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

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

[Asmodeus]

Responses of William A. Tobin to Questions From Senator Thurmond

Question 1. The substance of your testimony appears to be that you had concluded by mid-September 1996 that the cause of the Flight 800 crash was mechanical. Was your conclusion in mid-September preliminary or final? Please explain fully.

Answer. My conclusion and testimony were that there was no indication of criminal activity, not that "the cause of the Flight 800 crash was mechanical." Absence of criminal activity does not, per se, suggest "mechanical failure". In my experience, non-criminal human performance issues have periodically been found to cause or contribute to transport, structure and/or system failures.

The terms "preliminary" and "final" imply a more distinct or emphatic delineation than warrants for the circumstances. I was very strong in my opinion as of the end of August 1996 that no criminal activity was evident. My opinion was sufficiently strong that, to use FBI resources more effectively, I urged keeping only a small contingent to represent FBI interests, e.g., one metallurgist and several local agents, as had been done with almost all other transport disasters I had worked the prior 25 years. I indicated that the NTSB was quite qualified and capable of recognizing unusual transport material deformation and damage and that having an FBI forensic metallurgist on site would maintain FBI interests and allow for escalating FBI presence if necessary or desired.

As strong as my opinion was by late August 1996, I was always open for additional information and data, should unusual circumstances be discovered. However, I considered that possibility very remote. As my colleague, Dr. Michael Smith, whom I was training at the time indicated when he returned from the Bruntingthorpe testing, even the smallest of charges (used in the tests) was so demonstrative that "* * * it was so obvious * * *" that we had no such indication on any of the pieces recovered from the TWA 800 crash. And, again, the charge used for the testing was miniscule compared to what could be expected from bombs or missiles.

Question 2. You testified that, in September 1996, all the metallurgists, including those from NTSB, and all the explosives examiners were united in their opinion that the crash was not the result of a bomb or a missile. Yet, in June 1997, Chairman Hall, testifying before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation said that the NTSB was pursuing six scenarios as the cause of the crash, including a proximity missile explosion and a small explosive charge placed in or near the center fuel tank. In addition, NTSB funded a series of tests at Bruntingthorpe, United Kingdom, that ran for several months from early to mid-1997 to test various theories, including the small-explosive- charge theory. Please explain the need for this continued study if there was no difference in opinion.

Answer. It was my understanding that the Bruntingthorpe testing was scheduled, among numerous other considerations, primarily to view an explosion of the center fuel tank. The NTSB was convinced early on that the initial reason the aircraft lost structural integrity was that the center wing tank exploded due to ignition of fuel vapor in the tank. However, they could not explain what ignited the tank and, therefore, all ``scenarios'' or possibilities had to be entertained until enough evidence existed to support one to the exclusion of the others. The additional testing was expected to show that the impulsive loading scenarios (bombs, missiles, shaped charges) would have left distinct physical evidence which would be identifiable in the wreckage. Since such testing was a rare occurrence and few 747's were available for repeated testing, testing for most of the ``scenarios'' was scheduled for the Bruntingthorpe tests.

In the light of Mr. Kallstrom's continuing insistence that "all the pieces of the wreckage [had] not been recovered", one of the reasons supporting scheduling the tests was that the tests would be useful to convey what was known to the forensic metallurgists: that characteristics of bomb or missile damage would have been evident even if substantially less of the aircraft had been recovered.

Question 3. You testified that there were reasons you. did not take notes or otherwise document your examinations in TWA Flight 800. Please explain those reasons.

Answer. (1) By Mr. Kallstrom's own public representations, there were over one million damaged aircraft pieces and parts. Metallurgical examination notes would likely average two or three full pages per part, particularly when it would necessarily include a complete description of the part, its geometry and uniquely identifying characteristics (for subsequent identification). I would still be taking notes in Calverton, N.Y. today if in the normal forensic examination mode. This would have comprised an unduly burdensome and unwarranted effort, particularly inasmuch as no statutory authority existed for the FBI to "determine the cause of the crash", only whether any characteristic existed suggestive of criminal activity. The alternative would have been to record, "Metallurgical examinations revealed no characteristic indicative of criminal activity" one million times, a notation that would still require a complete description and measurements of each part to uniquely identify the item at a later date.

