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

Wow. That's amazing. You've managed to belittle me, dance around celebrating like a child over the fact that two Captains I refered to were Air National Guard not Coast Guard (you said Air Force officers yourself), you claim a great factual victory over the "fact" that space junk or a meteorite have been ruled out. Wow. Good point! Only it wasn't an ACTUAL meteorite the Captains were refering to but an object that resembled one: YOU REMEMBER, THE MISSILE WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT?! You refuse to see why these witnesses account of the aircraft plunging into the sea immediately after the explosions has any bearing on the credibility of the so-called 4,000 foot climb. You admit you haven't seen the photograph (the authenticity of which has never been in doubt) taken at a fundraiser on the Long Island shore which shows CLEARLY a missile. And you discredit James Sanders, who has done yeoman's work to pry loose the truth of this terrible accident as a "felon". Do you know WHY he's a felon? Probably not. He stole swaths of material from recovered seats which had been near the point of impact in order to test them (a felony, yes). Know what labs tests on the material found? No, I'm sure you don't. They showed missile fuel residue all over the things.

You pat yourself on the back all you want over inconsequential details that might not even get you points in a High School debating society. You haven't refuted any of the substance of my position. You haven't seen much of the most compelling evidence, and you ignore or belittle all that you have seen that contradicts you (34 "credible witnesses" are more than enough to convince any jury in the world of anything). But they can't even put a dent in your made-up mind. Believe the government if you must. I do not. Neither do a majority of Americans.

bump

Golly jeezus, I won a prize. I haven't won a prize since 7th grade, when the New Yawk Times gave me one as the 8th grader most likely to succeed in journalism, in all of New Yawk. Look it up, for 1965.

It just goes to show you what they know.

You certainly prove that one can lead a horse's *** to water but one cannot make him drink.

absent a counteracting force
Which could be either lift or momentum.

First of all, Rok, momentum is NOT A FORCE!

Momentum is merely inertia, stored energy... It is the tendency of a mass in motion to remain in motion or ABSENT any force applied to change that motion. FORCE is the application of energy to an object. That inertia can be changed into a force called lift... but it DOES NOT ADD ANY MOMENTUM TO THE SYSTEM it can only convert it to a slight change in vector. In fact, the mass LOSES momentum to the extent of the amount of force expended for that lift. IT AIN'T FREE!

"Let's further assume (conservatively) that TWA800 had its throttles set at 50%
Its throttles were at max, but that's irrelevent. The NTSB did simulations based on throttles off, climb thrust and max thrust and found there was little difference."

The fact that the NTSB said their was little difference is just more evidence of their malfeasance. It is extremely doubtful that the throttles were at MAX... there would be no need for that. Nor does it matter since, according to Boeing, the engines will go to idle at loss of control signal.

"the equivalent of all four engines thrusting in the OPPOSITE direction at 161,200 Lbs!
What? How are windmilling engines in idle producing 161,200 lbs of thrust in any direction?"

I see you are also dislexic and logic impaired as well.

Rok, the ENGINES are no longer producing any thrust...they are at idle. When they were operating they were being used to counteract the 161,200 lbs of DRAG the air was imparting to the airframe! Remove that counteracting force and the entire ~161,200 Lbs of drag would instantly be unopposed.

"Remember the lift? It doesn't disappear until the wings stall, which doesn't happen instantaneously even in your scenario."

The lift is still present until the wings break away or stall. The evidence is that they went almost instantly into a stall... and ALL LIFT DISAPPEARED leaving the plane with no motive power and no lift: i.e., in freefall... or a ballistic fall.

"That's not even true in the scenario you just described. The wings did not INSTANTLY stall, and its upward momentum is not instantly reversed by the forces of gravity. In fact, the upward momentum initially increases by the aircraft's initial pitch up."

Rok... in physics, unless you are privy to some new force everyone else is unaware of, when a FORCE stops acting on a system, then all other forces ALREADY ACTING ON THE SYSTEM are instantly unopposed. Gravity is one of those things that is always on... take away the force that keeps the thing from falling, gravity makes it fall... instantly.

