"Mollycoddling" TWA #800
Billy Beck
Did everyone here see the CIA Animated Short? I did. Did you
see the part where they showed their work? I didn't.
~~~~~
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:47:03 -0500
From: ez...@CapAccess.org (Edward W. Zehr)
Subject: CAS: Re: Trading airspeed for altitude
Oops -- observing the quadratic relationships this time:
2 2
V - V
h = 2 1
----------
2 g
Plugging Hugh's numbers:
V = 250 mi/hr X 5280 ft/mi = 367 ft/sec
2 ----------
3600 sec/hr
V = 160 mi/hr = 235 ft/sec
1
2 2
h = 367 - 235 = 1234 ft
-------------
2 X 32.2
I believe that agrees with the estimate Hugh mentioned.
Plugging Steve Maher's numbers:
2 2
h = 587 - 264 = 4268 ft
--------------
2 X 32.2
So, what does this tell us? Not much really. The fact that the a/c
may have sufficient kinetic energy stored up to climb 4,000 ft does
not mean that it will climb that much, or even that it will climb
at all. The crux of the matter is the mechanism whereby this K.E.
might be converted to P.E. -- and that involves consideration of
the force balance acting upon the airframe.
I suppose it would be possible to gin up some steady state
equations of motion and try to fit all the horrible stuff that
happened to TWA-800 into them, but that sounds kind of like work --
besides, I don't think I'd believe a word of it when it was
finished. The problem is, many of the coefficients in the equations
would be radically altered by the mishap. Stability derivatives for
60 percent of an airplane are not easy to find (or calculate).
So I'll just do a little calculation on the back of an envelope
here and hope that I can con -- er, that is convince somebody that
it makes sense. Now, we do know some pretty significant stuff about
this airplane. We know that it weighed about half-a-million pounds,
for example. Now suppose the static margin (distance between cg and
cp) had gone to about a foot in the unstable direction. That would
mean there was a half-million foot-pound couple acting to pitch the
a/c nose up. How long would it take for the a/c to stall because
the pilot was not on the job, frantically giving it nose-down
elevator? (He was in the nose when it fell off, you will recall).
The angular acceleration can readily be determined from the
relationship:
Torque = angular acceleration X moment of inertia
But what is the moment of inertia of a loaded 747 about the pitch
axis? I reckon it's about 33,000,000 slug feet sq. Why do I say
that? Oh, I dunno -- seems about right. (Just kidding -- see
reference below).
So, based on one foot of negative static margin:
6
angular accel. = 0.5 X 10 ft lbs 2
------------------ = 0.0152 rad/sec
6 2
33 X 10 slug ft
The angular acceleration in deg/sec sq. would be
2 2
0.0152 rad/sec X 180 deg/rad = 0.87 deg/sec
---
pi
Angular velocity is determined by integrating:
t
omega = [snakesign] (angular accel) dt = 0.87 t deg/sec
0
Angular displacement is determined by integrating:
t 2
theta = [snakesign] (0.87 t) dt = 0.87 t
0 --
2
Now then, we can tabulate results for times up to 10 sec.
t (sec) theta (deg)
-------------------
0 0
1 0.434
2 1.736
3 3.907
4 6.945
5 10.851
6 15.626
7 21.269
8 27.78
9 35.159 <--- stall?
10 43.406
So, it looks as though the a/c stalled somewheres around 9 or 10
sec. But that one foot of negative static margin was just a W.A.G.
Could we come up with a more reasonable figure?
Well, a 747 is about 220 feet long. James Sanders said in his book
that the fwd. fusleage separated just ahead of the wings. This
appears to be corroborated by the NTSB "Sequencing Report" which
noted that "The fuselage pieces recovered from the red area are
enveloped between fuselage station 1000 and STA 741." The red area
had all of the cockpit debris. FS 1000 would be 1000/12 = 83 feet
from the nose. That would be 38 percent of the fuselage. Wow -- so
if we assumed that the weight were uniformly distributed (it isn't,
but that seems conservative -- the aft end is less dense), then
sawing 83 feet off the seesaw should move the cg aft 42 feet.
(Okay, it's flaky, but do you have a better idea?) Tell ya what,
I'll only move it back 21 feet. (I'm giving away the store).
So how will this affect stability? To determine this we must know
the static margin, which can be calculated from the relationship:
SM = CMA / CLA = Xcg - Xcp (given as a fraction of the
mean geometric chord, cbar).
For the power approach flight condition: (221 fps @ S.L):
SM = 1.45 / 5.67 = 0.256
The mean geometric chord length, cbar = 27.3 feet.
SM * 27.3 ft = 6.98 ft.
The same calculation for the low cruise flight condition gives:
SM * cbar = 6.20 ft. I'll use an average of 6.6 ft.
So the negative static margin in feet will be:
6.6 - 21 = -14.4 feet -- say 14 ft negative SM.
Redoing the angular displacement calculation with this static
margin gives the following result:
t (sec) theta (deg)
----------------------
0 0
1 6.077
2 24.307
3 54.691 <--- stall
4 97.229
5 151.921
6 218.766
7 297.764
8 388.917
9 492.223
10 607.683
Yeah, I know, pitch angle is not the same as angle of attack. In
this case it hardly matters. Even with the overwhelmingly
conservative assumptions I have made, it should be clear that the
aircraft was dropping out of the sky within a few seconds at the
outside. (I didn't even consider the effect of drag due to the
truncated fuselage -- which would be massive).
So how high would it cliimb in 3 seconds? The vertical component
of velocity would be:
Vv = Vt sin (gamma)
Where Vv = vertical velocity; Vt = total velociity
gamma = angle the velocity vector makes with the horizontal
To do this properly we would have to determine the angle of attack,
but that's too much work. Since this is all b'guess & b'gosh, let's
just assume the total velocity is vectored at half the max. pitch
angle for the whole 3 seconds. (Quick & dirty, that's the stuff).
h = Vv t = Vt sin(gamma) t
h = 587 ft/sec X sin (30) X 3 sec
h = 880 ft
There, I've mollycoddled it along, put lifts under its heels and
given it every possible break, but the best it can dribble out is
a paltry 880 feet. This is all highly fanciful, of course. I doubt
that it climbed at all.
Questions? Suggestions? Stinging rebukes? I invite comments from
anyone with an interest in this issue. The calculations shown
here are rudimentary, but I realize that this area is not familiar
to most people, so I will be glad to answer any questions.
Everything I have done here can be explained quite simply.
-- EZ
REFERENCE:
Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls,
Part I, Universiity of Kansas. pp. 635 & 636
Aircraft stability derivatives and basic parameters are
given for the Boeing 747 for three flight conditions.
~~~~~
Billy
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti
On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:23:18 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
wrote:
[snip of back of the envelope calculations]
>So how high would it cliimb in 3 seconds? The vertical component
>of velocity would be:
>
> Vv = Vt sin (gamma)
>
>Where Vv = vertical velocity; Vt = total velociity
>gamma = angle the velocity vector makes with the horizontal
>
[snip]
> h = Vv t = Vt sin(gamma) t
>
> h = 587 ft/sec X sin (30) X 3 sec
>
> h = 880 ft
>
>There, I've mollycoddled it along, put lifts under its heels and
>given it every possible break, but the best it can dribble out is
>a paltry 880 feet. This is all highly fanciful, of course. I doubt
>that it climbed at all.