(2) The material damage and component failures were concluded to have resulted from low order explosion (fuel tank), impact and corrosion mechanisms, with enough representative parts to effectively and strongly indicate no FBI metallurgical or materials science involvement was mandated unless NTSB subsequently developed characteristics or indications of possible criminal activity or cause(s). This was obvious to Dr. Michael Smith (my colleague) and I within the first several weeks.

(3) Every recovered piece was examined at least once and jointly, by both FBI and NTSB metallurgists. I was part of the fracture sequencing group and regularly reviewed the logs/reports of the Metallurgy Group findings, which all parties signed, including metallurgists from the financially interested parties.

(4) I did not believe the taxpayers should fund duplicitous and costly note taking, particularly when there existed notes jointly obtained and agreed upon by all metallurgists involved; there existed a contemporaneous log and recording of the group's findings, we were all in agreement, and there was no indication of criminal involvement.

(5) Duplicitous notes have been used in the past to "muddy the waters" or to the serious detriment of interested parties in a judicial process. Two scientists will generally not take identical readings or measurements of undamaged and undeformed parts, let alone badly damaged (extensively bent and crushed) items.

(6) It was my conviction that prima facie statutory authority rested with the NTSB, and until they, my colleague or I concluded that material damage suggested a reasonable possibility of criminal involvement, there was plenty of time to "crank up" a forensic investigation and subject the appropriate pieces to extensive forensic examinations. There were no time or schedule exigencies which would have precluded extensive note taking immediately upon observation of a characteristic suggestive or criminal activity. As far as I am aware, the aircraft remnants are still in position as reconstructed in Calverton, New York.

____________________

Memorandum
To: Thomas H. Jourdan
From: William A. Tobin
Date: 07-15-97
Subject: Metallurgical Status Report: TWA 800

The last FBI metallurgical examinations or evaluations conducted of any significance, relating to damaged TWA 800 components, were in approximately October 1996. As directed by you, on January 1, 1997, I elicited a commitment for the services of a retired research scientist and metallographic laboratory specializing in the aluminum alloys primarily comprising the Boeing 747-100.

Since May 1997, the scientist has been researching the location, morphology, and formation fracture mechanics of small holes with "spike tooth" fractures, the only metallurgically significant indicator present at a high strain rate. However, the holes are relatively small (none of which could reasonably have been responsible for "instantaneous" cessation of the recorders), exhibit no apparent preferred concentration, exhibit no apparent isotrophy, and are in matrices which exhibit no characteristics of impulsive loading or proximity to explosive (ordnance) materials.

The scientist has observed no indication of bomb or missile damage, and brings to ten the number of metallurgists officially examining and pronouncing the absence of bomb or missile damage, four from NTSB, three from Boeing, two from FBI Laboratory, and one scientist consultant.

It is noted that three of the aforementioned metallurgists could be considered to have a strong organizational interest in the finding that something other than mechanical failure initiated the catastrophic sequence of events.

The "spike tooth" failures, known to both the NTSB and FBI from other incidents to be the result if high velocity contacts from damaged aircraft components, have recently been duplicated in empirical tests conducted by the NTSB where metal pieces were brought in contact with the aircraft skin at strain rates already known to be available from the forward velocity of the passenger jet and velocities associated with free fall from 13,800 feet. In view of these observations, therefore, it is unreasonable to expect the "spike tooth" failures will be related to any criminal behavior which could have caused the disaster.

____________________

[jlogajan]

all bow down before the mighty jlogajan.

I'll settle for some tail surface forces included in the torque calculation. So far the silence on that is deafening.

