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

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

[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

[FormerLurker]

Again Asmodeus, you have not provided ONE iota of your "expert" credentials or given us ANY reason to believe that you have any. Go ahead, get my post pulled. Maybe you have friends in "high places". But those who read this before it get's pulled will know what you are all about, if they didn't know already.

[FormerLurker]

You know, I had actually taken a fair amount of time typing the first response to Asmodeus's ad hominiem attack against not just me, but against everyone here including all of those from ARAP. I really don't appreciate the fact that you pulled that FIRST response, typos and all...

[FormerLurker]

In fact Asmodeus, next time you resort to ANY personal attack or ad hominiem innuendo, I'm hitting the abuse button.

[First_Salute]

A four-engine aircraft leaking fuel from airframe failure, leaves a larger "squiggly" or "cigar roll" of white smoke trailing it, than it does during the normal circumstances of "dumping fuel. A normal fuel dump is a sight to behold, even still. A plane leaving a contrail, and then dumping from all vents, looks like, well, "an aerial stunt." It makes a really significant cloud.

Some of the witnesses to the after - missile - impact - flight - trajectories of the 747 airframe (that's plural, because there are a series of them, connected end-to-end as the remaining aircraft movement was uncontrolled) ... do not provide enough of a description of the vertical rise of a missile launch; they only cover the possible arch of a missile.

If they were northeast of TWA 800's location, the "flight" of the stricken aircraft could have appeared to be a rising, depending upon when they were looking at it, some of them would have seen an "orange" -like something, arching up, trailing white smoke, and then down (paraphrasing). The aircraft has already had its first explosion(s), thus the trails behind the "orange."

Even setting aside those witnesses, there are definitely plenty of witnesses who do describe a missile launch: the near vertical rise, etc. Some of these witnesses, depending upon their distance to the launch, detected literally the telltale "squiggle" of smoke from the missile's exhaust; while others of them might not have detected that "squiggle."

What a person would see, what they could see, what registers of what they would see, and what registers of what they could see, and why things register or do not, are all to be looked for in their statements and their backgrounds.

I would give Maj. Meyer much credit; not because of his past in terms of his service to our country, but because of this:

How a witness responds, is not only by what they are watching, yet it is also by what is in their registers already, and what such information triggers as the forms of their response.

Maj. Meyer's remarks do respond to his registers, though portions of his description are about an "arching" but no vertical launching.

What get's your attention is not what you first report, on many occasions of watching something happening at high speed. In fact, quite often, some thing "out of the ordinary" occurs to trigger your reflexes to "swing around" and "take notice."

We have, as humans, various recorder systems. That triggering event, registers, but is not so easy to recall --- that ability varies from person to person. The "start the tape" portion tends to be filled with description and is substantially reported over a series of interviews, as well as challenged.

Yet there is much value in the "trigger."

Maj. Meyer is a worthy witness, and there is a good probability that the in-shore missile's launch "got his attention." His time away from the combat theatre, would have helped to stall his "start tape" because his having "been there, done that" would challenge "the here and now."

For example, many men have difficulty with pistol target shooting, at the start, while women are better shots at the start. The women are perhaps more nervous, but they have not a lot of pre-conceived notions about the sense of the pistol; they react actually, somewhat more naturally. While the men tend to over-control; they have more baggage in the registers which comes to bear.

Maj. Meyer had to sort out the conflict of, "that's a launch," as such registered many times in Southeast Asia ... versus "what is going on here." There's a delay, as things get sorted out, before "start the tape" is a command finally issued, and so he records. His memories of Vietnam overcontrolled the present, long enough to delay the "tape start" until after the missile had begun to "arch over" on high.

Furthermore, his description of the first explosive signatures in the air, were literally "dead on." He describes aerial bursts, "hard," high-velocity type explosions which are typical for warheads.

Those remarks are his first, regarding any explosions --- it is not until later that he remarks about the fireball.

I believe he saw the in-shore missile launch. It brough back quite alot from his registers, and that required some fast sorting of the material, before he got things under control. Notably, being the veteran that he is, he still managed to comport himself to the emergency and usher the HH-60 out to the pending crash scene.

They arrived their rapidly enough to encounter still-descending debris, and they so-warned a nearby C-130 flight's crew, which then held off for a short while.

[Swordmaker]

Lurker, you are misunderstanding the graph.

