Posted on 07/27/2002 8:30:11 AM PDT by 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
Yes, because the witness testimony does not support a missile launch. Anyone who has actually read the witness statements knows that only 38 of 736 even reported a "streak of light" ascended.
LOL. Maybe, IF you strap a Titan missle to it, point it in the right direction, and ignite it. Given that 747's are not gyroscopically sablized, even that is questionable.
ABC didn't "report" that the Lt. Colonel said this. I WATCHED HIM SAY IT.
You didn't get my point. It was not that some LTC didn't say whatever he said, it was that the LTC was not a witness. He was the boss of a unit that had witnesses in it. One of them was...
Major Meyer (ok, he's actually Air National Guard, not Coast Guard):
No kidding. Gee, I was right, you were wrong, and you call me names. No biggie. I have been called worse names by better men.
And what I saw appeared to be the sort of course and trajectory that you see when a shooting star enters the atmosphere.
Having failed to properly bring you lot up in physics, now I have to take on astronomy, too? Sigh. The most usual course of shooting stars, by the way, is more or less horizontal appearing from the ground or from low flight (wasn't Meyer at 3,500 feet? I will have to look that one up).
By the way, this comment by Meyer is AFAIK the only witness to mention a meteorite-looking thing. But NTSB thoroughly checked for the possibility of a meteorite or space junk having struck 800 (and ruled it out).
"When the impossible is excluded, that which remains, however improbable, is the truth." -- Sherlock Holmes.
this lying pig of a U.S. Air National Guard Major has destroyed the contention that TWA 800 shot up 4,000 feet
I don't see where he has addressed this contention. His attention was drawn to something in the sky... how long did that take and how far did the hulk of 800 move during that time? Without blowing up another 747 in identical climactic conditions, we can't be 100% sure what exactly he saw.
I don't think I ever said he was a liar, and in what you posted he didn't say he saw a missile. In fact, what he said does not look like the missiles I have seen launched from teh ground, nor like a friend's description of the one shot at him over Serbia (it missed, obviously). All of these had a prominent plume near the launch point, and in the case of the Serbian SA-2, a plume right up to altitude.
the FBI, while trying to reach the Clintoon Administration's pre-determined explanation
I have seen no evidence of political pressure towards a particular result in this investigation. There was pressure for a speedy result. The pressure to a particular result came within the investigation, and it came from FBI organizationally and Jim Kallstrom in particular.
34 of the "missile-witnesses" were "credible"
Meaning, they were telling the truth as they understood it. By your math, then the other sixty-whatever of the "missile" witnesses were not credible.
Add to that the photograph of a MISSILE that showed up in the distant background of Linda Kabot's Long Island Party snap-shot
I'm not sure which picture you refer to. I have seen some doctored stuff on the net.
I highly recommend James Sanders' book
The ultimate non-credible witness: a felon who was willing to lie, cheat and steal (literally) to keep his crank theory going. His extensive air accident investigation background consists of having strong feelings about it. This does look like an ad hominem attack on Sanders, I suppose, but the crimes he committed directly reflect on his credibility in this case.
Who's your next expert, Mary Schiavo?
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
With regard to the debris fields, here is a quote from the NTSB report: "The vast majority of the left wing pieces and all of the right wing pieces were found in the Green debris field ."(which is where the main fuselage was found) Now before you start claiming the NTSB was lying, you should know this part of the report was cosigned by 13 Boeing engineers, 3 ALPA members, 4 IAM members and 5 TWA members.
It does? See my post 175.
2000 feet per minute =33 feet per second, G = acceleration of gravity = 32 feet per second per second. T = time since the craft was climbing at 2000 feet per minute the time a falling object would need to accelerate this fast is 33 feet/second divided by 32feet per second squared = 1.03 seconds.
plug this into the formula distance - 1/2A T squared=
distance = 16 x 1.03x1.03 this comes out to 17 feet. The kinetic energy vector of the craft that was vertical was quite small. The kinetic energy of the craft in a horizontal direction was very great. An aircraft that was damaged the way described by the NTSB could not have made that climb. An undamged 747 could not have done that with the turbines at idle. IT DID NOT HAPPEN THE WAY THE NTSB SAID. I do not know what caused the explosion in the center fuel tank. I do know they NTSB went to great lengths to make a 747 do what physics says can not be done. I know Boeing did not say a damn thing about the cause of the crash. They did not agree nor disagree with the NTSB.
Fine.
Now, exactly WHAT laws of physics are you "believing in" that will allow a noseless 747 to climb (fly!) an additional 1200 to 3800 feet higher in ~18 seconds when the maximum rate of climb of a 747 is 3800 feet PER MINUTE under ideal lift conditions????
Ray Lahr is a former Navy pilot, a graduate engineer, and a retired airline captain. If my recollection is working Lahr was, before his retirement, the lead training pilor for TWA. Captain Lahr is merely using the mathematical formulas that have worked for years in calculating COG/COL that allowed him to pilot a jumbo jet.
Quoting from the FOIA suit filing.
"Based on his knowledge and experience, such a zoom-climb was aerodynamically impossible. The reason is as simple as the teeter-totter that we played on as kids (Exhibit A). To keep a teeter-totter in balance, a heavy rider sits close to the center of the board and a light rider sits near the opposite end of the board. The same principle of balance applies to an aircraft. The aircraft?s center-of-gravity (CG) is slightly ahead of the wing?s center-of-lift (CL), and a downward balancing force is generated by the tail of the aircraft. This balance principle applies to all aircraft from a toy balsa wood glider to the supersonic Concorde."
Perhaps the tail surfaces WOULD exert a countering force to the sudden movement of the center of gravity so far behind the center of lift, perhaps it DID keep the aircraft in an ideal angle of attack, and perhaps it DID allow the crippled plane to reach an absurd altitude that miraculously defied gravity, ballistics, and radar. All Captain Lahr and many others want to see is the SCIENCE... the physics, if you will... that the NTSB and the CIA used to calculate all of this.
Log, it is THEY who are claiming to have invented "perpetual motion"... it is Lahr, the skeptic, who is DEMANDING proof of THEIR assertion and challenging them to lift the curtain, remove the mirrors, blow away the smoke screen, and show the world that there isn't a squirrel running like mad inside their Rube Goldberg construction.
No other aeronautic engineer has been able to duplicate their results... and they refuse to provide their data. This raises red flags in anyone who uses their brains. It is failing peer review.
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.