>
>Questions? Suggestions? Stinging rebukes? I invite comments from
>anyone with an interest in this issue.
[snip]
Once the aircraft stalls, it does not instantaneously drop; the stall
is merely when the wing stops generating lift. In this back of the
envelope calculation, the aircraft purportedly has a vertical velocity
component of 587 ft/sec X sin (30) = 293.5 ft/sec. With g = 32
ft/sec2 and assuming no other forces in the vertical component (a big
assumption, I know), it will take an additional 9 seconds before the
vertical component drops to 0, i.e., the plane begins to fall. During
those 9 seconds, the aircraft will rise an additional 1346 ft, for a
_total_ rise of 2226 ft. Not so paltry after all, perhaps.
Regards,
George
**********************************************************************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc., MS Z310 Fax: (703) 610-1556
7525 Colshire Drive E-Mail: gbiz...@mitretek.org
McLean, VA 22102-7400
**********************************************************************
Paul Siller
gbiz...@mitretek.org (Dr. George O. Bizzigotti) wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:23:18 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>wrote:
>[snip of back of the envelope calculations]
>>So how high would it cliimb in 3 seconds? The vertical component
>>of velocity would be:
>>
>> Vv = Vt sin (gamma)
>>
>>Where Vv = vertical velocity; Vt = total velociity
>>gamma = angle the velocity vector makes with the horizontal
>>
>[snip]
>> h = Vv t = Vt sin(gamma) t
>>
>> h = 587 ft/sec X sin (30) X 3 sec
>>
>> h = 880 ft
>>
>>There, I've mollycoddled it along, put lifts under its heels and
>>given it every possible break, but the best it can dribble out is
>>a paltry 880 feet. This is all highly fanciful, of course. I doubt
>>that it climbed at all.
>>
>>Questions? Suggestions? Stinging rebukes? I invite comments from
>>anyone with an interest in this issue.
>[snip]
>Once the aircraft stalls, it does not instantaneously drop; the stall
>is merely when the wing stops generating lift. In this back of the
>envelope calculation, the aircraft purportedly has a vertical velocity
>component of 587 ft/sec X sin (30) = 293.5 ft/sec. With g = 32
>ft/sec2 and assuming no other forces in the vertical component (a big
>assumption, I know), it will take an additional 9 seconds before the
>vertical component drops to 0, i.e., the plane begins to fall. During
>those 9 seconds, the aircraft will rise an additional 1346 ft, for a
>_total_ rise of 2226 ft. Not so paltry after all, perhaps.
Pardon my interruption doc but I understand a stall is actually
defined as the the point where the lift provided by the wing is
insufficuent to counter the weight of the aircraft.
So in a stalled condition, the wings can still be providing a
large amount of lift though not sufficient to overcome weight.
The aircraft "mushes" to earth. There is common misconception
that when the airfoil stalls, that ALL lift is immediately gone.
Its merely a point of clarification. Indeed I think it helps your
calculations.
--------sil...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca
(Please remember to remove the smiley face from return address)
"Experience is not what happens to you,
it is what you do with what happens to you." >>>Aldous Huxley
Bill Kasper
Instead of "Surrender Dorothy", wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) sky-wrote:
=
= Did everyone here see the CIA Animated Short? I did. Did you
=see the part where they showed their work? I didn't.
=
<snip>
Well fuck me *dead*, Beck.
You should have been an, ah, accountant.
Or something...
Sheesh. Well done.
You aren't feeling "depressed", are you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kasper, Purveyor of Fine Opinions on Various Topics.
Author, Consultant, Cowboy.
misc.activism.militia - Piping hot statists served fresh daily!
Evolution teaches us that the stupid should die at their own hand.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to
such acts as are injurious to others." - Thomas Jefferson
Find Waldo: bill Dot kasper at U S A Dot Net
Billy Beck
bill....@usa.removethis.net (Bill Kasper) wrote:
>Instead of "Surrender Dorothy", wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) sky-wrote:
>=
>= Did everyone here see the CIA Animated Short? I did. Did you
>=see the part where they showed their work? I didn't.
>=
><snip>
>
> Well fuck me *dead*, Beck.
> You should have been an, ah, accountant.
> Or something...
>
> Sheesh. Well done.
>
> You aren't feeling "depressed", are you?
I didn't *do* that. It would have taken me a year of refresher
to do that.
That was Edward Zehr's work. (I included headers from his post.)
He worked as an engineer at Grumman on, among other things, the X-29
project.
Billy
Ray Heizer
In article <65j2am$l7$1...@winter.news.erols.com>, "Barbara Yoon"
<by...@erols.com> wrote:
< Dr. George O. Bizzigotti:
< > Once the aircraft stalls, it does not instantaneously drop; the stall is
< > merely when the wing stops generating lift. ...back of the envelope
< > calculation, the aircraft purportedly has a vertical velocity component
< > of 587 ft/sec X sin (30) = 293.5 ft/sec. With g = 32 ft/sec2 and
< > assuming no other forces in the vertical component, it will take an
< > additional 9 seconds before the vertical component drops to 0, i.e.,
< > the plane begins to fall. During those 9 seconds, the aircraft will rise
< > an additional 1346 ft, for a _total_ rise of 2226 ft. Not so paltry...
<
< Are you saying that the 747 was gaining altitude at about 200 mph?!
< That's about the speed of an Indy race car going straight UP...
-- Hmmm ... at that rate it would get up to 35,000 ft. in less than 2
minutes, George.
Barbara Yoon
Michael Rivero
In article <347aaaec...@nntp.mitretek.org>,
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti <gbiz...@mitretek.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:23:18 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>wrote:
>
>[snip of back of the envelope calculations]
>
>>of velocity would be:
>>
>> Vv = Vt sin (gamma)
>>
>>Where Vv = vertical velocity; Vt = total velociity
>>gamma = angle the velocity vector makes with the horizontal
>>
>> h = Vv t = Vt sin(gamma) t
>>
>> h = 587 ft/sec X sin (30) X 3 sec
>>
>> h = 880 ft
>>
>>There, I've mollycoddled it along, put lifts under its heels and
>>given it every possible break, but the best it can dribble out is
>>a paltry 880 feet. This is all highly fanciful, of course. I doubt
>>that it climbed at all.
>>
>>Questions? Suggestions? Stinging rebukes? I invite comments from
>>anyone with an interest in this issue.
>
>Once the aircraft stalls, it does not instantaneously drop; the stall
>envelope calculation, the aircraft purportedly has a vertical velocity
>ft/sec2 and assuming no other forces in the vertical component (a big
>vertical component drops to 0, i.e., the plane begins to fall. During
>those 9 seconds, the aircraft will rise an additional 1346 ft, for a
>
You neglected the drag of the now liftless wings, plus the drag
of the 2/3 length of the fuselage now traveling through the air belly
onward, plus you are ignoring (as is everyone else) that to attain the
vertical component required in such a short interval of time (prior to
the stall) places a 9+ G load on the already weakened airframe.
Even if the wings (which are not designed for 9 G loads) didn't
fail, that severe loading is being applied off to one side of the center
of gravity owing to the absence of the mass of the nose. The plane should
absorb this loading as torque accelerating it's rearward rotation.
