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
I don't think I did. 2351Z is 1951EDT on July 17th, or Zulu time minus 4 hours. The mistake I made was a typo in swapping the 1 and the 5. The weather at places other than JFK is irrelavent. I'm sure it was colder on the shoreline of Long Island. I'm not sure what your point is with regard to the heatsink.
Informed conclusions. Just as Kreindler & Kreindler arrived at their informed conclusions shortly thereafter.
Is that what has your panties in a wad??? You ARE a nitpicker aren't you. That merely stated that MOMENTUM is COMPOSED of INERTIA (and) STORED ENERGY... it was a quick explanation of what I have been telling you all along. I have, MANY TIMES, more clearly stated the difference. YOU fail to understand the relationships or the implications.
As to your damn motorcycle...
And if your flawed calculations concerning TWA800 were legitimate, than they could be applied to any object that starts with upward and forward momentum but has no lift or thrust. We've all seen motorcycles accomplish what you say is impossible (which is why I chose it as an example).
I have never said your motorcycle scenario is impossible. That is a "strawman" argument YOU have erroneously and probably deliberately brought up.
My "flawed" calculations are correct. Show me any error in the math, Rok, or shut up. They ARE NOT MY CALCUATIONS, they are Newton's. They CAN be applied to any objects with forward and upward momentum.
Evel drives his his motorcycle FORWARD at 100 Mph which calculated to 147 feet per second, he goes up a Ramp that is 147 feet long and 16 feet high. Evel is FORCED upwards 16 feet in ONE SECOND imparting an upward momentum of 16 feet per second per second... he leaves the ramp and immediately gravity begins to pull down on him at 32 feet per second per second. One half second second later, still moving forward at 147 feet per second he reaches the peak of his climb (ignoring wind resistance) at 8 feet plus the original 16 feet making motorcycle and rider peaking at 24 feet above the level ground, one half second later he is back to his 16 Foot altitude on his downward trajectory IN A BALLISTIC FALL... and if all goes well, a slightly lower ramp is waiting for him to land on... 147 feet from the first. Below him were 12 or so 10 foot wide school buses.
He successfully jumped the this using the SAME FORMULA I USED TO CALCULATE THE MAXIMUM RISE for TWA800.
Satisfied???
Lee Kreindler ’49 shares his Park Avenue office in New York with a couple of Boeing 747 fuel pumps that Kreindler & Kreindler’s aviation experts tested in the Mojave Desert a while back. The pumps were shown to contain six defects, any one of which could potentially bring down an airliner. Kreindler believes that’s what happened to TWA 800 on the night of July 17, 1996, when it exploded off Long Island, killing all 230 people on board. And that’s what he told "Larry King Live" two days after the crash, when nearly anyone with an opinion—including Boeing and TWA—was trumpeting the theory that the plane had been destroyed by a missile or bomb.
Having secured $500 million in passenger claims in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103, Kreindler confidently countered the prevailing wisdom about the crash of TWA 800. "The Lockerbie bomb brought Pan Am 103 down because it exploded at 32,000 feet in high winds," he says. "It punched a small hole in the fuselage, and that permitted the winds to tear the structure apart. TWA 800 exploded at 13,700 feet in calm weather. It would have taken a huge bomb to bring that plane down, and the larger the bomb, the more difficult it is to smuggle onto a plane. So we felt from the very beginning that we were looking at mechanical or structural failure."
http://www.courttv.com/legaldocs/business/twa800.html
On July 17, 1996, at approximately 8:45 p.m., about eleven minutes after TWA flight 800 took off from Kennedy Airport, a mechanical, structural and/or electrical failure occurred aboard the subject Boeing 747, causing a limited explosion of the center fuel cell of the aircraft, followed by chain reaction structural failures and fires, causing the plane to break up in mid-air. The center fuel cell explosion caused burning fuel vapors to travel through the vent lines of the right wing and out of the right wing tip; the burning vapors then began to extinguish and receded back toward the aircraft fuselage; as a result, ground eyewitnesses saw a streak of light heading toward the aircraft which was in some accounts mistaken for a missile.
(Apparently Kreindler couldn't even get the time right, placing the IE at 8:45pm)
http://www.cnn.com/US/9610/21/twa/ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Kreindler makes some very hasty and unsupported conclusions VERY EARLY ON, in what would turn out to be a four year sojurn for NTSB.
Kreindler's reasonings re: the "size" of the bomb are inaccurate and misleading, as his his comparison to the Lockerbie disaster.
Kreindler, at the same time, is most happy to accept that a "low-yield" overpressure event in the CWT was quite capable of causing the subsequent disintegration of the aircraft. An "explosion" no one has been able to pinpoint either it's initial location within the CWT, nor offer evidence as to the initiating event for that explosion.