[Rokke]

Regardless of why the CIA produced the video, there is little doubt the NTSB was not involved. Considering the NTSB didn't even have access to the FBI witness interviews the CIA based their video on until a year after the video was first shown, it seems pretty clear where the CIA got their info from. Furthermore, the NTSB's report on the trajectory of the main body of wreckage was completed just three days after the CIA video was first shown. Lahr is suing the NTSB for something they aren't even responsible for. But hey, what's another frivolous lawsuit between friends. Let's hope the lawyers get paid ;).

[MARTIAL MONK]

OK, here goes. There is no 500mph headwind. There is a headwind equivalent due to the velocity of the plane. The plane is moving through a (relatively) stable body of air. When the plane rotates on its vertical axis it is cutting through the same stable body of air but in a different direction. The tail surfaces are not swinging into a headwind. The same aerodynamic forces apply whether in S&L flight or a climb, unless it is broken off and dangling.

[BlackVeil]

"Ah.....the "tin-foil acolytes"......" Yes, that is the way to solve any argument. What I remember is, the El Al flight which crashed into a suburb in Amsterdam. We were all told that - it was an accident - it was a transport plane - it was carrying perfume - and that was it THE PERFUME EXPLODED! As kylaka would say, the gubbmit told us so. Some of us didn't believe it, and wore the title of "nutter" for years. Only recently, the Israelis have admitted that the plane was carrying nerve gas, and "other weapons." Not nuclear weapons? No, of course not, only a nutter would even ask that. The plane had depleted uranium, with residual radioactivity, which was used as ballast in the wings. That explains the contamination sickness of some of the survivors.

I always thought that perfume story was a loud one - can't they think of a better story? Why not - the plane was ascending without a nose? That would have been alright.

More seriously, we are still being asked to believe that plane went down by accident. The black box is missing. Hmmm. It is part of the series of exploding planes of the 1990s. They look like terrorist attacks, but no one ever claimed responsibility and the victims seem to have led the coverups. It is almost as if a secret war is being fought.

[Timesink]

What parent in their right mind would ever want to name their kid "Flabia"?

[Timesink]

I have a real cheap "test" for you. Get yourself a wooden glider, you know the kind, with that little metal piece on the nose. Fly it, lotsa fun right?.....Now take off the metal piece and try to fly it.......Not so much fun, huh?

Michael Rivero? Is that you?

Bluntly stated, a wooden toy glider is about as aerodynamically similar to a 747 as a Model T is to a Corvette, if not less.

[Enduring Freedom]

A MISSILE (or 2) TOOK DOWN TWA800

Question for the Feds and Propaganda Response Team on this site:

Do you really think the American people can't handle the truth?

Was it Osama et. al. or the U.S. Navy?

In any event, how are you Rokke?

[JohnFiorentino]

I already answered this.........You should really try reading the thread.

[JohnFiorentino]

Well, I thought you might actually have the ability to perform deductive reasoning, but I can see by your responses your thinking processes are clouded by your prejudices.

First what you say is that it doesn't matter why the CIA made their video, even if it was wrong. You state again, incorrectly that CIA BASED their video on witness reports, they DID NOT.

You say Lahr is suing NTSB for something they are not even responsible for. That is patently ABSURD.

Lahr is suing NTSB specifically for release of the data upon which they based their animation. NTSB says they can't release it because it is proprietary to Boeing. Boeing states it had no knowledge of, involvement with, or contribution to said video.

[Swordmaker]

John, you seem to have attracted a large swarm of DisinFoes with this thread.

Horses are to water as these Asses are to truth.

Another thought... don't mud wrestle with a pig... it'll only annoy you and the pig likes it.

[JohnFiorentino]

THE WEASEL WORDING OF WILLIAM TOBIN


Responses of William A. Tobin to Questions From Senator Thurmond

Question 1. The substance of your testimony appears to be that you had concluded by mid-September 1996 that the cause of the Flight 800 crash was mechanical. Was your conclusion in mid-September preliminary or final? Please explain fully.

Answer. My conclusion and testimony were that there was no indication of criminal activity, not that "the cause of the Flight 800 crash was mechanical." Absence of criminal activity does not, per se, suggest "mechanical failure". In my experience, non-criminal human performance issues have periodically been found to cause or contribute to transport, structure and/or system failures.