The speeds calculated and presented on the graph DO NOT represent airspeed or any velocity the aircraft itself experienced... all they are reporting is the APPARENT GROUND SPEED needed to cover the GROUND DISTANCE recorded by the radar. We know the positions the radar indicated the aircraft was in at specified times... we know the periodicity of the radar sweeps and these have been plotted on a TWO DIMENSIONAL (XY Coordinate) plat. We know nothing at all of the THIRD DIMENSION (Z), the altitude, and the changes taking place in that vector.

Looking at the graphic, and assuming the plotting is accurate, I seriously question the speed listed between the sweep at 31:13:49 and the sweep at 31:21:13 of ~385 knots. That is an enormous increase in momentum that I cannot believe. I think that number may be a TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR and that the actual speed for that sweep should be ~358 knots. The reason I question this is that if the plotting is accurate, the distance between the two sweeps appears to be identical to the distance between the last transponder sweep and the sweep at 31:21:13 where the speed was calculated at 359 knots. Using the formula of r1=D1/t1 = D2/t2 = r2 where D1 and t1 are equal to D2 and t2, then r1 also has to equal r2. In addition, in a ballistic arc, an object with an upward momentum will continue to climb until gravity slows that climb to zero and then starts a fall. Absent any other forces, the time and distance from the start of the ballistic arc to peak is equal to the time and distance from peak to return to the start altitude, and so is the rate at which it occurs. Since the plat shows identical distances and times, then the rates must be the same. That means that the it IS a typographical error and the rate between sweeps 2 and 3 was really ~358 knots. When this correction is made, it shows essentially the plotting of a ballistic arc on the XY coordinates from the perspective of high in the Z coordinate. Plot the ballistic fall in three dimensions from the data and then look at it from the Z coordinate and the plat above is exactly what you would see.

Then explain the forward motion in excess of 300 knots from 20:31:16:49 to 20:31:30:37 if the plane had stalled and was sinking like a rock.

The explanation is that the plane had an enourmous forward (East North East) vectored momentum. The law of conservation of momentum says that it will keep moving in that direction absent any forces to the contrary. TWA800 did have some forces acting on it... drag and gravity.

If we grant the NTSB its CWT explosion as the initiating event, we MUST ask if the wings would still be attached. The Center Wing Tank is essentially a BOX GIRDER that connects the wings to the fuselage. IF it catastrophicly failed, it would no longer have the strength to support the fuselage on the wings... and if that is the case, then most likely the wings folded or were broken off when the girder losts its integrity. The plane could not have climbed by lift, nor could it have glided.

You are postulating things that cannot be accounted for in the known timeline, starting point or resting position of the wreckage. If the plane had "power dived", "glided" or "leveled off", then the wreckage would NOT BE WHERE IT WAS FOUND! You are postulating the impossible.

Arlen Spectre invented the "Magic Bullet" and you are attempting to invent the "Magic 747."

I repeat, the data confirm a ballistic fall. Period.

[FormerLurker]

IF it catastrophicly failed, it would no longer have the strength to support the fuselage on the wings... and if that is the case, then most likely the wings folded or were broken off when the girder losts its integrity.

The point at which ONE of the wings came off (notably the left wing) was at around 21:31:34:97. That much is known. If the plane had lost either wing PRIOR to that, the course of the plane would have been more erratic, as that witnessed at 21:31:34:97. If the plane had wings, it couldn't drop at 300+ mph. The drag on the forward section of the fuselage just may have provided enough of a force to compensate for the loss of the nose in relation to the plane's center of gravity, thus allowing for a glide. Of course the plane was dropping vertically at the same time, and did in fact go into a purely ballistic arc eventually, but due to its aerodynamic properties it didn't drop like a rock would.

A relatively pure ballistic fall would be that which occurred to the nose of the plane. If you look at the radar graph, you'll see that it came down much sooner that the main body. The reason for that is that it had no wings and it DID drop like a rock.

As mach0.8 demonstrated previously, a skydiver skydiving from a balloon at over 100,000 feet encountering almost zero friction for 12,000 feet or so reached a terminal velocity of 614 mph. I find it difficult to believe that a 747 with its wings intact, albeit missing its nose section, could drop vertically at 307 mph.

That figure sure enough might make the ballistic fall scenario work, but it isn't a realistic value. The figure you give is itself a "magic bullet", a necessary magical element for the assumed scenario to be plausible. As such, something else had to have happened to TWA 800.