Additionally, the last sentence proves you know nothing of physics... momentum was not increased... vector may have changed but momentum was DECREASED. "trading velocity (i.e., momentum) for altitude (i.e., increased potential energy)" remember????

"You are contradicting yourself here, because you just got done saying gravity is instantly pulling the aircraft downward at 32ft/sec^2. That can't be true if their as any lift at all."

Only in your ignorant mind. By the way, ignorance can be cured... find out what you are talking about!

Even in the presence of lift, gravity is ALWAYS pulling the plane down... the lift just counteracts that force and adds a little more force of its own to increase altitude. Incidentally, the gravitational force is not 32 ft/sec^2 it is 32 ft/sec/sec... it is an additive accelleration. In a vacuum, a body in Earth's gravitational well will add 32 ft per second for every second of fall. According to your erroneous formula an object would be falling at 520 feet per second in four seconds when in actuality it will only be at 128 feet per second at the end of four seconds of fall.

"but the wings don't and go quickly to stall It took at least 3 seconds. And that is 3 seconds of a massive infusion of upward momentum based on the increasing pitch.

Sigh.

The plane was climbing at 33 feet per second at a very efficient angle of attack. If it continued at that angle, it could climb ONLY 99 feet in 3 seconds UNDER POWER! That rate of climb is the maximum rate of climb Boeing certifies the 747 for at 10,000 to 24,000 ft. (Boeing certifies the 747 for ~68 feet per second from 0 to 10,000 feet and for 20 feet per second from 24,000 up to ceiling.)

Take away that power and it will not climb much more. Three seconds is generous. A plane taking off from a runway is no different... take away the power and leave everything else exactly as it was and the plane will drop back onto the runway, almost instantly.

Rok, drag is quite powerful. Increase the angle of attack, you INCREASE DRAG because the plane still wants to go the way it is already going... so the angle of attack presents more of the plane to the wind. As to your "massive infusion of upward momentum" it didn't and couldn't happen. First of all, there was no "infusion": no energy was added. Secondly, the plane was climbing at 5%... for ever foot it moved upward it moved forward 20 feet UNDER POWER. Remember that drag??? Take away the engine thrust and the plane is no longer counteracting 161 THOUSAND POUNDS of drag... it is going to slow down rapidly. A landing plane puts its engines in reverse thrust (nowhere near as powerful as its regular thrust) and that reverse thrust combined with the drag is sufficient to bring that plane to a stop in under 10,000 feet. The loss of engines means the plane is instantly subject to a deceleration almost equivalent of the acceleration force the engines were using to counteract that drag. As he plane loses velocity, the drag reduces... but so does any lift. Soon there none of either.

"The Upward momentum vector is overcome fairly quickly after lift is lost... less than one second
Where is your proof lift was lost in less than one second?

The math says it. The plane was rising at 33 feet per second. Gravity is an acceleration of 32 feet per second per second. Take away lift imparting 33 feet per second of acceleration upward and gravity is the force that is being applied at 32 feet per second in the opposite direction. At the end of one second without power and with drag, the plane may have been at level flight... and falling 32 feet more the next second.

and finally:

'You've proceed to disprove your entire theory with your table of data.

Rok, you display your total lack of a clue. Contrary to your assertion, that table PROVES IT! It is based on the radar tracks of the falling plane and debris. The times ARE what it took for TWA to fall from its ultimate altitude, whatever that was, and impact the water. IT IS WHAT IS. Your assertion (hmmmm, that word starts with three interesting letters that may be appropriate) that the plane would not fall ballistically is contradicted by the observed plane FALLING ballistically. Even the NTSB agrees it fell ballistically. Why? Because if it "fluttered, flitted, wafted" or did anything like a piece of paper or a leaf or a falling balsawood airplane IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN LONGER TO IMPACE THE OCEAN! And it would have come down somewhere other than it did. It didn't. Ergo, there was no climb, there was no crippled "flight", there was no lift... there was only a plane expending what momentum it had overcoming drag and falling otherwise in a ballistic fall.

It cannot have happened anyother way.

What Lahr is asking is for the NTSB to SHOW US the "other way." We don't think (not believe) they can.

And you have certainly proved you aren't very bright. Read on...