(In his plaintive answer to Senator Thurmond to question 1 Tobin attempts to intimate pilot-error as a possible causation, There was NEVER any mention by ANYONE, (other than Tobin apparently) that pilot-error, or as Tobin puts it "non-criminal human performance issues" were in ANY WAY responsible for the demise of TWA800)

The terms "preliminary" and "final" imply a more distinct or emphatic delineation than warrants for the circumstances. (MORE WEASEL WORDING) I was very strong in my opinion as of the end of August 1996 that no criminal activity was evident. My opinion was sufficiently strong that, to use FBI resources more effectively, I urged keeping only a small contingent to represent FBI interests, e.g., one metallurgist and several local agents, as had been done with almost all other transport disasters I had worked the prior 25 years. I indicated that the NTSB was quite qualified and capable of recognizing unusual transport material deformation and damage and that having an FBI forensic metallurgist on site would maintain FBI interests and allow for escalating FBI presence if necessary or desired.

As strong as my opinion was by late August 1996, I was always open for additional information and data, should unusual circumstances be discovered. However, I considered that possibility very remote. As my colleague, Dr. Michael Smith, whom I was training at the time indicated when he returned from the Bruntingthorpe testing, even the smallest of charges (used in the tests) was so demonstrative that "* * * it was so obvious * * *" that we had no such indication on any of the pieces recovered from the TWA 800 crash. And, again, the charge used for the testing was miniscule compared to what could be expected from bombs or missiles.

(It is extremely significant to note the timeframe of the Bruntingthorpe tests mentioned by Tobin was effectively May-June, 1997, or approximately 9 months AFTER Tobin had arrived at HIS conclusions)

Question 2. You testified that, in September 1996, all the metallurgists, including those from NTSB, and all the explosives examiners were united in their opinion that the crash was not the result of a bomb or a missile. Yet, in June 1997, Chairman Hall, testifying before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation said that the NTSB was pursuing six scenarios as the cause of the crash, including a proximity missile explosion and a small explosive charge placed in or near the center fuel tank. In addition, NTSB funded a series of tests at Bruntingthorpe, United Kingdom, that ran for several months from early to mid-1997 to test various theories, including the small-explosive- charge theory. Please explain the need for this continued study if there was no difference in opinion.

Answer. It was my understanding that the Bruntingthorpe testing was scheduled, among numerous other considerations, primarily to view an explosion of the center fuel tank. (THIS IS CLAPTRAP) The NTSB was convinced early on that the initial reason the aircraft lost structural integrity was that the center wing tank exploded due to ignition of fuel vapor in the tank. However, they could not explain what ignited the tank and, therefore, all ``scenarios'' or possibilities had to be entertained until enough evidence existed to support one to the exclusion of the others. The additional testing was expected to show that the impulsive loading scenarios (bombs, missiles, shaped charges) would have left distinct physical evidence which would be identifiable in the wreckage. Since such testing was a rare occurrence and few 747's were available for repeated testing, testing for most of the ``scenarios'' was scheduled for the Bruntingthorpe tests.

In the light of Mr. Kallstrom's continuing insistence that "all the pieces of the wreckage [had] not been recovered", one of the reasons supporting scheduling the tests was that the tests would be useful to convey what was known to the forensic metallurgists: that characteristics of bomb or missile damage would have been evident even if substantially less of the aircraft had been recovered.

