Posted on 06/20/2016 11:33:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
When I see former FBI New York honcho Jim Kallstrom appear on Fox News, I see a tortured soul. As boldly honest as he has been on the subject of Islamic terrorism, this once honorable man has lived a lie for the last twenty years on the subject of TWA Flight 800. Others have lived the lie as well, but none so personally.
It was Kallstrom who spoke to the press, Kallstrom who testified at congressional hearings, Kallstrom who consoled the families of the 230 dead with the assurance he would leave “no stone unturned” in his pursuit of the truth.
When Kallstrom arrived on the scene in Long Island the day after the crash in July 1996, the truth was indeed what he was seeking. By July 30, 1996 -- less than two weeks after the 747 blew up -- FBI agents had interviewed 144 “excellent” witnesses to a missile strike. As revealed in a recently unearthed CIA memo, the evidence was “overwhelming” and the witness testimony “too consistent” for the cause of the plane’s destruction to be anything other than a missile.
1996 being an election year, however a missile strike on an American airliner involved far too much political risk for the Clinton White House. Working through the CIA, its operatives took effective control of the investigation. For reasons only he knows, Kallstrom knuckled under.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I don't either. It's reasonable to assume that momentum carried it for a second or two. Add the possibility of the engines still providing thrust, and maybe a few more seconds before it started it's meandering descent.
But do you believe it climbed 3000 feet ?
I think it's too complex a problem to do in the head. It requires a computer doing a simulation. As I've said before, Boeing came up with a range of numbers to make a model for the noseless 747. The NTSB ran multiple simulations and came up with some solutions that fit the radar data and the location of the wreckage. The NTSB did say that thrust from the engines made little difference to the simulated path, whether the thrust was zero or one hundred percent.
But do you believe it climbed 3000 feet ?
It's a complex problem requiring a simulation using numerical methods on a computer. As far as I can tell the NTSB is the only one to run a simulation. If somebody else were to do the same, I'd certainly take a serious look at it. I'd also be interested if somebody could come up with a ballistic simulation that could match the radar data and wreckage location as well as the NTSB flight simulation.
Wow! Quite an instructor to have had and that's definitely the kind of flying I'd like to be doing these days...right now, as a matter of fact. It's been a beautiful morning to go flying.
Speaking of taildraggers, I've had my mind and heart set on building a Glasair Sportsman for years now, but I still don't have the time and space to devote to a project like that.
Part of my ongoing "five year plan" that I've not gotten around to yet.
"One of these days..."
Wifey is a 5K hours rotorhead, and though I'm not all that fond of those inverted lawnmowers, she's trying mightily to get me to pick up my rotary-wing ticket, with her in the left-hand seat, of course. I'm thinking about it.
But I've also been giving some thought to getting some UAV time. It's a different attitude and skillset, but the same physics and aerodynamics. We shall see.
Wifey is a 5K hours rotorhead, and though I'm not all that fond of those inverted lawnmowers, she's trying mightily to get me to pick up my rotary-wing ticket, with her in the left-hand seat, of course. I'm thinking about it.
But I've also been giving some thought to getting some UAV time. It's a different attitude and skillset, but the same physics and aerodynamics. We shall see.
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.