"First of all, Rok, momentum is NOT A FORCE!"
Better tell that to Isaac Newton. Newton's second law says Force=the rate of change of momemtum. Momentum is not energy. Energy is energy. Here are a couple definitions that might clarify things for you.
Momentum is a property that tells us how hard it is to change the way an object is moving.
The energy of a particle tells us about its ability to do work, to change the world around it.

"a force called lift... but it DOES NOT ADD ANY MOMENTUM TO THE SYSTEM"
You are absolutely confused. Momentum=Mass*Velocity. If an object is moving upwards at a certain velocity due to lift, and then that velocity increases due to increased lift, you have increased that object's upward momentum. End of story. I challange you to bring your post to a high school physics teacher and have them help you out. Did you go to high school?

"The fact that the NTSB said their was little difference is just more evidence of their malfeasance."
And this part of your post is just further evidence that you have never read the very report you claim is an example of malfeasance.

"Remove that counteracting force and the entire ~161,200 Lbs of drag would instantly be unopposed."
I'm not sure why I bother, but here goes...Your statement I have included above is correct based on your assumptions. Your statement that the engines going to idle is the same as all four engines producing 161,200 lbs of thrust in the opposite direction means the total amount of force working against TWA 800 would be the drag of 161,200 lbs plus the reverse thrust of 4 engines equaling 161,200 lbs for a total of 322,400 lbs! Or does the drag instantly disappear when 4 engines go to full reverse thrust?

" The evidence is that they went almost instantly into a stall"
But you yourself say it took 3 seconds for them to stall! Which is it?

"Additionally, the last sentence proves you know nothing of physics..."
Sorry, I'm reading your post as I type this and I am now fully aware that I am talking to a moron. I'll tell you what, you take this post to a physics professor and ask him if you are correct. I challange you to do that.

Is there anybody else reading this who would like to agree with Swordmaker's grasp of basic physics. Let me clarify...is there anyone with more than an elementary education that would like to defend Swordmaker's grasp of physics.

Your experience is correct with regard to the abrupt nose drop unless your aircraft is also simultaineously rolling into a bank. And this is what both the radar data and the NTSB contend.

"Would you explain to us why a SIMULATION has any relevance at all here."

Because there is no video record or FDR record of exactly what the aircraft did. Maj Meyer of the ANG is cited as a frequent credible witness of the incident, but he says the following "I want to step back and tell you that at no time during what I observed did I ever see the airframe. I never saw anything that told me there was an airplane out there." And he's one of the best witnesses! Sorry, but it is a little hard to depict the final seconds of TWA 800 from that kind of testimony. Whether this "crap" is gospel or not has nothing to do with my profession. I am simply relaying the conclusions of some of the best engineers and pilots at Boeing, NASA, the NTSB, and TWA as presented in the NTSB report, which is available for all to read. For some reason, a lot of folks seem to find it perfectly acceptable to condemn it, without bothering to read how and why they came to the conclusions they did.

"why the big excursion between 750. and 755"

The double return at about 750 seconds could well be a return of the nose. That is about when the NTSB believes the nose fell off. The radars are relying on primary returns at that point since the beacon (aka transponder) is no longer operating. That means the radars are gathering their data from actual radar skin paints, and according to the NTSB (and anyone familiar with radar): "changes in return strength as wreckage changes orientation relative to the radar may introduce errors." Depending on the beamwidth of the radar, it may not be able to discern the difference between the nose and the main fuselage, so it is giving you information reflected from the nose, and presenting it as information from what you have been looking at, which was an intact 747. Once the nose is clear of the main fuselage, the radar data plots return to a pattern and track consistent with the track of the intact 747.

According to NTSB data, the pitch was about 40 degrees at 753 seconds. I'd agree with the rest of your post. The plot you posted in your previous post shows the aircraft moved only one mile east from 753 until it impacted the water. So yes, I'd say that is what we see here.

"My opinion is that the important cft (center wing tank) damage occurs here."

OK, except that the engineers at Boeing don't agree with you. Neither does the Structural Group from the NTSB board. That group was composed of several experts from Boeing, ALPA, TWA and the IAM. The fire/explosion after the wings tear away comes from the number 3 main fuel tank. Not the center wing tank.