ADDITIONAL INFO. ON BRUNTINGTHORPE

Analysis of TWA FL800's CVR and application of the Doppler test by Cdr. W. S. Donaldson

1) The NTSB remains perplexed almost 2 years after the loss of TWA FL800 in trying to explain the 105ms loud sound found at the end of the CVR. Like the vast amount of other evidence that doesn't fit theNTSB theory, they are now ignoring it.
2) The results of the Bruntingthorpe tests in England were supposed to help explain this noise. The intention was to record and compare CVR tapes after the CWT, charged with 8 pounds of propane inthe test aircraft, was exploded in England. They used propane because Jet-A fuel will not explode!
3) The Bruntingthorpe test series was a disaster for the NTSB theory. The explosion disintegrated the forward wing spar sending pieces all the way to the nose, this would have riddled water tanks andcargo containers forward of the wing. (Not a single hole or fragment from the CWT was foundforward in FL800 debris).
4) The recorded sounds didn't match FL800's sounds.
5) The Bruntingthorpe test results have now been relegated to the growing body of secret information not to be shared with the broad body of investigators, or even those Party Investigators who participated in the tests, much less the Public. It joins the eyewitness statements, unabridged Debris Field data, FBILab Tests, NASA Lab Tests, DFDR Data, autopsy shrapnel, etc.
6) There are three reasons Bruntingthorpe could not have possibly duplicated the sound found on FL800'sCVR.a) The test aircraft was at rest on its landing gear. TWA FL800 was flying at a velocity of 633ft/sec. The aircraft was not pressurized or subjected to temperature differentials inside and out.b) The NTSB assumed a center tank explosion was the initiating event, it was not. There is noforensic evidence that proves it was.c) No audio tests were done using powerful open air explosions at Bruntingthorpe.7) The reason the NTSB leadership is perplexed about this loud sound is because they refuse to follow where the forensic evidence points. It is ironic because, knowing the speed of sound was approximately 1,100 ft/sec outside FL800's hull, and approximately 10,000 ft/sec in aircraftaluminum, by using simple Doppler mathematics, a precise calculation can be made as to where a loudsound, outside the aircraft, first struck the aircraft and traveled along its hull.
8) All explosions in the atmosphere send a shock wave at the speed of sound in all directions about 1.1 ftevery 1/1000 second or millisecond (m/s).
9) Because TWA FL800 was already traveling forward at 633 ft/sec, or .63 ft/m/s, a shock wave movingforward on the outside hull would only advance .46 ft/ms, but would travel aft along the aircraft hull at1.73 ft/ms.

10) It is a reasonable assumption that shock wave impingement on the aircraft hull from a large anti-aircraft weapon airburst, would provide a continuous loud sound to cockpit microphones until the shock wave cleared the aircraft and the last of the sound returned to the cockpit via the aluminumairframe.
11) The forensic evidence suggests the shock wave from a bursting weapon first impinged the hull betweenFrame 667 and 740, left side. This evidence includes high-energy deformations. The first passengerblown out was sitting at Frame 615, and passengers sitting in the area were laced with shrapnel.
12) If a large anti-aircraft warhead airburst detonated, low left, abeam TWA FL800's aircraft station 576,the overpressure wave would first strike the fuselage and the left wing root area, starting the soundrecording 2.7 ms later (time required for sound to go to the cockpit in the airframe). Because theaircraft is traveling into the pressure wave at .63 ft/ms and the wave is moving aft at 1.1 ft/ms, thewave will clear the tip of the tail in 89.38 ms. The time required for sound to travel from the tip of thetail back to the cockpit in aluminum is 18.1 ms. The expected duration of sound produced by thepreceding scenario is summed up as follows: 89.38 ms, plus 18.1 ms, minus 2.7 ms, equals 104.78 ms.Also, because of the Forward Velocity Stunting of the Doppler effect described above, the shock waverequires an identical time (approx. 105ms) to clear the nose and return to the cockpit in the aluminumairframe.
13) It is entirely reasonable to expect that high technology sound laboratories could find audio peaks /frequency changes and correlate the data to the shock wave passing significant aircraft structures suchas engine pods, vertical stabilizer, left wing, etc. The fact the NTSB leadership has refused to allow adetailed outside sound analysis specifically tasked to look for evidence supporting missile airburst, is extremely disturbing.
14) Just before the end of the tape, the transcript released by the NTSB says there is an "unintelligible"word. Some reports inside the investigation believe the word was "uh-oh". If true, it is very significantand could indicate that one of the crew saw a missile just before impact. Further, why would a crewmember say "uh-oh" just prior to a spontaneous center wing tank explosion? He would have no reason to suspect an explosion was about to occur. For these reasons, it is imperative that this last portion of the tape be released for further analyses by outside experts.