Of course, this same fact also applies to the plane prior to the loss
of lift on the wings but after the loss of the nose. The plane isn't
in balance, so upward thrust on the wings doesn't lift the plane, so
much as it accelerates the backward rotation.
Again, a simple experiment demonstrates this. Take a meter stick
or other long stick, balance it on your finger, then lift
your hand. The stick rises, because the upward force is acting
against the stick's center of gravity. In a 747 with it's nose, the
wings act against the plane's center of gravity (plus some balancing
from the tail) and the plane moves upward.
Now place the end of the same stick on your finger. This simulates the
747 minus it's nose, with the lift (wings) at the front end. Note that the
immediate tendancy is for the unsupported end of the stick ( the tail
of the noseless 747) to drop down; the stick, representing the aircraft,
begins to rotate in the air (ignore the fact that it's dropping).
Now, if you repeat the above, but try to push the finger under the end of
the stick up harder and harder (before the stick falls off) you will
notice that the stick does not rise, it rotates faster because the force
is being applied not to to center of gravity, but to one end. No matter how
hard you may fling up the supported end of the stick, the majority of
the energy is absorbed as torque, not lift.
All these calculations about how aircraft can rise are based on the
assumption that the lift is being applied to the center of gravity on a
balanced aircraft, which just does not apply to flight 800 without
the nose.
Again, it's like trying to throw a dart backwards. Neither the flights out
at one end of the dart, nor the wings out on the end of the truncated
747 fuselage, exert force to the center of gravity on their respective
vahicle, but off to one side. The resultant force is not lift, but
torque, and again, the toy glider experiment demonstrates this.
--
Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
SEE WHY THE CIA'S SIMULATION OF TWA 800 IS A FRAUD!
http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/CRASH/TWA/CIAVIDEO/ciavideo.html
John Mazor
Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote in article
<65l6iu$9la$1...@blaze.accessone.com>...
> In article <347aaaec...@nntp.mitretek.org>,
> Dr. George O. Bizzigotti <gbiz...@mitretek.org> wrote:
> >On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:23:18 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
> >wrote:
> >
> >[snip of back of the envelope calculations]
> >
> >>So how high would it cliimb in 3 seconds? The vertical component
> >>of velocity would be:
> >>
> >> Vv = Vt sin (gamma)
> >>
> >>Where Vv = vertical velocity; Vt = total velociity
> >>gamma = angle the velocity vector makes with the horizontal
> >>
> >[snip]
> >> h = Vv t = Vt sin(gamma) t
> >>
> >> h = 587 ft/sec X sin (30) X 3 sec
> >>
> >> h = 880 ft
> >>
> >>There, I've mollycoddled it along, put lifts under its heels and
> >>given it every possible break, but the best it can dribble out is
> >>a paltry 880 feet. This is all highly fanciful, of course. I doubt
> >>that it climbed at all.
> >>
> >>Questions? Suggestions? Stinging rebukes? I invite comments from
> >>anyone with an interest in this issue.
For the umpteenth time, Michael:
Your Mr. Wizard science tricks are great for demonstrating the *principles*
involved.
But toy gliders, darts, and meter sticks supported only under one end do
*absolutely nothing* to make or break the case for calculating how far the
TWA 800 could have climbed after a CFT explosion separated the nose.
The devil is in the details, Michael. You have to make it work in the
details. Just waving your hands and saying "It could be so, so it's gotta
be so!" doesn't make it so.
However, in the spirit of your Mr. Wizard demos, let me add one to
illustrate the point that in stable flight, lift = gravity.
Take a toy glider (or brick or whatever is handy), suspend it from the
ceiling with a spring (or rubber band or whatever is handy). After it
stops bobbing up and down, measure it's height from the floor.
Now remove the nose of the glider (or brick or whatever) and measure the
height from the floor. (Hint: It'll be higher than before.) This
illustrates the *principle* that once the nose departed the aircraft,
disregarding any other forces that came into play, the aircraft would get
an altitude gain simply by virtue of the sudden loss of weight. Yes, this
wouldn't go on for long because of everything else happening -- but hey,
who gives a damn about these minor technical details, eh? It *coulda* made
TWA 800 behave just like the CIA video showed, because I've "proven" my
point with my own Mr. Wizard experiment.
Craig Shields
John Mazor wrote:
<ipsnay>
> However, in the spirit of your Mr. Wizard demos, let me add one to
> illustrate the point that in stable flight, lift = gravity.
>
> Take a toy glider (or brick or whatever is handy), suspend it from the
>
> ceiling with a spring (or rubber band or whatever is handy). After it
>
> stops bobbing up and down, measure it's height from the floor.
>
> Now remove the nose of the glider (or brick or whatever) and measure
> the
> height from the floor. (Hint: It'll be higher than before.) This
> illustrates the *principle* that once the nose departed the aircraft,
> disregarding any other forces that came into play, the aircraft would
> get
> an altitude gain simply by virtue of the sudden loss of weight. Yes,
> this
> wouldn't go on for long because of everything else happening -- but
> hey,
> who gives a damn about these minor technical details, eh? It *coulda*
> made
> TWA 800 behave just like the CIA video showed, because I've "proven"
> my
> point with my own Mr. Wizard experiment.
Very true. Having the Cg sudden shift aft would cause a large lever arm
between the Cg and the Cp. This would pull the airframe up in a sudden
pitch. It's impossible to guess how much momentum would be conserved
during such a maneuver, so it's impossible - 1st semester aerodynamic
calculations by the others notwithstanding - to truly calculate how high
the plane would jump before plummeting.
Alas, no conspiracy buff worth his salt is interested in hearing from an
aero engineer. All of my posts go unanswered!
--
Cheers...Craig
--------
"But, Masters, remember that I am an ass."
-Much Ado About Nothing (William Shakespeare)
--------
"If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic"
--------
TMOliver
Craig Shields wrote:
>
> John Mazor wrote:
>
> <ipsnay>
>
> > Now remove the nose of the glider (or brick or whatever) and measure
> > the
> > height from the floor. (Hint: It'll be higher than before.) This
> > illustrates the *principle* that once the nose departed the aircraft,
> > disregarding any other forces that came into play, the aircraft would
> > get
> > an altitude gain simply by virtue of the sudden loss of weight. Yes,
> > this
> > wouldn't go on for long because of everything else happening -- but
> > hey,
> > who gives a damn about these minor technical details, eh? It *coulda*
> > made
> > TWA 800 behave just like the CIA video showed, because I've "proven"
> > my
> > point with my own Mr. Wizard experiment.
>
> Very true. Having the Cg sudden shift aft would cause a large lever arm
> between the Cg and the Cp. This would pull the airframe up in a sudden
> pitch. It's impossible to guess how much momentum would be conserved
> during such a maneuver, so it's impossible - 1st semester aerodynamic
> calculations by the others notwithstanding - to truly calculate how high
> the plane would jump before plummeting.
>
> Alas, no conspiracy buff worth his salt is interested in hearing from an
> aero engineer. All of my posts go unanswered!
>
Your credentials are not good enough. After all, Rivero is a
self-certified aviator/former NASA scientist/filmaker/artiste de caca de
toro/philosopher-king. Why would he deign to debate with mere mortals,
whilst he can with impunity (and suckling adherents) wallpaper the ether
with absolute claptrap?