Ok, allowing for a possible typographical error where the forward speed should be 359 instead of 395 knots (and we all know that I've had my own share of typos), the forward speed of the aircraft STILL increased. For it to increase, ESPECIALLY considering that it had lost its nose section at around 20:31:16, it HAD to have picked up some kinetic energy somehow. For it to do so, it HAD to have dived between 20:31:12 and 20:31:16. As it had apparently dived prior to 20:31:16, a lower terminal velocity would fit into a ballistic fall calculation.

[FormerLurker]

If you'd like to view it, point your browser to http://www.ntsb.gov//events/twa800/gallery.htm.

Gee, I wonder why the link doesn't work. I take it that this wasn't the same as their "zoom-climb" video that they released to the public?

[JohnFiorentino]

So, we can assume from this rather self appreciative advertisement that the resulting cartoon fabrication was a well thought out, meticulously documented INTENTIONAL FRAUD.

Is that the way you read it?

[Asmodeus]

"So, we can assume from this rather self appreciative advertisement that the resulting cartoon fabrication was a well thought out, meticulously documented INTENTIONAL FRAUD."

How would you describe these graphics which you obviously consider to also be non-factual "cartoons", keeping in mind your earlier comments documented below:

Yahoo TWA800 forum - 15 March 2002
From: John Fiorentino
Subject: Re: [twa800] A little sensitive, aren't we?
[excerpt][quote][emphasis added - caps yours]
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]

Yahoo TWA800 forum - April 12, 2002
From: John Fiorentino
Subject: Re: [twa800] Kabofovic revisited
[excerpt][quote][emphasis added]
Most here are convinced a "missile" did the dirty deed. I'm not, not yet at least. The initial assessment was "bomb". I thought so to. I still do.
[end quote]

[FormerLurker]

Bill Donaldson was such a whiz bank interviewer and witness report analyst that he didn't even notice that witness Meyer could not possibly have seen a missile shootdown of Flight 800 at 13,800 feet only 3-4 seconds before he saw the Massive Fireball explode in its falling wreckage at 5500-7500 feet.

Just another logical flaw in your ficticious timeline Asmodeus. Did you forget that the CWT DID in fact explode AFTER TWA800 was hit by missiles? The fireball that Major Meyer witnessed was that caused by the CWT explosion. The MASSIVE fireball was witnessed later when the left wing came off the plane at ~20:31:35, where the plane veered off to the right on the radar track. When the left wing came off, all of the fuel from the wing tanks gushed out and ignited, resulting in the massive fireball that was observed by many of the witnesses.

Again, as you question the validity of the forensic analysis by members of ARAP, why don't you just go ahead and supply us with YOUR credentials so that we might understand WHY you continue to refer to yourself as an "expert", one who is more qualified and talented than REAL experts..

[FormerLurker]

Let me rephrase that a little;

Again, as you question the validity of the forensic analysis by members of ARAP, why don't you just go ahead and supply us with YOUR credentials so that we might understand WHY you continue to refer to yourself as an "expert", one who is more qualified and talented than those who ARE highly regarded as experts in their respective fields..

[JohnFiorentino]

To: Asmodeus

"FBI Chief Forensic Metallurgist William Tobin had also determined that there was no physical evidence to support the notion that Flight 800 was the victim of a missile or bomb by early or mid September 1997"


NOW MY DEAR ASMODEUS, WE ALL KNOW TOBIN REACHED HIS "CONCLUSIONS" in Sept. 1996.....NOT 1997....Now don't we?


336 posted on 8/4/02 7:15 AM Eastern by JohnFiorentino

To: Asmodeus

ASMODEUS SAYS:


"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.


348 posted on 8/4/02 9:25 PM Eastern by JohnFiorentino

Asmodeus says....

"The untenable "explanation" videos also arose out of that same erroneous assumption.."

http://www.100megspop3.com/bark/800MslWitMyth.html

There is a continuing dispute between those who say yes which includes the NTSB experts and those who say no who are most if not all "shootdown" tinfoil hats. Frankly, that issue appears to me to be immaterial because [1] neither of the video's were ever intended to be proof of the cause of the crash, [2] the overwhelming evidence that the 747 was not the victim of a missile or bomb, and [3] the tinfoil hats haven't been able to present any compelling evidence to the contrary.


"Frankly, that issue appears to me to be immaterial"


What an interesting line of reasoning. Asmodeus believes it is "immaterial" that the very organizations which produced video portrayals of Fl800's demise--video's which he himself calls "untenable"--should on the other hand be believed when they present their "conclusions" re: the causation of the air disaster.