(IT IS ALSO WORTHY TO NOTE, THAT WHEN THE TESTS WERE CONDUCTED IN MAY 1997 WHEREIN THE CWT OF THE 747 WAS "EXPLODED" THE RESULTING WRECKAGE IN NO WAY RESEMBLED THE POSTULATED BREAK-UP of TWA800. THERE WAS NO NOSE SEPARATION. THE PLANE EFFECTIVELY CAVED IN BEHIND THE WINGS, AND SPLIT IN TWO PIECES)

Question 3. You testified that there were reasons you. did not take notes or otherwise document your examinations in TWA Flight 800. Please explain those reasons.

Answer. (1) By Mr. Kallstrom's own public representations, there were over one million damaged aircraft pieces and parts. Metallurgical examination notes would likely average two or three full pages per part, particularly when it would necessarily include a complete description of the part, its geometry and uniquely identifying characteristics (for subsequent identification). I would still be taking notes in Calverton, N.Y. today if in the normal forensic examination mode. This would have comprised an unduly burdensome and unwarranted effort, (HERE TOBIN WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE THAT HE PERSONALLY EXAMINED OVER ONE MILLION AIRCRAFT PIECES) particularly inasmuch as no statutory authority existed for the FBI to "determine the cause of the crash", only whether any characteristic existed suggestive of criminal activity. (Here Tobin decides who should be doing what. Not acting as a "Metallugist" but an administrator) The alternative would have been to record, "Metallurgical examinations revealed no characteristic indicative of criminal activity" one million times, a notation that would still require a complete description and measurements of each part to uniquely identify the item at a later date. (This of course is crap)

(2) The material damage and component failures were concluded to have resulted from low order explosion (fuel tank), impact and corrosion mechanisms, with enough representative parts to effectively and strongly indicate no FBI metallurgical or materials science involvement was mandated unless NTSB subsequently developed characteristics or indications of possible criminal activity or cause(s). This was obvious to Dr. Michael Smith (my colleague) and I within the first several weeks. (Again, he gives his hand away)

(3) Every recovered piece was examined at least once and jointly, by both FBI and NTSB metallurgists. I was part of the fracture sequencing group and regularly reviewed the logs/reports of the Metallurgy Group findings, which all parties signed, including metallurgists from the financially interested parties.

(4) I did not believe the taxpayers should fund duplicitous and costly note taking, (AGAIN TOBIN ACTS IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY, DETERMINING ON HIS OWN, WHAT THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS WANTED) particularly when there existed notes jointly obtained and agreed upon by all metallurgists involved; there existed a contemporaneous log and recording of the group's findings, we were all in agreement, and there was no indication of criminal involvement. (THEN WHY EVEN CONTINUE?)

(5) Duplicitous notes have been used in the past to "muddy the waters" or to the serious detriment of interested parties in a judicial process. Two scientists will generally not take identical readings or measurements of undamaged and undeformed parts, let alone badly damaged (extensively bent and crushed) items. (WELL, ONE COULD CERTAINLY AGREE WITH HIM HERE)

(6) It was my conviction that prima facie statutory authority rested with the NTSB, (IT DIDN'T MATTER WHAT HIS OPINION WAS, IT WASN'T HIS DECISION TO MAKE) and until they, my colleague or I concluded that material damage suggested a reasonable possibility of criminal involvement, there was plenty of time to "crank up" a forensic investigation and subject the appropriate pieces to extensive forensic examinations. (IN OTHER WORDS< MANY PIECES WERE NOT SUBJECTED TO EXTENSIVE FORENSIC EXAMINATIONS) There were no time or schedule exigencies which would have precluded extensive note taking immediately upon observation of a characteristic suggestive or criminal activity. As far as I am aware, the aircraft remnants are still in position as reconstructed in Calverton, New York.