NTSB SENIOR METALLURGIST JAMES WILDEY
To show it has indeed found the cause of the crash, the NTSB has identified a breakup sequence that it says led in two or three seconds from the center tank explosion to disintegration of the aircraft, specifically when the nose and first-class section fell off. But although its investigators determined which parts of the tank were damaged in the initial explosion, not all those features were included in the scenario developed by the Sequencing Group. In addition, the group made no progress toward identifying where in the tank the explosion may have begun, admitted senior metallurgist James Wildey in his summary to the Sequencing Report. The breakup sequence, then, remains merely a best guess for the order in which things happened.
"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".
I say:
Where is your EVIDENCE of a "zoom-climb?" (Please do not post any tripe from either CIA or NTSB)
Please elucidate for the readers by identifying the SOURCE of YOUR data upon which you state the "zoom-climb" as postulated by CIA and NTSB happened, IN FACT.
This message is to announce the closing of this list to further postings effective last Friday. We apologize for the delay in posting it.
The FLIGHT-800 mailing list was started as a public service on July 19, 1996, to serve as a clearinghouse for information related to the crash of TWA Flight 800. The original mission statement for the list was for discussing the flight 800 disaster and thesteps needed to prevent further incidents of this kind. These discussions could include current airport safety standards, future prevention methods, and so forth. Since that time it has performed that service well, but has also become a clearinghouse for speculation and conspiracy theories related to the crash (and other air disasters). L-Soft international finds it no longer in its interest to continue to support the discussion in the direction it has taken.
While posting has been curtailed, the archives of the list will remain open as a historical record.
We thank all those who have participated over the years on this list.
Nathan Brindle
Sr Technical Support Engineer
L-Soft international, Inc.
Postmaster, HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
""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".
Then you say:
"Please elucidate for the readers by identifying the SOURCE of YOUR data upon which you state the "zoom-climb" as postulated by CIA and NTSB happened, IN FACT."
The readers will note I did not say that.
John Fiorentino
"Entrepreneur--Author--Record Producer--Independent researcher & Paralegal Investigator--Author of forthcoming book on the assassination of President Kennedy-- Debut release on my Indie record label due out soon!"
P.S. None of the postings that led to the shutdown of the LSoft Flight 800 Forum came from me. The tinfoil hats deserve all the credit, as it clearly states in the above clickable link. I've never been one.
Why don't you answer my question first. Here is it again: Who should the Flight 800 Families trust and believe? Kreindler & Kreindler, FBI Chief Forensic Metallurgist William Tobin and UNited States Senator Charles Grassley or you, a legend in your own mind?
WILLIAM. A. TOBIN On June 27, 1971, Mr. William A. Tobin was appointed a Special Agent for the FBI. Before joining the Bureau, Mr. Tobin served three years in the Marine Corps - two in active combat duty in the Republic of South Vietnam. While in the Marines he received the Bronze Star with Combat "V," two crosses of Gallantry and twenty additional military combat decorations. After joining the FBI he worked organized crime and police corruption in Chicago, and general crimes in Detroit. In September, 1974 Mr. Tobin was assigned as a forensic metallurgist in the FBI crime laboratory in Washington, D.C. In 1976 he was promoted to a Supervisory Special Agent and in 1986 became the civilian equivalent of the FBI's Chief Forensic Metallurgist.
Asmodeus...
Exactly WHAT scientific education and degree(s) does Mr. Tobin bring to the table?
Next topic. I will first point out the errors of the math you have offered. Then I will explain how your flawed assumptions make your arguments moot.
1. Small point, but since you started the whole definitions thing, 16 ft per sec per sec is not the upward momentum of the motorcycle. 16ft per second is its upward velocity.
2. Smaller point, but momentum is not measured in feet per second per second. That would be acceleration.
3. Bigger point...the highest altitude above the surface of the ramp he will reach is 4 feet. Not 8 feet. Use this equation: h=rt-1/2at^2, where h = height, r = rate, t = time and a = acceleration. Plugging in the appropriate values gives you the following:
h = 16ft/sec*.5sec - 1/2(32ft/sec^2)(.5sec)(.5sec)
h = 4ft above ramp height, or 20 feet above ground.
So what does that prove...it proves that even the great Swordmaker can make calculation errors. But lets forget that for now and transition to TWA 800. In your initial post you concluded that TWA 800's upward momentum vector would be overcome by gravity in less than 1 second. I think later you revised that to about 1 second. Then you said that in the next second, TWA 800 would fall 64 feet. Using the same calculations you just provided for the motorcycle, TWA 800 would have only climbed a maximum of 17 feet above its initial altitude of 13,800ft, and then fallen 47 feet below its initial altitude about 1 second later. Apply that to Evel, and he would be digging a trench well before any landing ramp positioned based on the laws of physics. As I said previously, Evel would not be pleased.