The refusal of the conspiracists to consider or accept relatively simple
aerodynamic concepts, while rooting about in a hodge-podge of arcane
hyperbole involving non-existent weapons systems and platforms, is
evidentiary of their almost paranoid fascination with the whole idea of
"the government as Arch-Evil, the Great Satan".
Equally, their corporate denial-state when faced by any evidence
refuting their hyperbolic fables or the ongoing gross lack of any
evidence lending any credence to their wild-ass hypotheses are
themselves pretty good proof that we are dealing not with rational
conjecture, but with the same sort of dementia and naivete prevalent
among many of the simplistic souls in countries such as Iran. The
"really brain-washed" among us are Rivero, Goddard, & smarmy crew, for
most of whom the fantasy has become an all-encompassing mutual feeding
frenzy.
Manifesting the ancillary cast was the recent TV appearance of that
pitiful buffoon, Salinger, a sad and tragic (and seemingly bessotted)
reminder of yesteryear. Unable to string a dozen words together
coherently and trapped again and again by obvious falsehoods on subjects
far afield from TWA800, if he's the best public foot forward for the
conspiracy lobby, we can rest well.
--
"A little learning is a dangerous thing,
But more is inevitably catastrophic!"
****************************************************************
TMOliver/8225 Shadow Wood/Woodway/TX/76712/254-772-2859/776-3332
****************************************************************
"The road to Hell is paved with pleasurable chugholes."
Michael Rivero
In article <01bcfef2$463bdbc0$8192accf@mazorj>,
John Mazor <maz...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>The devil is in the details, Michael. You have to make it work in the
>details. Just waving your hands and saying "It could be so, so it's gotta
>be so!" doesn't make it so.
>
>However, in the spirit of your Mr. Wizard demos, let me add one to
>illustrate the point that in stable flight, lift = gravity.
Lift = gravity????
>
>Take a toy glider (or brick or whatever is handy), suspend it from the
>ceiling with a spring (or rubber band or whatever is handy). After it
>stops bobbing up and down, measure it's height from the floor.
>
>Now remove the nose of the glider (or brick or whatever) and measure the
>height from the floor. (Hint: It'll be higher than before.) This
>illustrates the *principle* that once the nose departed the aircraft,
>disregarding any other forces that came into play, the aircraft would get
>an altitude gain simply by virtue of the sudden loss of weight. Yes, this
>wouldn't go on for long because of everything else happening -- but hey,
>who gives a damn about these minor technical details, eh? It *coulda* made
>TWA 800 behave just like the CIA video showed, because I've "proven" my
>point with my own Mr. Wizard experiment.
>
The fallacy of your experiment is obvious. In your setup, the force
is always acting vertically, and is never interrupted. Neither condition
applies to Flight 800. As the plane pitches upwards, the force vector from
the wings rotates with it. When the wing stalls, lift is gone, which
is to say your rubber band has been cut. When you factor in the severe drag
from the wing, the rubber band has been "retied" to the rear.
While it's appropriate to use a model plane to predict the behavior
of the full sized one, I think adding rubber bands to the experiment to
hold up the plane reveals a certain lack of understanding of expewrimental
principles (not to mention a high degree of desperation).
As you say, it's the details that count. One detail that the CIA, FBI,
ONI and every other liar keeps overlooking is that the CIA's claim
of a stable ascending 747 requires the control surfaces to be more
or less neutral.
But in fact, that's an impossability.
The 747 is not a "fly by wire" aircraft. There are direct mechanical
linkages from the cockpit controls to the various control surfaces on the
wings and the empennage.
As the nose pulled away, those linkages would be pulled to the limits of
their travel before they broke. In the case of paired linkages, after
one broke, the other would be pulled out to it's limit of travel before
it broke.
This means that every control surface on that aircraft was yanked over to
it's extreme position at one end or the other of it's range of motion.
The rudder was slammed either full port or full starboard, the elevators
either full up or full down, and the spoilers/ailerons would be set for
max deflection to port or to starboard. And they would stay there until
all four hydraulic systems lost pressure.
I'm sure it will be obvious what such violent alterations to the control
surfaces would do to the jet at 340 knots. The plane would yaw severly
from the hard over rudder. The effect of the elevators would probably be
minimal compared to the pitch up caused by the loss of 38% of the fuselage
ahead of the wings, but the spoilers and ailerons would snap that
plane into a hard continuous roll.
Whatever you may think about the aerodynamics of noseless 747s,
the CIA's video and the FBI's wishful thinking are all based on the
assumption that when the linkages to the control surfaces were torn
out by the departing cockpit, that the control surfaces, normally
moved by those same linkages, were not moved at all. This one item alone
proves that the CIA video, showing a plane without a violent roll or yaw
on it, is a fabrication.
You commented on paying attention to details?
It appears you missed a few yourself (along with many of the other self
proclaimed aeronautical experts).
John Mazor
Amazing. Mr. Rivero persistently ignores numerous comments that his Toy
Glider Theory is, um, lack in certain details. Then, when one of these
critics posts a sarcastic parody of his methodology, all of a sudden he
discovers how to compose 45 lines of critique noting the lack of detail in
the (deliberately) simplistic experiment offered for his amusement.
Michael, would that you spent half the time examining your own Toy Glider
Test's lack of credibility that you did on dissecting my poor parody.
Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote in article
<662tm8$ia2$1...@blaze.accessone.com>...
> In article <01bcfef2$463bdbc0$8192accf@mazorj>,
> John Mazor <maz...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> >The devil is in the details, Michael. You have to make it work in the
> >details. Just waving your hands and saying "It could be so, so it's
gotta
> >be so!" doesn't make it so.
> >
> >However, in the spirit of your Mr. Wizard demos, let me add one to
> >illustrate the point that in stable flight, lift = gravity.
>
> Lift = gravity????
>
>
> >
> >Take a toy glider (or brick or whatever is handy), suspend it from the
> >ceiling with a spring (or rubber band or whatever is handy). After it
> >stops bobbing up and down, measure it's height from the floor.
> >
> >Now remove the nose of the glider (or brick or whatever) and measure the
> >height from the floor. (Hint: It'll be higher than before.) This
> >illustrates the *principle* that once the nose departed the aircraft,
> >disregarding any other forces that came into play, the aircraft would
get
> >an altitude gain simply by virtue of the sudden loss of weight. Yes,
this
> >wouldn't go on for long because of everything else happening -- but hey,
> >who gives a damn about these minor technical details, eh? It *coulda*
made
> >TWA 800 behave just like the CIA video showed, because I've "proven" my
> >point with my own Mr. Wizard experiment.
> >
>
Mark Anderson
In article cshi...@removethis.graymills.com says...
> Alas, no conspiracy buff worth his salt is interested in hearing from an
> aero engineer. All of my posts go unanswered!
You sure do have plenty of "me too" groupies who answer your every post.
Rambo...@red.white.blue.net
However, the gov keeps them from showing up on your computer to keep from
encouraging you.<S>
Michael Rivero
Up until two months ago, I lived right next to where the 747s are
built in Seattle, so rather than engage in flame wars with clouds of
self proclaimed experts with fanciful explanations of why a noseless
747 will keep right on climbing, I called the people who make the
plane.