____________________
Memorandum
To: Thomas H. Jourdan
From: William A. Tobin
Date: 07-15-97
Subject: Metallurgical Status Report: TWA 800

The last FBI metallurgical examinations or evaluations conducted of any significance, relating to damaged TWA 800 components, were in approximately October 1996. As directed by you, on January 1, 1997, I elicited a commitment for the services of a retired research scientist and metallographic laboratory specializing in the aluminum alloys primarily comprising the Boeing 747-100.

Since May 1997, the scientist has been researching the location, morphology, and formation fracture mechanics of small holes with "spike tooth" fractures, the only metallurgically significant indicator present at a high strain rate. However, the holes are relatively small (none of which could reasonably have been responsible for "instantaneous" cessation of the recorders), (THIS OF COURSE IS GARBAGE. I BELIEVE, NTSB WAS LOOKING FOR THE 'CAUSE' OF THE CWT EXPLOSION. WHY WOULD SMALL HOLES BE INSIGNIFICANT?) exhibit no apparent preferred concentration, exhibit no apparent isotrophy, and are in matrices which exhibit no characteristics of impulsive loading or proximity to explosive (ordnance) materials.

The scientist has observed no indication of bomb or missile damage, and brings to ten the number of metallurgists officially examining and pronouncing the absence of bomb or missile damage, four from NTSB, three from Boeing, two from FBI Laboratory, and one scientist consultant.

It is noted that three of the aforementioned metallurgists could be considered to have a strong organizational interest in the finding that something other than mechanical failure initiated the catastrophic sequence of events.

The "spike tooth" failures, known to both the NTSB and FBI from other incidents to be the result if high velocity contacts from damaged aircraft components, have recently been duplicated in empirical tests conducted by the NTSB where metal pieces were brought in contact with the aircraft skin at strain rates already known to be available from the forward velocity of the passenger jet and velocities associated with free fall from 13,800 feet. In view of these observations, therefore, it is unreasonable to expect the "spike tooth" failures will be related to any criminal behavior which could have caused the disaster.(IN OTHER WORDS, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT)


____________________

[Swordmaker]

"Bluntly stated, a wooden toy glider is about as aerodynamically similar to a 747 as a Model T is to a Corvette, if not less."

Timesink, could you please inform me when the scalability of aerodynamic forces was invalidated??? The aerodynamic forces operating on a wooden toy glider are EXACTLY the same aerodynamic forces operating on a Boeing 747.

Incidentally, the NTSB scenario claims TWA-800 climbed 1200 to 2000 feet in 18 seconds AND that the plane was trading velocity for altitude which implies that as it gains in said altitude it loses velocity. For Flight TWA-800 to climb 100 feet in one second from an almost level flight would require that at the onset of the climb the plane was under an upward acceleration approaching THREE GRAVITIES or more! The CIA scenario claims the crippled plane climbed 3800 feet in the same 18 seconds... requiring each second of flight (at constant velocity) a climb of 211 feet or about 6.5 gravities at onset or more since it has to trade off speed for altitude!

The Maximum rate of climb of a 747 is 3800 feet PER MINUTE under ideal lift conditions (far from a stall) yet the CIA would have us believe that a plane flying in crippled condition, close to stall, was able to accomplish that task in 18 SECONDS???? The NTSB cartoon claims only half that altitude gain... It would STILL require more time than can be accounted for.

Both the NTSB and CIA claim that the uncontrolled engines "propelled" the noseless plane higher and faster accounting for much of the altitude gain, overcoming the loss of lift caused by the incorrect angle of attack by sheer thrust. More bullpucky. The most powerful engines mounted on the 747-400, according to Boeing, are the Rolls-Royce RB211-524H which can produce a maximum 60,600 lbs of thrust each. The four engines on FL800 can only produce 242,400 lbs of thrust at full throttle. Even if they were fully producing thrust, they are incapable of moving the 800,000 Lb aircraft upward by their own power without the aerodynamic lift forces being applied to the PROPERLY angled wing.