He stole swaths of material from recovered seats which had been near the point of impact in order to test them (a felony, yes). Know what labs tests on the material found? No, I'm sure you don't. They showed missile fuel residue all over the things.

Burr5...May I point out that Sanders never stole anything...He and Liz were convicted of conspiracy, aiding and abeting for having the audacity to receive from FedEx, two reddish-orange residue-encrusted foam swatches, sent by a party to the official investigation, TWA 747 Chief Pilot Captain Terrel Stacey; who testified in court that he removed the material from the Calverton hangar under his own volition, and that he was unaware of wrongdoing at the time. Sanders didn't even know they were on the way until after they had been dropped at FedEx. Liz received the 'phone call from Stacey informing her of the fact. Sanders proceeded to send one to CBS, the other was cut into two pieces by the analytical lab in California. One was tested, the other was not. So the FBI, after confiscating the CBS sample and the two pieces in California, had every opportunity to test those pieces and determine if Sanders was accurate or not. They did not do this. Wonder why...

Possibly because they were afraid they "wouldn't be able to put this to bed," as Marian Birky of the NTSB stated to Tom Stalcup.

Sanders was offered a free pass if he would give up his source, (Hangarman/Stacey) but refused, citing First Amendment protection as a journalist.

The only time that Sanders was anywhere near the Calverton hanger was when, under court rules of discovery he was permitted to photograph the wreckage; photographs that, to a great extent, to this day, are still being prevented from being made public by the FBI.

The Sanders were convicted under a law passed to prevent wreckage from being removed from an aircraft crash site by souviner hunters after the ValueJet crash in Florida. James Kallstrom, Deputy FBI Director was not prosecuted for doing that very thing with a piece of TWA800 wreckage he gave away...Terrel Stacey, the individual who removed the, what he believed to be, evidence of a potential missile attack from the hanger, not the crash site, pled guilty to a misdemeanor, and continued flying the line for TWA.

I have decided that you are more than ignorant... you are WILLFULLY ignorant. A small amount of knowledge is a dangerous thing... and he who does not know what he doesn't know is very dangerous.

Rok, MOMENTUM (MASS * VELOCITY) is a characteristic of an object in motion. It is a representation of the total mechanical energy that has been imparted to that object by an IMPULSE (FORCE * TIME). An object will retain its MOMENTUM until a FORCE acts on it over TIME. Notice, if you will that each of these things is distinct and different. We call those distinct and different meanings "definitions". MOMENTUM is acted on by a FORCE... they are NOT THE SAME.

You say:

If an object is moving upwards at a certain velocity due to lift, and then that velocity increases due to increased lift, you have increased that object's upward momentum.

For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

LIFT is the result of a collision. A massive object essentially at rest (the atmosphere) and hence possessing very little MOMENTUM, collides with an massive object moving quite rapidly (the plane) and has a great deal of MOMENTUM. In this collision MOMENTUM (energy) from the plane is transferred to the atmosphere which gains VELOCITY and hence MOMENTUM of its own. By design, this newly gained VELOCITY and MOMENTUM of the atmosphere is cunningly directed over a surface designed to create a FORCE called LIFT. The WORK (applied ENERGY) done by that FORCE is supplied by the MOMENTUM of the aircraft. While the engines are running, they are applying a FORCE that is continually replenishing the MOMENTUM of the aircraft as it is being transferred to other objects. When the engines stop applying the FORCE that is replenishing that MOMENTUM then the aircraft starts losing the MOMENTUM that is being transferred to the atmosphere by collision. Since the aircraft's MASS basically remains the same, the only component of its MOMENTUM that can change is its VELOCITY. In words of one sylable: The plane slows down.

Now, do you see that NO MOMENTUM is added by the lift??? Only the VECTOR (the direction of movement) can be changed.

"Your statement that the engines going to idle is the same as all four engines producing 161,200 lbs of thrust in the opposite direction means the total amount of force working against TWA 800 would be the drag of 161,200 lbs plus the reverse thrust of 4 engines equaling 161,200 lbs for a total of 322,400 lbs!

Rok, again it is evident you cannot comprehend what you read.