While some non-essential control systems are electrically operated,
the primary flight control surfaces, for reasons of redundancy, are
connected to the control yokes in the cockpit. There are four hydraulic
systems in the aircraft controls. They function as a power boost, much
like power steering on a large car. The power boost units are located
with the control surfaces, and the cables from the cockpit activate the
power system, but continue on to the control surfaces. Like power steering,
if the power fails, the controls still work, but it takes a lot of strength.
In one known case of total hydraulic failure, both pilot and co-pilot,
working together, were able to fly the 747. According to one source,
there is a lever at the very base of the control yokes that will disengage
the power units, so that the pilots don't have to wrestle the dead
hydraulics.
The cables (actually thin rods to minimize stretch) are in conduits with a lot of room to either side. This is intentional so that in the event of
an accident that actually bends the cable channel, the cables will neither
be pinched nor severed and will still function. The cables are in pairs.
Once the first member of the pair snapoped, there would be nothing to keep
the second cable from being drawn to the limits of it's travel by the
departing nose.
The word from the folks who actually build the plane is that whether
the hydraulics were still running or not, the loss of the nose would
have brought the rudder and the ailerons and elevator to one or the other
of their limits of travel. While the elevator would be overwhelmed by the
pitch up resulting from the loss of the nose, the rudder would have placed
a severe yaw on the aircraft. The ailerons, normally used only at slow
speeds (spoilers are used for high speed banking), deployed to their extreme
position at 340 knots, would have thrown the plane into a hard roll.
Without reverse ailerons, set to the opposite extreme (not likely with
the cockpit gone) the plane would continue the roll for several revolutions
after the ailerons returned to the neutral position.
Such violent maneuvers on the controls are, to say the least, well outside
the envelope of the 747.
Word from my former neighbors is that it is this aspect of the CIA video,
as much as the ignorance of the aerodynamics of a noseless plane, that
prompted the disclaimer issued by Boeing on the day following release of
the CIA video.
---------------------------------------------
Boeing Statement on FBI's TWA 800 Investigation --
Nov. 18, 1997
The FBI's assessment that it has not found any criminal evidence in
the investigation of the loss of TWA Flight 800 does not change the role
of The Boeing Company role in the continuing effort to determine the cause
of this tragedy.
The role of The Boeing Company in the investigation remains the same
as it has been since the early hours following the crash: We continue to
assist the <A HREF="http://www.ntsb.gov/">National Transportation Safety
Board</A> in their effort to determine what happened and why. We will keep
providing whatever information and resources we can to help in that effort,
including participating in the upcoming NTSB public hearing.
Boeing provided information about the design, operation and performance
of the <A HREF="/commercial/747family/Boe747Chron.html">747</A> to the
<A HREF="http://www.fbi.gov/">FBI</A> throughout their criminal investigation.
However, Boeing was not involved in the production of the video shown today,
nor have we had the opportunity to obtain a copy or fully understand the
data used to create it.
While we provided basic aerodynamic information to assist in the <A HREF="http://www.odci.gov/cia/ciahome.html">CIA's</A>
analysis of the airplane's performance, we are not aware of the data that
was used to develop the video.
The video's explanation of the eyewitness observations can be best assessed
by the eyewitnesses themselves.
Since the beginning of the investigation, Boeing has never subscribed
to any one theory. Our role continues to be to assist in determining how
and why this tragedy occurred. We remain committed to that goal.
-------------------------------------
Now then, in anticipation of the crowd of operatives that will
leap to the fore, claiming to be this or that expert assuring us all
that the CIA video is true and then indulging in a self-congratulatory
circle-jerk for displelling the critics, I have the following observation.
Ignore for a moment those employed by the military/industrial complex
who fear the loss of their jobs from a scandal. Ignore the paid
COINTELPRO, ONI and other intelligence assets, and ignore those ex-Navy
types who are devoutly loyal (if somewhat misguided as to what constitutes
"honor")`.
There are corporations in this country, Hill & Knowlton chief among
them, that as a business, plant people here on the internet to pose
as "just plain folks" to manage perceptions ( a polite word for
lying). Lying to the people has become a multi-million dollar industry
in this country.
So as you read the posts of those who believe that lift = gravity,
that rubber bands prove that the CIA video is true, while test flights
with an actual model airplane are irrelevent, who talk about identical
accidents happening to planes that never really existed, who pose and preen
and insist they be taken at their word whiole providing neither
experiment or science to baxck their claims, just ask yourself the
following.
If you were the government, and you were on the verge of being caught
in the greatest lie in the nation's history, and with so much at stake,
how many people would you be willing to hire to flood the net and try to
bury the truth?
The answer is, as many as it takes.
Please repost. As of yesterday, Dejanews has again stopped archiving my
articles.
Craig Shields
Michael Rivero wrote:
You know, Mike, I was just about to congratulate you on a well-written
post. Yet now I see that I'm nothing more than a government hack. The
fact that I've never worked for the government nor have I taken a
government contract is, of course, irrelevant.
First, good work with the Boeing people. Your synopsis was
well-written. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not sure what would
happen to the controls when the nose severed; I was an aerodynamicist,
not a NTSB investigator.
Let's back up here one minute. There are a few different conspiracies
going around out there. Some say that the CIA video was wrong (it
depends on how you think the controls reacted) and the plane would have
pitched up. Some say that the plane could not have pitched up and would
have simply plummeted.
First, I was one of the people saying that my PERSONAL opinion was that
the plane would severely pitch up. It's difficult to speculate about
how the controls would have reacted. Even taking your Boeing report
into consideration, if the control lines were severed BEFORE the nose
pulled away, chances are that the controls would have stayed locked into
their previous position. If the CG moved aft enough, the plane would
uncontrollably pitch upwards until it ran out of momentum. It would
then either nose down or flip over and fall. If the controls were
pulled to their extremes, the plane would go into a violent corkscrew
turn. Either way, it's doomed.
OK...now let's look at the CIA video. Granted, this takes a certain
amount of belief suspension, but what they describe COULD conceivably
happen. IF, and this is a big if, the CG stayed within the envelope,
the dynamic stability of the plane could conceivably keep it flying
temporarily in a relatively steep climb.
Before you flame me for this, do you understand the difference between
dynamic and static stability? Could you concisely summarize the
differences and use examples of each? So far, you have only argued
static stability points. Whilst valid, they are not the whole story.
If you understood dynamic stability properly, you'd comprehend why I
discount your model experiments.
If you're really convinced I'm a spook, feel free to run a D+B on me.
I'm using my real name. However, do not avoid real issues by pulling
this particular demon out of your hat. I mean, I could start claiming
something equally stupid like that you're Ian's publicist and you're
secretly working on a book deal. What's the point - it solves nothing.
Bob Anders
Michael Rivero wrote:
>
> Up until two months ago, I lived right next to where the 747s are
> built in Seattle, so rather than engage in flame wars with clouds of
> self proclaimed experts with fanciful explanations of why a noseless
> 747 will keep right on climbing, I called the people who make the
> plane.
>
Please tell us what part of Seattle you lived in that was next to
where the 747 is built. A street name or just a neighborhood name will
do.
Thanks
Bob A.
--
Michael Rivero
In article <348727...@rocketship.com>,
Bob Anders <cap...@rocketship.com> wrote:
>Michael Rivero wrote:
>>
>> Up until two months ago, I lived right next to where the 747s are
>> built in Seattle, so rather than engage in flame wars with clouds of
>> self proclaimed experts with fanciful explanations of why a noseless
>> 747 will keep right on climbing, I called the people who make the
>> plane.