Now, lets look at reality...as you have said, it took 3 seconds for the wings to stall after the initiating event. The NTSB has applied the data given to it by Boeing and calculated that at the time of the stall, the pitch of TWA 800 was 30 degrees nose high and its airspeed was 260KCAS. Remember that it reached that pitch during 3 seconds of increasing vertical velocity caused by an up to 2.7g climb. If you assume it was in a 30 degree climb when it stalled, it would have peaked about 800ft above its stall altitude, which was the IE altitude plus 3 seconds of climb before the wings stalled. Even if you assumed the rate of climb remained 33 ft per sec during those 3 seconds, you now have a climb of 900ft. Considerably more than the 100-200 feet you assume, and closing on the 1200-2200ft the NTSB assumes. How do you account for the other 300-1200ft. Well, we don't actually know the rate of climb after the FDR shutdown. The NTSB used data provided by Boeing, and several computers to calculate and simulate the flightpath of a crumbling aircraft. We used some very raw assumptions and a calculator. I imagine there are several factors not included in our raw assumptions that are included in the data the NTSB used.
I admit that on calculating the motorcycle scenario I erred. In all honesty, at the time I posted that we were preparing to go to a wedding and my wife was pressuring me to GO. I did the math in my head and forgot to apply the 1/2 (brain fart). I did realize I had done it on the way to the wedding... but too late to correct or amend it. Same reason for the minor errors 1 & 2. Of course I make mistakes. My apologies.
You are right... Evel would NOT be pleased. Or even breathing. :(
In your initial post you concluded that TWA 800's upward momentum vector would be overcome by gravity in less than 1 second. I think later you revised that to about 1 second.
Yes. 1.02 seconds. At that point it would reach zero upward motion and be at the peak of its arc.
Then you said that in the next second, TWA 800 would fall 64 feet.
No, I said in the next second it would only fall 32 feet. in the 3rd second it would fall 64 feet below its initial 13,800 feet.
For the rest, I do not believe the NTSB figures. Nor, as I have said before, that I really think there was any 3 seconds before stall... I think it happened much faster. Finally, all of your calculations that get you close to the NTSB climb figure ignore totally any drag. In addition, merely changing the angle of attack of a stalled aircraft does not change that massive forward momentum into vertical momentum or even 30 degree above level flight momentum in such a short time of applied force. Neither the NTSB nor the CIA scenarios have provided ANY explanation of what kept the aircraft with an unbalanced force applied forward of its center of gravity from continuing to flip over instead of just pitching up. Was it the tail? Was it fuselage drag? Was it the tooth fairy?
I agree we are using raw assumptions and hand held calculators (or our farting heads ;)) but all we are asking for is for NTSB to RELEASE the data they used so it can be checked.
You have still not answered my question as to how that light got lit if the velocity*mass of that ball was not some form of stored energy.
Keep in mind Rok, that even velocity and Momentum are totally relative concepts... as I pointed out in my scenario about my monitor. Velocity can only be truly measured or even noticed from some other point of view with an unequal velocity than the object having that velocity. Since velocity is relative, then Momentum is also relative (as Momentum has a velocity aspect).
In the real world we INCREASE momentum by putting energy into it... applying a force to the object to accelerate it. By doing so, we in crease the Momentum carried by that mass.
Strangely, if we just concern ourselves with the mass itself, ignoring the surrounding world, there is NOTHING about the mass that, in any way, has changed. There is NOTHING measurably different about it. Isolated, the volume, the dimensions, the total mass... and even its inertia, are all the same as they were BEFORE we made it move. Yet, when we again have it interact with another object at relative rest (i.e., the same relative velocity and momentum in the same vector as our mass originally possessed BEFORE we made it move), we can extract exactly the same amount of energy we put into it to make it move when we stop it! This is conservation of momentum... and energy.
Logically, the energy that we put in and can later take out, must exist somewhere between those two events. Where is it? There literally is no sign of it IN the mass. The quality of mass we call inertia has not changed, it still requires the same force to impart the same velocity increase or decrease. The mass itself has changed not one whit... except that it is moving relative to its state of motion before the energy was applied.
While our mass is moving, and not interacting with any other object, that energy it carries has to be stored in some form... unless and until it interacts with another object, that energy can only be considered potential. When we can observe the object from another object at a DIFFERENT STATE of motion we call that potential KINETIC ENERGY because we can see it has velocity. We do not know how MUCH energy is there as we have no knowledge of how much mass carries it unless it somehow interacts with a known mass and we can observe the motion changes it imparts to the known mass and how its motion is changed by that interaction.
If this energy was not "stored" in the velocity and momentum of the mass, where was it?
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.