I did not say any such thing. I said that when the engines went to idle, the FORCE they were providing to COUNTER the opposing FORCE of the atmospheric drag would be gone... and then the only uncountered horizontal FORCE acting on TWA-800 would be the impact of the atmosphere... i.e., DRAG. Nothing was said about the engines thrusting in reverse in the TWA-800 disaster.

"The evidence is that they went almost instantly into a stall"
But you yourself say it took 3 seconds for them to stall! Which is it?

Exactly what part of the word "almost" do you fail to comprehend?

"Additionally, the last sentence proves you know nothing of physics..."
Sorry, I'm reading your post as I type this and I am now fully aware that I am talking to a moron. I'll tell you what, you take this post to a physics professor and ask him if you are correct. I challange you to do that.

My IQ is a measured 149. What is yours?

I accepted your challenge. I called a friend of mine who spent 20 years as an aerospace engineer before going back to college and getting a Doctorate in Dentistry (He is now one of the leading implantologists in the country) and e-mailed him my analysis. I asked him if he disagreed with anything I wrote. He said it was an excellent statement of the physics of the situation within the limits of our information.

I then e-mailed him one of your critiques. His comment? "This guy doesn't know what he is talking about."

In answer to a couple of your other insolent questions: Yes, Rokke, I did go to high school... and to college, too.

Welcome to this thread. Your post is very appreciated. Sanders and his wife are heroes who were persecuted because their efforts to get to the truth could not be tolerated by the Clinton Crime Family who had muscled into and taken over all of America's security agencies including the NTSB and the FBI.

It makes perfect sense to make an enemy/example out of someone seeking the truth (and the facts you point out are vital to understanding what Mr. Sanders did and did not do) - if your goal is to prevent the truth from being known.

This kind of action (against truth tellers) during the Clintonista years became S.TANDARD O.PERATING P.ROCEDURE!

Unless someone is "willingly blind", the Clinton Crime Family's SOP of targeting those who wanted the truth rather than towing the predetermined Clintonian investigational "result" line is as obvious as the fact that Bubba Clinton used the FBI and CIA and all security agencies of this country to go after HIS PERSONAL ENEMIES ("right wing" extremists - and anyone not towing the "crime family" line on assorted deaths and "incidents") rather than going after the people who were hard at work planning to kill Americans on September 11th!!!

On that day - those approximately 3000 human beings paid with their lives for Clinton's criminal culpability.

I can understand those involved in all the Clinton criminal activity still working to keep the truth under wraps. But I had hoped that somewhere would come someone in that crowd who put their country ahead of their concerns for their own personal well being - like those on Flight 93 and like those firefighters in the WTC and like our soldiers on the front lines in Afghanistan.

I had hoped there would come courageous people ready now to tell the truth and take the heat.....but I suppose the risks are still too great. A pity. It is courage like that which could save many more lives in the future.

Speaking of the Xlintoon Krimenees {sic} Family, aren't you just excited that the Hildebeast is the junior senator from NY and that Mr. Kallstrom is the head of the "Terrorist Bureau" for the state of NY beause of 911.

BTW NTSB's Hall was Algores Campaign Finance Director and Mrs. Dasshole was well overqualified to be Assistant FAA director. They had years and years of riding airliners at government expense. Isn't that qualification enough for a Demonrat?

To this day we are haunted by the ghosts of Xlinton's past! {MEGA SARCASM}

Yes, New York is truly sick to embrace the likes of Hildebeast and the liar Kallstrom. But, then, my guess is Hilly got in because of the syndicate's work on her behalf in certain precincts. Kallstrom being "in" is because the syndicate has friends everywhere.

Yes, you won a prize! Congrats! Journalism prize earlier in life???? Well, now - that is a note of encouragement for you, no? There is hidden talent there yet to be put on display! (just kidding!)

Wouldn't it be nice for some "leading" Journalists of today to go after the truth re: TWA800? You know - the ones who make the big bucks over at CBSNBCABCCNN???? But, of course, that would require them to WORK HARD to GET THE TRUE FACTS.... a quality most of today's propaganda puppets masquerading as "leading journalists" find to be repulsive!