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

...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.

And still, in all your replies, you continue to only address the topic which was immaterial to the NTSB. Notwithstanding your harping and droning on about the laws of physics, the only laws of physics which would apply in the matter of an FOIA would be those governing the function of a photocopy machine and the postal service.

the only laws of physics which would apply in the matter of an FOIA

Anything to do with the FOIA is a different issue. I've pointed out the Captain's physics claims are nonsense. The response has been that it doesn't matter if his physics is nonsense because ... and then you all trot out some other issue.

Fact of the matter is that his torque calculation is flawed to the point of being ridiculous. No one has rescued it. It's dead Jim.

I rest my case.

...Anything to do with the FOIA is a different issue. I've pointed out the Captain's physics claims are nonsense. The response has been that it doesn't matter if his physics is nonsense because ... and then you all trot out some other issue.

Are you mad Bones? The lawsuit in response to the denial of FOIA request is the entire purpose of this thread. You were the one setting on about misdirecting it toward a scientific discussion. I remind you of the title of the thread... Retired Airline Pilot sues NTSB for "Zoom-climb" data.

His disagreement with NTSB is probably as scientifically unfounded as you contend. That, however does not alter the point of the post which was to discuss the lawsuit resulting from the denied FOIA request. That denial was made NOT on the basis of the scientific data in question, but only on the basis of safeguarding proprietary information belonging to Boeing.

In the linked article, Boeing claims no proprietary information was used to construct the NTSB assessment. Since the data seem non-proprietary, there is no reason to withhold the information. Lahr is only after the data supporting the conclusion. Lahr is probably more wrong than even you want to claim, but why do you resist so, the release of the information the NTSB used to construct their scenario?

"So, if you are correct my dear Asmodeus, you are stating that the CIA, NTSB videos are GARBAGE, is that accurate?" [emphasis yours]

You know it's not. For the benefit of new readers, here's exactly what I said in its entirety.

[quote] 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. [end quote]

Try the clickable link. Although you've repeatedly said you never have reviewed it, you might learn something.

I'm afraid you have lost me, my dear Asmodeus. The CIA, NTSB cartoons were produced to "explain" the witness reports. I believe you have stated they are "untenable" have you not?

As far as clicking on any of your links, I have neither the time nor desire.

Just as a point of interest......

THE MALICIOUS ATTACK ON MY COMPUTER INITIATED THIS MORNING SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE PROPER LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES. ALTHOUGH THE ATTACK WAS QUITE VICIOUS, AS YOU CAN SEE, THOSE WHO PERPETRATED IT HAVE NOT SUCCEEDED IN QUASHING EITHER MY POSTS, NOR WILL THEY THWART MY INVESTIGATION. CRIME REALLY DOESN'T PAY BOYS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU LEAVE SO MANY FINGERPRINTS BEHIND.

"I'm afraid you have lost me, my dear Asmodeus. The CIA, NTSB cartoons were produced to "explain" the witness reports. I believe you have stated they are "untenable" have you not?"

Psst. That's not the question you asked me in #115 which was as follows:

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

As you know, my answer to that question was that "although the absence of any credible eyewitness support for the re-creation videos is evidence that the fiery events in them are inaccurately depicted, it is not evidence that the rest of the sequence of events including the loss of the nose section and the so called "zoom climb" depicted in them is inaccurate". The readers will note that my answer is applicable to both of your questions.

"As far as clicking on any of your links, I have neither the time nor desire."

Really? The readers will find it interesting - for two reasons - to compare side by side your 6 July 2002 posting to the Yahoo TWA800 forum with The "Missile Witnesses" Myth.

"The CIA, NTSB cartoons were produced to explain' the witness reports." [emphasis added]

Four of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats' own "cartoons" are included in http://www.100megspopup.com/ark/800Graphics.html.

"THE MALICIOUS ATTACK ON MY COMPUTER INITIATED THIS MORNING SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE PROPER LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES. ALTHOUGH THE ATTACK WAS QUITE VICIOUS, AS YOU CAN SEE, THOSE WHO PERPETRATED IT HAVE NOT SUCCEEDED IN QUASHING EITHER MY POSTS, NOR WILL THEY THWART MY INVESTIGATION. CRIME REALLY DOESN'T PAY BOYS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU LEAVE SO MANY FINGERPRINTS BEHIND." [emphasis yours]

Although you appear to indicate the hacking of your computer is self evident in your posting, it appears to be your usual style of posting in FreeRepublic to me. What are the readers supposed to "see"? Aside from that I agree that anyone whose computer is "hacked" or the target of a virus attack should promply report it to their Internet Service Provider and the appropriate law enforcement authorities. It would also be helpful to provide the readers with more details.