The radar track and the final impact position demonstrate that FL800 began a ballistic fall at the moment it lost its nose... and unless you want to invalidate the laws of physics, the force of gravity, and hundreds of years of experience in ballistics, you cannot add in 1200-3800 feet of additional altitude and have the same ballistic track AND wreckage locations. It ain't possible.

If either the CIA or NTSB cartoons were true, the active radar sweeps every 4.4 seconds would have returned at least 3 blips of the plane in various points of the mythical climb. Neither radar showed any climb at all. They showed a ballistic fall... no power, no acceleration beyond that of gravity, and certainly no mysterious, aerodynamically impossible climb.

[kylaka]

The wings assume an angle of attack which produces an instant stall. The wings are no longer capable of presenting themselves at an angle to the relative wind which would produce any lift, except perhaps momentarily, like a leaf fluttering down from a tree. Stick your hand out the window of a moving car sometime and try it by simulating the shape of an airplane wing, and varying the angle.

That said, even a stone can fly if its got some really bigtime thrust, as in jet fighters. In that case the wings angle of attack happens to be whichever way the thing is pointed, provided it is producing thrust.

[JohnFiorentino]

Very well said..........Let me also reiterate, so as not to place any undue burdens on anyone here.

THE ISSUE HERE IS THE LAWSUIT FILED BY CAPT. LAHR FOR RELEASE OF THE DATA UPON WHICH NTSB RELIED IN PRODUCING THEIR VIDEO ANIMATION. IF THEY ARE AS COCK SURE OF THEIR POSITION AS THIER DEFENDERS ON THIS THREAD ARE, THE EASIEST WAY TO END THIS "DEBATE" IS TO SIMPLY PRODUCE THE DATA.

THERE REALLY IS NO BURDEN ON THOSE OF US HERE TO PROVE THE FACT THAT ONCE THE AIRCRAFT LOST IT'S NOSE IT STALLED AND BEGAN A BALLISTIC DECENT, AS EVERY OTHER EVIDENTIARY INDICATOR (DEBRIS FIELD, WITNESS ACCOUNTS, RADAR, ETC.) AMPLY INDICATES.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE IS ON NTSB.

[blackdog]

Last I checked, Bernouli's principle did not validate the lift charicteristics of conical shaped items which additionally have no thrust, downward gravity force, and only drag to accelerate and climb. I am not one to bandy the whole 800 issue much, but the arguments put forth by the NTSB really are fictional. Either that or there is a whole other set of physical laws that only they are privvy to.

[blackdog]

Yeah, those cooky airline captains, what do they know? How would they possibly know anything about physics in flight? What peer groups do they associate with that would have any real first hand knowlege of aerodynamics? He might even have the tin foil gall to have flown a 747. Shoot the tin foiled, wolf crying, rumor monger.

[JohnFiorentino]

THE BRUNTINGTHORPE 747

[Republic]

That explains the upward momentum of the craft, but it does NOT explain the hundreds of witnesses who saw something else streaming towards the craft from the horizon. To discount these witnesses is going to eventually bring the truth to light.

The clintons and the people involved in this should be imprisoned.

Especially if it was a terrorist hit instead of friendly fire.

George Stephanopoulis's slip of tongue on the news show team will forever stay in our hearts. He knows. And I think we all know, too.

[applemac_g4]

"That said, even a stone can fly if its got
somereally bigtime thrust, as in jet
fighters.In that case the wings angle of
attackhappens to be whichever way
thething is pointed, provided it is
producingthrust."

The thrust to weight ratio of any commercial airliner is nowhere near what is needed for this sort of performance - even if the jet is flying empty.

After 800 was struck by a missile and suffered an instantaneous CG shift, it would have entered an accelerated stall in short order.

Incidentally, instantaneous CG shift can be a serious threat to cargo aircraft in which pallets are improperly secured. If I'm not mistaken, a DC-8 (or perhaps a 707) crashed in Miami after takeoff as a result of this.