>>
>
>where the 747 is built. A street name or just a neighborhood name will
>do.
>
>Thanks
>
> Bob A.
>--
And have the FBI harass all my friends to shut them up?
I don't think so.
Jim Knoyle
Let's consider what would turn the hydraulics "off":
The engine hydraulic pump requires power to put it in bypass (off). The hyd. shutoff
valve requires power plus a short amount of time to close. Given this, I would see no
reason that there was a loss of hydraulic power with the exception of system #1 leading
up to the nose gear. But again, that would take a little time for the pressure to bleed
off. And I bet the Boeing folks would agree.
Jim
John Mazor
Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote in article
<6685en$6kj$1...@blaze.accessone.com>...
> In article <348727...@rocketship.com>,
> Bob Anders <cap...@rocketship.com> wrote:
> >Michael Rivero wrote:
> >>
> >> Up until two months ago, I lived right next to where the 747s are
> >> built in Seattle, so rather than engage in flame wars with clouds of
> >> self proclaimed experts with fanciful explanations of why a noseless
> >> 747 will keep right on climbing, I called the people who make the
> >> plane.
> >>
> >
> > Please tell us what part of Seattle you lived in that was next to
> >where the 747 is built. A street name or just a neighborhood name will
> >do.
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> > Bob A.
> >--
>
>
> And have the FBI harass all my friends to shut them up?
>
> I don't think so.
>
Pure fantasy, of course, but let's try a question that presumably won't
have the MiBs harassing your pals.
In a 11/23/97 posting you stated:
"Show us WHY (besides being a spook) you disagree with me (an ex-NASA
scientist),"
The next day I asked what was your scientific specialty, since you have
staked a portion of your credibility on that matter. I have since repeated
this request. Unless I missed it, you've never answered that question.
Michael Rivero
In article <3487AB...@ix.netcom.com>,
Jim Knoyle <jkn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The engine hydraulic pump requires power to put it in bypass (off). The hyd. shutoff
>valve requires power plus a short amount of time to close. Given this, I would see no
>reason that there was a loss of hydraulic power with the exception of system #1 leading
>up to the nose gear. But again, that would take a little time for the pressure to bleed
>off. And I bet the Boeing folks would agree.
>
>Jim
>>
They did agree, but what they said is that the only issue where the
presence or absence of the hydraulics mattered was how long the
primary flight control surfaces would stay in the extreme position.
I R Baboon
Ron Brown's Bullet Hole in the Head Photos:
http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/CRASH/BROWN/bullet.html
http://tribune-review.com/ruddy/120397.html
http://ruddynews.com/recent.html
Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote in article
<666nib$rjm$1...@blaze.accessone.com>...
Raptor
Michael Rivero wrote:
> In article <348727...@rocketship.com>,
> Bob Anders <cap...@rocketship.com> wrote:
> > Please tell us what part of Seattle you lived in that was next to
> >where the 747 is built. A street name or just a neighborhood name will
> >do.
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> > Bob A.
> >--
>
>
> And have the FBI harass all my friends to shut them up?
>
> I don't think so.
The FBI has no reason to hassle your alleged friends, or did you tell them some
top-secret information? I strongly suspect they have better things to do. You
are not being asked for names of people, not from Boeing or from your
neighborhood. You are being asked for a street name or *neighborhood* name.
Put up or shut up. Or will this be just another bald-faced Rivero lie?
--
Lynn Wallace Remove "nospam" to email me.
The real conspiracy is that kooks like Ian Goddard can command the
attention of the world while skeptical, reasoned respondents are
kept stuffed away in the anonymity of the internet.
National Aero Safety
John Mazor wrote:
> Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote in article
> <6685en$6kj$1...@blaze.accessone.com>...
> > In article <348727...@rocketship.com>,
> > Bob Anders <cap...@rocketship.com> wrote:
> > >Michael Rivero wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Up until two months ago, I lived right next to where the 747s
> are
> > >> built in Seattle, so rather than engage in flame wars with
> clouds of
> > >> self proclaimed experts with fanciful explanations of why a
> noseless
> > >> 747 will keep right on climbing, I called the people who make
> the
> > >> plane.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Please tell us what part of Seattle you lived in that was next
> to
> > >where the 747 is built. A street name or just a neighborhood name
> will
> > >do.
> > >
> > >Thanks
> > >
> > > Bob A.
> > >--
> >
> >
> > And have the FBI harass all my friends to shut them up?
> >
> > I don't think so.
> >
>
> Pure fantasy, of course, but let's try a question that presumably
> won't
> have the MiBs harassing your pals.
>
> In a 11/23/97 posting you stated:
>
> "Show us WHY (besides being a spook) you disagree with me (an ex-NASA
> scientist),"
>
> The next day I asked what was your scientific specialty, since you
> have
> staked a portion of your credibility on that matter. I have since
> repeated
> this request. Unless I missed it, you've never answered that
> question.
John,
Why haven't you heard of Mr. Rivero? He was of course, the
Vice-Chairman of the NASA Department of Special Effects and Bovine
Scatology! I believe the Department offices were located adjacent to
the Fantasy Land section of Disney World in Orlando, Florida. It was
located there as a cover against MIB investigators! The Space Center,
or Huntsville, would have been far to obvious, of course!
As I recall his direct Superior was the Chairman of the SC-BS
Department, one, Mr. Ian Goddard, now a much Respected Investigator in
Government Covert Operations.
I can't believe that you haven't heard of these guys, the News Media
quotes them all the time! Really!
Well I have to go now, my troops need guidance on the Russian Front!
Your Friend,
Emperior Napolian
Kurt Lochner
Michael Rivero wrote:
>
> John Mazor wrote:
> >
> >The devil is in the details, Michael. You have to make it work in the
> >details. Just waving your hands and saying "It could be so, so it's
> >gotta be so!" doesn't make it so.
He's got a definite point Michael...
> >Now remove the nose of the glider (or brick or whatever) and measure the
> >height from the floor. (Hint: It'll be higher than before.) This
> >illustrates the *principle* that once the nose departed the aircraft,
> >disregarding any other forces that came into play, the aircraft would get
> >an altitude gain simply by virtue of the sudden loss of weight. Yes, this
> >wouldn't go on for long because of everything else happening -- but hey,
> >who gives a damn about these minor technical details, eh? It *coulda* made
> >TWA 800 behave just like the CIA video showed, because I've "proven" my
> >point with my own Mr. Wizard experiment.
> >
>
> The fallacy of your experiment is obvious.
As is yours is to begins with, as he merely pointed out..
You've consistantly ignored any explanations which make your "theory"
fall flat. I don't know how you manage to do this, excepting a sort
of "believer" mind-set (as a pathology)...
Oh well, that's your problem, not mine..
Michael Rivero
In article <66fdt4$5...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>> >details. Just waving your hands and saying "It could be so, so it's
>> >gotta be so!" doesn't make it so.
>
>
>> >height from the floor. (Hint: It'll be higher than before.) This
>> >illustrates the *principle* that once the nose departed the aircraft,
>> >disregarding any other forces that came into play, the aircraft would get
>> >an altitude gain simply by virtue of the sudden loss of weight. Yes, this
>> >wouldn't go on for long because of everything else happening -- but hey,
>> >who gives a damn about these minor technical details, eh? It *coulda* made
>> >TWA 800 behave just like the CIA video showed, because I've "proven" my
>> >point with my own Mr. Wizard experiment.