There's hardly any point trying to explain aerodynamics to a committed tin-hatter who can't even spell "government."

But I'm going to try anyway.

When an airplane is in level flight, the forces working on it are in a certain equilibrium. The lift (which comes mostly from the wings) is equal to the weight. The thrust (which comes from the powerplant[s]) is equal to the drag (which comes from several different sources).

In conventional monoplanes (which includes everything from a Cessna 172 to the 747-400 and beyond) the wing provides a center of lift which is slightly aft of the center of gravity. This ensures that the center of pressure is aft of the center of gravity (necessary for stability). What that means, is that if these planes did not have a horizontal tail, they would nose down in normal flight.

Well, we know that planes don't always nose down uncontrollably in normal flight. Why not? The horizontal tail, either because of its position, its inverted airfoil (vis-a-vis a wing), or its negative incidence, or some combination of these design features, provides a nose-up push -- what we who grasp these things call a "pitching moment" -- that counteracts the wing's tendency to pitch the plane nose-down around the center of gravity.

What happens, if as happened to 800, when a catastrophic event, an explosion, causes a lot of the structure to shear off of the nose of the plane? These things:

The aerodynamics change as the streamlined nose is disrupted. This creates a lot of drag acting on the end of the plane. IF the parts are shorn away clear, this force doesn't move the plane itself in any particular axis, but it decelerates it (thrust and drag aren't in equilibrium any more, are they?) and also by applying a lot of force to the now-blunt cut-off end of the plane, can amplify any other pitch or yaw moment that comes from another source.
The source of the pitch moment is easy to find. Remember that the stability of the plane traces to the center of lift, the center of gravity, and the offsetting nose-up moment imparted by the horizontal tail. But with a lot of structure gone, all from the nose area, and forward of the center of gravity, the center of gravity moves abrubtly to the rear. If the center of lift is forward of the CG now, that would impart a strong pitch-up. If it is still aft of the CG, the pitch-up coming from the tail is no longer "just enough" to offset the wing's pitch-down moment, it is now "too much," and you have a milder pitch-up.

So what carries the crippled, decelerating wreck 3000 feet higher? All it takes is a mild nose-up pitch amd inertia. A lot of inertia in a half million pound airplane. A mild nose up pitch is inevitable in a plane that has just lost its nose. Hey, that's exactly what the radar showed, too.

Nothing here is beyond middle school science. Unfortunately science makes few inroads on minds that are slaves to irrational belief systems. A conspiracy theory is attractive to such minds, because it ties up all the loose ends (if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, you selectively discard and manufacture evidence to fit -- the 800-missile crew perfectly illustrates this).

Then again, 800 wasn't straight and level in the first place. It was climbing anyway, so its energy vector was above the horizontal to begin with.

You apparently think that pieces of an airplane demolished by an explosion, a midair, or a weather encounter, instantly shed all the energy they contain and fall straight down. Nope. That is a child's understanding of objects in motion, and a rather dim child at that.

Sigh. I don't know what I hope to achieve. We live in a nation where most people believe that the Air Force has aliens in the freezer and nuclear reactors are the same thing as nuclear weapons. If there is a reason to hate the government, it's the crappy education that leaves people vulnerable to such eruptions of folly.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F (Time to check the temp on E.T.)...

PS you can test this yourself on one of those styrofoam 747s they sell in toy stores -- you know, the big glider. Trim it so it flies straight when you throw it. OK, now take a knife and cut it off bluntly in front of the wing. Without altering the trim, throw it. It tries to loop up and stalls.... a real 747 would be stressed enough to continue breaking up. -C18F

With the center of gravity well aft of the center of lift the pitch up would be quite violent and would result in an almost immediate stall.

You are assuming that the CG needs to move past the center of lift for there to be a pitch up. In fact the center of lift on a clean swept wing is well aft of the CG, and after the loss of the nose it may well still be aft of the CG. But ANY movement of the CG in the aft direction is likely to produce a positive pitch moment. The movement need not be violent, and certainly not violent enough to produce a stall.

Remember the drag doesn't produce any moment itself unless it is off-centre (off-thrustline, actually), it only amplifies the moment, and we are here dealing with an oversimplification: an assumption that the missing stuff ripped off instantly and symmetrically (and we know it didn't, but the math gets pretty daunting when you start to trace individual bits).

