Retired Airline Pilot sues NTSB for "Zoom-climb" data

http://www.twa800.com/lahr/lahr-amended.htm ^ | 7/27/02 | John Fiorentino

[JohnFiorentino]

Retired airline Pilot Capt. Ray Lahr has brought suit against the NTSB for release of the data pertaining to the alleged "zoom-climb" by TWA800. NTSB has stated that this event was what the hundreds of witnesses observed prior to the TWA800 explosion.

You can view the amended complaint in it's entirety here:

http://www.twa800.com/lahr/lahr-amended.htm

[smoking camels]

You are incapable of intelligent reasoning. Besides being small and narrow minded...

[jlogajan]

The forces that could be brought to bear on this crippled airframe by the tail surfaces are minor compared to the forces being applied by the much larger wings and by gravity.

Heh heh, minor huh? Well, at least you are starting to admit they exist and that Captain Lahr didn't bother to include them in his torque calculation. Why do you think he failed to do that, hmmm???

Don't forget the fuselage itself will have a drag component when it is swung broadside into a 500mph headwind. I assume Lahr will update his calculation to reflect that as well. boohahahaha

[smoking camels]

You, sir, are a nether region.

[jlogajan]

Just exactly what tail forces do you perceive?

The tail consists of a couple of surfaces parallel to the direction of motion, and in our case of interest, in the horizontal plane.

In level flight the drag component is minimized as the tail surface presents a minimum area in the direction of travel.

When the nose fell off, the COG moved behind the COL. This would cause a rotational torque around the COG, with the tail tending to drop. This rotation puts the tail surfaces at an inclined angle to the airstream. This increases the drag in a vector essentially normal to the plane of the tail surface. In other words, the airstream tends to push the tail back up!

At 500 mph these forces on the tail surface are not inconsequential (they don't put those tails on the end of aircraft just for cosmetic reasons.)

I'm merely asking the good Captain Lahr to include these force vectors (the tail AND the fuselage) in his torque calculation, as any good scientist would do. His failure to bother to do so hints that his agenda is really to sell conspiracy theories to the black helicopter crowd -- and by the way they are drooling here, you can see they are eager to part with their cash.

[Young Werther]

Except, when the explosion occured, the engines spewed out their turbine blades. The top of the horizontal stablizer had these blades embedded in its surface. The tail section of the aircraft broke off and could not have "levered" the fuselage. I believe the violent pitch up was the force that separated the tail. There was no sustained climb of several thousand feet. The location of the western most body verifed this finding since the body was of a passenger who was in one of the last rows and he was ejcted when the tail came off.

I've heard it described as, "all of the physical laws of the universe would need to be suspended for the aircraft to behave in the manner described by the NTSB.

Boeing has never agreed with the speculations of the NTSB.

[jlogajan]

The tail section of the aircraft broke off and could not have "levered" the fuselage.

Crimeny! Now the COG is moving forward again. Poor Captain Lahr -- he needs to recompute yet again!

[jlogajan]

We have an unbalanced pinwheel here I.E. the craft is totally out of the normal envelope of flight.

And now you are telling us where the COD (center of drag) was as well? I'm still waiting for the good Captain to include the tail surface forces in his torque calculation. Now people are ripping the tail off, changing his COG, as well as alluding to knowledge of the position of COD. hmmm hmmm hmmm.

I guess I don't know why the NTSB bothers with investigations -- you guys seem to be able to channel all the info directly.

For the rest of us, I think we'd like to see COMPLETE calculations, and not assumptions made that the craft was flying through a vacuum.

[Rokke]

Actually, I owe you an apology. I got to thinking about your email while running tonight and started mulling over the numbers. I didn't account for the temperature at altitude when converting 280 KCAS to KTAS. Your number of 400 KTAS is accurate when you account for temperature. I'll verify for sure tomorrow. Again, my apologies. And yes, that was my wing at the Allstar game. We gave them full points for being on time, and negative points for holding a tight formation! Oh well. At least they were better than that chick who sang the National Anthem.

