of a weakened airframe or rudder failure. I'd blame Airbus.
QUOTE
A friend of a friend sent this... Boeing stock anyone??
(Gary has dedicated his life to aerodynamics. He invented the Wheeler Vortex generator, and the "Gurney" wing on race cars. These are his views on the crashed Airbus.)
Howdy,
Re: the New York 11-12-2001 Airbus crash.
I found this photo of the vertical stabilizer's failed composite attachment blades, or webs. The bolts that attached the composite vertical stabilizer to the fuselage, remain properly attached. Clearly, the failure is a delamination of the composite vertical tail, above the points of attachment to the fuselage.
There are reasons (despite the weight savings) why Douglas Aircraft and Boeing have never used composites this way -- and you're looking at one.
As the delamination of the composite progressed, the entire 37-ft. tall vertical tail would have fluttered briefly & violently. That would explain why both engines were literally shaken off the airplane. (This is particularly remarkable, because unlike Douglas and Boeing, Airbus has bragged of purposely designing their engine mounting pylons to keep the engines in place no matter what!) One wing tip was found several blocks away from the main wreckage.
BTW, you'll be hearing a lot about an encounter with wake turbulence.
That is a red herring. Wake turbulence can make it difficult -- maybe even impossible to control the airplane -- but no amount of wake turbulence can remove the vertical tail at such low flight speeds unless there is a preexisting structural fault.
What is flutter? This morning, I got an email from a friend who is the Director of Structural Engineering of a major American aircraft maker.
He described a chilling picture: "Flutter modes often have an explosively quick onset, rising from nothing to catastrophic in the blink of an eye. Furthermore, the shaking can happen so fast that, despite the large (huge) deflections involved, an observer on the ground might not see it. It's just a blur.
"The people in the back of the airplane would have been shaken senseless and worse as the seats tore loose and everything was homogenized back there; but it was all over a few seconds later."
The design weakness can and will be fixed on other Airbuses. If not, there are plenty of nice Boeing jetliners mothballed in the Mojave Desert, that can trade places with the Airbuses. In the meantime, I'm not riding Airbus.
END QUOTE
And I'm usually the first one on the conspiracy bandwagon.
Besides, if you haven't noticed, we don't have liars in the Whitehouse any more!
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.