>> >
>>
>
>As is yours is to begins with, as he merely pointed out..
>
>You've consistantly ignored any explanations which make your "theory"
>fall flat. I don't know how you manage to do this, excepting a sort
>of "believer" mind-set (as a pathology)...
>
>Oh well, that's your problem, not mine..
>
This from the man who invented the KC-140.
A rubber band does not simulate the lift force on the wing. The force
remains constant and vertical with the rubber band, wheras with the
747 and the glider, it rotates weith the plane itself, sand ceases when the
wing stalls. Where the above experimentsal protocal failes is that he
didn't cut the rubber band at the opint where the wings would stall.
Using a small airplane to predict the behavior of large planes is
perfectly appropriate. That's how Boeing designed their planes in the days
before computer simulations. Hanging the model from a rubber band
lacks "precision".
Craig Shields
Michael Rivero wrote:
> This from the man who invented the KC-140.
>
> A rubber band does not simulate the lift force on the wing. The
> force
> remains constant and vertical with the rubber band, wheras with the
> 747 and the glider, it rotates weith the plane itself, sand ceases
> when the
> wing stalls. Where the above experimentsal protocal failes is that he
> didn't cut the rubber band at the opint where the wings would stall.
>
> Using a small airplane to predict the behavior of large planes is
> perfectly appropriate. That's how Boeing designed their planes in the
> days
> before computer simulations. Hanging the model from a rubber band
> lacks "precision".
Mike-
I'd agree with you that the rubber band experiment is sketchy at best.
I understand the point that was being made, but the common fallacy on
this thread is to confuse static and dynamic issues.
However, yet again I'll tell you that model data is worthless if you
don't correct for scaling factors. It is not a linear 1-1 correlation.
True, Boeing has used models. I've used models in wind tunnels, too,
and I know what a pain it is to set up any experiment.
If you'd like more info on this, I'd be happy to point you in the right
direction with a few references.
--
Cheers...Craig
Kurt Lochner
Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
>
> Kurt Lochner wrote:
> >>
> >> The fallacy of your experiment is obvious.
> >
> >As is yours is to begins with, as he merely pointed out..
> >
> >You've consistantly ignored any explanations which make your "theory"
> >fall flat. I don't know how you manage to do this, excepting a sort
> >of "believer" mind-set (as a pathology)...
> >
> >Oh well, that's your problem, not mine..
> >
> A rubber band does not simulate the lift force on the wing.
For the present discussion, the analogy was better than yours..
> The force
> remains constant and vertical with the rubber band, wheras with the
> 747 and the glider, it rotates weith the plane itself, sand ceases when the
> wing stalls.
That right, the force ("lift") remains constant, and if the fuselage
gets *LIGHTER* the airplane will go up.. I see that you have no
formal training in physics, much less aeronautics..
You still have not broken the physical constraints into simple,
easy to solve questions, so that you can pronounce something
useful about the overall, cumulative effects. No surprise that.
> Where the above experimentsal protocal failes is that he
> didn't cut the rubber band at the opint where the wings would stall.
Doesn't matter, he is correct. A lighter fuselage would give the
lift less to do 'work' against.
> Using a small airplane to predict the behavior of large planes is
> perfectly appropriate. That's how Boeing designed their planes in the days
> before computer simulations. Hanging the model from a rubber band
> lacks "precision".
...but it is suitable for an analogy, in this particular instance.
Kurt Lochner
David Winslow wrote:
>
> Kurt Lochner wrote...
> >
> >Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Kurt Lochner wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> The fallacy of your experiment is obvious.
> >> >
> >> >As is yours is to begins with, as he merely pointed out..
> >> >
> >> >You've consistantly ignored any explanations which make your "theory"
> >> >fall flat. I don't know how you manage to do this, excepting a sort
> >> >of "believer" mind-set (as a pathology)...
> >> >
> >> >Oh well, that's your problem, not mine..
> >> >
> >/snip!/
> >
> >> A rubber band does not simulate the lift force on the wing.
> >
> >For the present discussion, the analogy was better than yours..
> >
> >> The force
> >> remains constant and vertical with the rubber band, wheras with the
> >> 747 and the glider, it rotates weith the plane itself, sand ceases when
> the
> >> wing stalls.
> >
> >That right, the force ("lift") remains constant, and if the fuselage
> >gets *LIGHTER* the airplane will go up.. I see that you have no
> >formal training in physics, much less aeronautics..
>
> angle of attack, both of which are very much the question here.
With you, perhaps...
> >You still have not broken the physical constraints into simple,
> >easy to solve questions, so that you can pronounce something
> >useful about the overall, cumulative effects. No surprise that.
>
> The dynamics of a noseless plane at 200 or more knots should not
> be broken into simple questions.
It should be if you're going to put any numbers to the matter..
> >> Where the above experimentsal protocal failes is that he
> >> didn't cut the rubber band at the opint where the wings would stall.
> >
> >Doesn't matter, he is correct. A lighter fuselage would give the
> >lift less to do 'work' against.
> >
>
> Yes, and with virtually no weight ahead of the wings, that would mean
> imediate rotation up and I don't know what would stop it at 20 degrees,
> do you?
Yeah, I do.. The wings would stall at 165 knots at AOA's of 26
degrees..
The tail control surfaces and rear fuselage would become a factor then.
> >> Using a small airplane to predict the behavior of large planes is
> >> perfectly appropriate. That's how Boeing designed their planes in the
> days
> >> before computer simulations. Hanging the model from a rubber band
> >> lacks "precision".
> >
> >...but it is suitable for an analogy, in this particular instance.
> >
> Pretty unsuitable IMO. lift is not up, it is perpendicular to the wings.
I say, are the nits that fresh today? <g>
> As the wings rise as you point out due to reduced weight, and the
> unbalanced weight of the tail pivots down from the wings, there would be a
> dramatic rotation.
747's can do some pretty dramatic stuff, but I'm fairly sure that the
simulations, which were based on radar tracking data, are generally
correct.
> The increased angle of attack would dramatically
> increase drag on the wings, with no corresponding increase in drag on the
> tail. Rotation would continue.
Like I said, to understand the overall effect, you *HAVE* to take the
problems apart, piece by piece, do the basic equations, and then put
the answer back together. That's physics, especially aeronautics..
> Lift would become irrelevant as the drag
> increases on the wings exponentially causing them to slow relative to the
> tail which would swing down below the plane.
You've neglected the remaining fuselage in that airstream, especially
the tail section, as there are "fixed" control surfaces there also..
Don't sweat it too much, it's just a conspiracy theory...
David Winslow
Kurt Lochner wrote in message <66i52d$3...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The fallacy of your experiment is obvious.
>> >
>> >As is yours is to begins with, as he merely pointed out..
>> >
>> >You've consistantly ignored any explanations which make your "theory"
>> >fall flat. I don't know how you manage to do this, excepting a sort
>> >of "believer" mind-set (as a pathology)...
>> >
>> >Oh well, that's your problem, not mine..
>> >
>/snip!/
>
>> A rubber band does not simulate the lift force on the wing.
>
>For the present discussion, the analogy was better than yours..