[Asmodeus]

"Asmodeus, isn't it YOUR contention that the CIA, NTSB animations are 'untenable'?"

Contrary to the "shootdown" tinfoil hats' allegations about what witnesses supposedly saw, the observed fiery events in the sky did not commence until 30+ seconds after the detachment of the 747's nose section. There is accordingly no credible eyewitness support for the re-creation videos because the observations of fiery events in the sky, which commenced with "the streak of light", were all indeed made "during the final stages of crippled flight" as stated in the NTSB final report. It's all documented in detail in The "Missile Witnesses" Myth.

[Sgt_Schultze]

...For the rest of us, I think we'd like to see COMPLETE calculations, and not assumptions made that the craft was flying through a vacuum.

I been reading this post with interest. I know absolutely nothing about airframe mechanics and I don't pretend to understand the physics involved. But I sure can spot a guy who is trying to misdirect an argument. The whole premise of this thread was the request by Lohr to obtain the COMPLETE calculations used by NTSB in reaching their conclusion. You have spent your every post demanding that Lohr prove his doubts but forbidding the NTSB from doing the same.

Finally, you have seen the light. You seem to agree that NTSB should at least release their complete calculations to public inspection, which is, it seems, all Lohr has really requested. Unless of course, you only expect Lohr to release his calculations but will allow for the NTSB to remain still secretive.

[jlogajan]

You have spent your every post demanding that Lohr prove his doubts

Captain Lahr produced a formula that treated the airframe torque as if it were literally moving in a vacuum. Therefore his conclusion, for whatever purpose, is nonsense.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Your agenda here is now laid bare. You deliberately avoided my point as to the NTSB's responsibility in setting forth the data which support its conclusions. Instead you continued to rail against the arguments of a critic of NTSB. Your contrary opinion of his assertions notwithstanding, Lahr's objection is essentially, "Hey NTSB, I don't believe your conclusion - show me the proof which supports it."

You seem to be running interference for the "official" version of events. So I ask again, why is it you object to the government complying with the FOIA relating to supportive documentation for its conclusion?

[JohnFiorentino]

So, if you are correct my dear Asmodeus, you are stating that the CIA, NTSB videos are GARBAGE......is that accurate?

[jlogajan]

Lahr's objection is essentially, "Hey NTSB, I don't believe your conclusion - show me the proof which supports it."

Since his torque calculation is laughably flawed, he has no basis to challenge the NTSB or any other conclusion.

[Sgt_Schultze]

...Since his torque calculation is laughably flawed, he has no basis to challenge the NTSB or any other conclusion.

So, your requirement for full disclosure by NTSB is that Lahr must develope a torque calculation to your satisfaction before you will stop running interference for NTSB. BTW, NTSB doesn't seem to have an objection regarding the torque calculation. Their objection was that the data they relied upon were proprietary to Boeing. The only party frantically screaming about the strawman torque calculation is you.

[jlogajan]

the strawman torque calculation

Heh heh. Right. Calculate based on the assumption that the airframe is rotating in a vacuum and see how seriously you are taken. ha ha ha

[Sgt_Schultze]

...Heh heh. Right. Calculate based on the assumption that the airframe is rotating in a vacuum and see how seriously you are taken. ha ha ha

Apparently your position is not taken so seriously at NTSB as they do not subscribe to your objection. So I repeat, why the strawman about torque calculation? The FOIA denial was not based on that non-issue (to the NTSB that is, the only party who's opinion really matters).

With regards to the FOIA request, there need be no showing of a contrary position to that held by the government. The request is made to release information which is not secret. Surely a Libertarian believes in government accountability and government openness. You are intent on avoiding the purpose of this thread, which was the denial of a FOIA request. NTSB took the requester seriously enough to refuse the release, not on the basis of some phantom torque variable, but its intent to safeguard proprietary Boeing data.

[jlogajan]

Surely a Libertarian believes in government accountability and government openness.

I believe in the laws of physics -- a concept that has apparently escaped the good Captain Lahr in all its details.