Also, your theoretical explanation: "When TWA 800 lost its nose it pitched up and then dropped like a rock. It did not climb 3000 feet" has the unfortunate weakness of not fitting the physical evidence.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

If I get some time tonight, I'll read the NTSB report to see why they ruled out a missile.

It isn't really obvious at a glance. But read first the section on meteorites. They have already (earlier in the report) proven that the explosion began in the centre wing fuel tank. THEN they show that while the tank blew up from the inside out, there is no evidence of anything going from the outside of the tank IN. There is also no straight path anywhere around the tank (in the structure of the plane, that is) where a meteorite could have penetrated through to that tank. NONE.

When they discuss missiles, they refer you to the section on meteorites. Obviously if a meteorite could not have found a way into that tank a missile fragment couldn't, either. But some of the tinhats believe in missiles that first hit the plane, and THEN start twisting around.

By all means read the original NTSB report -- you will be one of a half dozen FReepers who have... including zero adherents of the missile theory. They don't need no stinkin evidence.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

Then again, there are 144 eyewitnesses who SAW A MISSILE streak up and blow the plane out of the air. Including two Coast Guard Captains who were in a nearby helicopter, and one Air Force Lt. Colonel I saw on Nightline that very night (before the info shut-down began). You can all believe the official story if you want. But this was the Clintoon Administration- weeks before an election.

"You claim, though, that select observers support your theory. Well, what makes your selected observers so credible is that these witnesses support your agenda."

What is my "theory"?

What is my "agenda"?

It is the sequential timeline of the major events that scuttles the "missile witnesses" notion. The timeline and location of the major events of the disaster was approximately as follows:

8:31:11 Intact and climbing 747 approaches 13,800 feet.

8:31:12 Initiating Event at 13,800 feet.

8:31:47 explosion of Massive Fireball at 5500-7500 feet.

8:31:55-8:31:57 splashdown of the Massive Fireball flames.

The witness reports included in The "Missile Witnesses" Myth were selected by the "shootdown" tinfoil hats themselves and touted by them as their Star "missile witnesses".

Example #1: Witnesses Faret & Wendell touted by Ian Goddard as his Star "Missile Witnesses" - until it was brought to his attention that they saw the Massive Fireball explode below their own flight altitude of 8500 feet.

Example #2: Witness Fred Meyer touted by Bill Donaldson as his Star "missile witness" because he didn't notice that Meyer could not possibly have seen a "missile shootdown" of the 747 at 13,800 feet at 8:31:12 only 3-4 seconds before he saw the Massive Fireball explode at 5500-7500 feet at 8:31:47.

Virtually all of the "streak of light" witnesses [1] also saw the Massive Fireball explosion, and [2] described a rapid-fire sequence of events. What makes Meyer's own report of particular value to witness report analysts is the extensive detail he included.

You may also find the following related posting of interest:

Yahoo twa800 forum
From: "John Fiorentino"
Date: Fri Mar 15, 2002 4:18 pm
[excerpt][quote][emphasis added]
However, based on Meyer's statements, I don't believe he witnessed the IE. Fl. 800 didn't explode in a MF at 13000+, the MF was somewhere 7500-8500ft. Look at his timeline. Please explain, HOW he could have witnessed the IE?. [end quote]

As you may know, Ian Goddard was the first King of The Hill of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats and Bill Donaldson was his successor. It appears that neither was qualified by training and experience for the roles they attempted to assume of expertly interviewing Flight 800 witnesses or expertly analyzing their witness reports.

Not so. They saw a streak of light immediately followed by the Massive Fireball explosion at 5500-7500 feet. All of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats erroneously assumed the Massive Fireball explosion took place at 13,800 feet.

See #135 for the approximate timeline and altitudes of the major events.

"It would have been nice for the chief propagandist if the plane would have behaved as the cartoon claimed, but it is glaringly obviouse that something was ballistic that night, no matter how hard he tries, Flight 800 was not the scapegoat!"

Who is "the chief propagandist" you're referring to?

What is your evidence that the plane did not "behave as the cartoon claimed"?

[quote]
8:31:12 Initiating Event at 13,800 feet.

8:31:47 explosion of Massive Fireball at 5500-7500 feet

Seems to me, that 35 seconds is a very long time. Quite a window of opportunity for a witness to view something "politically uncorrect". I suppose you've swallowed the zoom climb BS too. [end quote]

Do you have any evidence that "the zoom climb is BS"?

The "35 seconds" commenced after the Initiating Event doomed the 747. Do you have any evidence that "something politically uncorrect" took place before 8:31:12?

Truth is determined by evidence - not suspicions, speculations, allegations or accusations.