568 posted on 8/11/02 7:33 PM Eastern by JohnFiorentino

[FormerLurker]

only 3-4 seconds before he saw the Massive Fireball explode in its falling wreckage at 5500-7500 feet.

As the massive fireball apparently occured at ~20:31:35 as that is where the left wing came off the plane, the altitude at that point should be around 3500 feet. If you want the calculations for that, let me know...

[Swordmaker]

As mach0.8 demonstrated previously, a skydiver skydiving from a balloon at over 100,000 feet encountering almost zero friction for 12,000 feet or so reached a terminal velocity of 614 mph. I find it difficult to believe that a 747 with its wings intact, albeit missing its nose section, could drop vertically at 307 mph.

I don't care what you "believe", Lurker. Belief has NOTHING to do with it. The facts are that the aircraft had to cover a certain distance and and certain altitude, both of which are known... and to do that THE MATH SAYS IT HAD TO REACH THOSE VELOCITIES! The best fit for the time, the radar returns, the starting and ending points, and all other data that we have is a ballistic arc from almost the moment of the Initiating Event.

As to the calculated terminal velocity. According to the data they have released, the CIA and the NTSB video's BOTH apparently used a terminal velocity between either 407 or 450 Feet per second. Asmodeus claim that the "falling flames" reached the surface in 8 seconds also seems to be a terminal velocity of 660 feet per second which calculates out to 450 MPH!

Ok, allowing for a possible typographical error where the forward speed should be 359 (sic) instead of 395 (sic) knots (and we all know that I've had my own share of typos), the forward speed of the aircraft STILL increased. For it to increase, ESPECIALLY considering that it had lost its nose section at around 20:31:16, it HAD to have picked up some kinetic energy somehow. For it to do so, it HAD to have dived between 20:31:12 and 20:31:16. As it had apparently dived prior to 20:31:16, a lower terminal velocity would fit into a ballistic fall calculation.

Excuse me, Lurk, but I really don't see any gain in forward speed in the radar tracks. After calculating that the 385 knots had to be a typo for 358 knots, we have a list of apparent ground speeds as follows:

31:12:?? - 31:16:49 --- 359 knots
31:16:49 - 31:21:13 --- 358 knots (corrected)
31:21:13 - 31:25:72 --- 321 knots
31:25:72 - 31:30:37 --- 303 knots
31:30:37 - 31:34:97 --- 110 knots

All of the figures for knots have a certain measurement error to be accounted for... but they show a decrease in apparent ground speed.

Finally, I repeat the final paragraphs from my post #192 on this thread:

"Ballistic Fall.
The captain of the NOAA research ship Rude entered Flight 800's last secondary radar position, speed, heading and gross weight into his computer and it predicted the landing point by calculating a ballistic fall. He went to that spot and immediately found the main wreckage including the fuselage, wings and engines. "

Unless you want to repeal the law of gravity, there literally is not enough time for ANY climb at all.

Or power dive... or glide.

Period.

[JohnFiorentino]

How do you explain the wings in the debris field approx 2.5 miles from the IE?

[Asmodeus]

It appears from your "reply" #693 that you're still intent on dodging questions raised by your own postings. But, of course, you know that, don't you.

[FormerLurker]

First of all Swordmaker, let's just reiterate what we both DO agree on. There was NO zoom-climb. It is physically impossible due to the original altitude of the plane and the time that it would take to fall from that altitude. Additionally, it is aerodynamically impossible due to the fact that there was no engine power after the nose came off and that there would have been insufficient lift for the plane to climb, especially at the rate of climb necessary for the CIA and NTSB scenarios to work. Finally, as there was no appreciable loss of forward velocity as would be present IF the plane had climbed, it is obvious that it didn't. Now we DO agree on that so far, right?

Ok, now on to points that we disagree about.

I don't care what you "believe", Lurker. Belief has NOTHING to do with it.

Let's change the word "believe" to the word "know". I KNOW that if the wings were still on the aircraft, it wasn't falling like a rock would fall. It WAS "flying" in such a way that it DID travel significantly furthur than the nose of the aircraft. In fact, the plane veered to the northeast off its original line of travel. This is readily apparent from both the radar graphic and the debris field. I'll post the full radar graphic again, and provide a link to the .PDF debris field document.

TWA Flight 800 Debris Field

The facts are that the aircraft had to cover a certain distance and and certain altitude, both of which are known... and to do that THE MATH SAYS IT HAD TO REACH THOSE VELOCITIES!

Actually, if you consider the fact that TWA 800 was in a AERODYNAMIC DIVE on its way down, one COULD expect the vertical velocity to reach or EXCEED 450 feet/second.

It is virtually impossible to know when exactly TWA800 began to dive, but we COULD assume that it happened at around the time it lost its nose. The nose section would travel in a purely ballistic manner, as it is shaped similar to a projectile such as a bullet. And just as a bullet would decelerate due to friction with the air, TWA 800's nose decelerated and dropped ballistically. Although there isn't much in the way of radar data for the nose debris, we can see that it did in fact impact much sooner and closer to the separation event than did the main body of the aircraft.

The main body of the aircraft on the other hand went into a DIVE, and although retaining much of its forward motion, accelerated in overall airspeed due to gravity. It is virtually impossible to calculate the exact pitch of the dive due to an astronomical number of variables that are unknown, such as the force due to friction in relation to airspeed and angle of attack, the rate of change of those variables, the exact condition of the aircraft at any given moment, temperature of the air, air density, exact altitude at any given time, airspeed, initial pitch, position (and condition) of control surfaces, etc....

So we can just take a rough guess and assume a downwards pitch of 45 degrees. In fact, if you look at ARAP's Fall Chart, it is apparent that what they are calling a ballistic fall looks more like a 45 degree dive for a period of time. It is not perfectly parabolic as one would see in a pure ballistic fall graph. Given that, we can estimate airspeed and vertical velocity for each sweep of the Islip radar if we were so inclined..

Given that the acceleration due to gravity is still 32 feet/second², ideally the amount of acceleration in airspeed due to a 45 degree dive is;

A_as = 32 * sin(45) = 22.63 feet/second²

This is in relation to the notion that the airframe is sliding down an inclined plane, where the plane is the air in relation to the airframe. The force of gravity would be applied at an angle of 45 degrees, with the force due to the air against the bottom of the airframe in equilibrium with that component of the force of gravity pushing downwards against it.

To determine the resulting vertical acceleration due to this motion, we can determine that by looking at that component of acceleration in relation to the acceleration in airspeed.

A_v = A_as * sin(45) = 16 feet/second²

Now there IS deceleration in the forward direction due to friction caused by air, even though there would be a component of acceleration due to gravity in that direction. This DOES in fact cause the airframe to move in a arc, although not a purely BALLISTIC arc. There is also the fact that as the pitch changes, the vertical acceleration changes as well, increasing towards 32 feet/second² as the plane appoaches a vertical dive.

Avoiding the calculations (for now) in relation to estimates of altitude taking these factors into consideration, we can simply use Pythagorean's Theorem to see what the airspeed might have been at 20:31:30.

Given the forward speed of 303 knots (511 feet/sec) and assuming a vertical speed of 450 feet/sec, we'll solve for airspeed;
V = sqrt(511² + 450²) = ~681 feet/sec = ~403 knots = ~464 mph

So it IS possible from looking at the actual airspeed for TWA800 to be going down at 450 feet/sec. In fact, it probably went even faster than that after 20:31:30 where its forward speed had slowed to 110 knots. That is probably what caused the left wing to rip off, along with the fact that there was already structural damage to the aircraft.

So yes, Swordmaker, I can see HOW it COULD FLY at that speed, although the fall IS NOT ballistic. However, the additional speed picked up in the duration of time that its dive was mostly vertical would make up for any amount of altitude that it didn't lose initially in relation to the fact that it was diving rather than falling...

Unless you want to repeal the law of gravity, there literally is not enough time for ANY climb at all.

I don't want to repeal the Laws of Gravity, nor do I find it necessary to do so in order to describe what I just did...

[Asmodeus]

It appears from FormerLurker's Reply #675 that he has inferred from your comments that you're accusing me of infecting your computer with a virus.

Spreading computer viruses is a felony crime. If either of you has any evidence on who infected your computer with a virus, please present it to the Moderators and law enforcement authorities at this time.

I didn't do it. I don't know who might have done it.

[FormerLurker]

Do you have a guilty concience Asmodeus? Show me how I specifically mentioned YOU in my post to JohnFiorentino. When I said "He", that could mean anyone, as John had not mentioned you specifically, did he?

Pop-ups ARE a way of spreading viruses, and whoever he (or she) is that IS spreading a virus COULD possibly spread that virus via a popup.

You don't know anyone like that, do you Asmodeus? Nobody is ACCUSING you, although there may be some suspicions, which aren't the same as an ACCUSATION.

BTW, have you decided to provide your credentials yet in order to demonstrate your professed "expert" status?