>
>> The force
>> remains constant and vertical with the rubber band, wheras with the
>> 747 and the glider, it rotates weith the plane itself, sand ceases when
the
>> wing stalls.
>
>That right, the force ("lift") remains constant, and if the fuselage
>gets *LIGHTER* the airplane will go up.. I see that you have no
>formal training in physics, much less aeronautics..
>
Lift is anything but constant, it is a function of relative air speed and
angle of attack, both of which are very much the question here.
>You still have not broken the physical constraints into simple,
>easy to solve questions, so that you can pronounce something
>useful about the overall, cumulative effects. No surprise that.
>
The dynamics of a noseless plane at 200 or more knots should not be broken
into simple questions.
>> Where the above experimentsal protocal failes is that he
>> didn't cut the rubber band at the opint where the wings would stall.
>
>Doesn't matter, he is correct. A lighter fuselage would give the
>lift less to do 'work' against.
>
Yes, and with virtually no weight ahead of the wings, that would mean
imediate rotation up and I don't know what would stop it at 20 degrees, do
you?
>> Using a small airplane to predict the behavior of large planes is
>> perfectly appropriate. That's how Boeing designed their planes in the
days
>> before computer simulations. Hanging the model from a rubber band
>> lacks "precision".
>
>...but it is suitable for an analogy, in this particular instance.
>
Pretty unsuitable IMO. lift is not up, it is perpendicular to the wings.
As the wings rise as you point out due to reduced weight, and the
unbalanced weight of the tail pivots down from the wings, there would be a
dramatic rotation. The increased angle of attack would dramatically
increase drag on the wings, with no corresponding increase in drag on the
tail. Rotation would continue. Lift would become irrelevant as the drag
M Soja
On Mon, 08 Dec 1997 18:34:14 -0600, Kurt Lochner
<Cap...@worldnet.tta.net> posted:
>Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
>> The force
>> remains constant and vertical with the rubber band, wheras with the
>> 747 and the glider, it rotates weith the plane itself, sand ceases when the
>> wing stalls.
>That right, the force ("lift") remains constant, and if the fuselage
>gets *LIGHTER* the airplane will go up.. I see that you have no
>formal training in physics, much less aeronautics..
Kurt, you still aren't giving a clue as to having any higher
education. Your statement, "if the fuselage gets *LIGHTER* the
airplane will go up" seems to be missing a premise or two. You figure
that out, if you can.
The state of modern physics: "If the fuselage gets *LIGHTER* the
airplaine will go up."
Firesign Theater: "If you push something hard enough it WILL fall
over."
Ku*t Lochness: "If the fuselage gets *LIGHTER* the airplaine will go
up."
Good work Ku*t. Did you have a scholarship????
David Winslow
Kurt Lochner wrote in message <66ilhm$k...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>747's can do some pretty dramatic stuff, but I'm fairly sure that the
>simulations, which were based on radar tracking data, are generally
>correct.
>
This is the crux of the mater, not physics but beleif in the authorities.
I can not debate your faith.
David Winslow
Kurt Lochner wrote in message <66ilhm$k...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>David Winslow wrote:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner wrote...
>> >
>> >Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The fallacy of your experiment is obvious.
>> >> >
>> >> >As is yours is to begins with, as he merely pointed out..
>> >> >
>> >> >You've consistantly ignored any explanations which make your
"theory"
>> >> >fall flat. I don't know how you manage to do this, excepting a sort
>> >> >of "believer" mind-set (as a pathology)...
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh well, that's your problem, not mine..
>> >> >
>> >/snip!/
>> >
>> >> A rubber band does not simulate the lift force on the wing.
>> >
>> >For the present discussion, the analogy was better than yours..
>> >
>> >> The force
>> >> remains constant and vertical with the rubber band, wheras with the
>> >> 747 and the glider, it rotates weith the plane itself, sand ceases
when
>> the
>> >> wing stalls.
>> >
>> >That right, the force ("lift") remains constant, and if the fuselage
>> >gets *LIGHTER* the airplane will go up.. I see that you have no
>> >formal training in physics, much less aeronautics..
>>
>> Lift is anything but constant, it is a function of relative air speed
and
>> angle of attack, both of which are very much the question here.
>
>With you, perhaps...
>
>> >You still have not broken the physical constraints into simple,
>> >easy to solve questions, so that you can pronounce something
>> >useful about the overall, cumulative effects. No surprise that.
>>
>> The dynamics of a noseless plane at 200 or more knots should not
>> be broken into simple questions.
>
>It should be if you're going to put any numbers to the matter..
>
>
>
>> >> Where the above experimentsal protocal failes is that he
>> >> didn't cut the rubber band at the opint where the wings would stall.
>> >
>> >Doesn't matter, he is correct. A lighter fuselage would give the
>> >lift less to do 'work' against.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, and with virtually no weight ahead of the wings, that would mean
>> imediate rotation up and I don't know what would stop it at 20 degrees,
>> do you?
>
>Yeah, I do.. The wings would stall at 165 knots at AOA's of 26
>degrees..
>
>The tail control surfaces and rear fuselage would become a factor then.
>
>> >> Using a small airplane to predict the behavior of large planes is
>> >> perfectly appropriate. That's how Boeing designed their planes in the
>> days
>> >> before computer simulations. Hanging the model from a rubber band
>> >> lacks "precision".
>> >
>> >...but it is suitable for an analogy, in this particular instance.
>> >
>> Pretty unsuitable IMO. lift is not up, it is perpendicular to the
wings.
>
>I say, are the nits that fresh today? <g>
>
>> As the wings rise as you point out due to reduced weight, and the
>> unbalanced weight of the tail pivots down from the wings, there would be
a
>> dramatic rotation.
>
>747's can do some pretty dramatic stuff, but I'm fairly sure that the
>simulations, which were based on radar tracking data, are generally
>correct.
>
>> The increased angle of attack would dramatically
>> increase drag on the wings, with no corresponding increase in drag on
the
>> tail. Rotation would continue.
>
>Like I said, to understand the overall effect, you *HAVE* to take the
>problems apart, piece by piece, do the basic equations, and then put
>the answer back together. That's physics, especially aeronautics..
>
>> Lift would become irrelevant as the drag
>> increases on the wings exponentially causing them to slow relative to the
>> tail which would swing down below the plane.
>
Kurt Lochner
David Winslow wrote:
>
> Kurt Lochner wrote ...
> >
> >simulations, which were based on radar tracking data, are generally
> >correct.
> >
> authorities.
> I can not debate your faith.
And you cannot debate physics..
Kurt Lochner
<ms...@javanet.com> M Soja wrote:
>
> Kurt Lochner wrote..
>
> >Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
>
> >> The force
> >> remains constant and vertical with the rubber band, wheras with the
> >> 747 and the glider, it rotates weith the plane itself, sand ceases
> >> when the wing stalls.
>
> >That right, the force ("lift") remains constant, and if the fuselage
> >gets *LIGHTER* the airplane will go up.. I see that you have no
> >formal training in physics, much less aeronautics..
>
> education.
Your personal attacks do not mention any specific numbers, thus
I feel that it's necessary to remind you that your blind belief
in a "conspiracy" conjecture exhibits a dismal lack of knowledge.
> Your statement, "if the fuselage gets *LIGHTER* the airplane
> will go up" seems to be missing a premise or two. You figure
> that out, if you can.
I have, and it is but one of a number of factors to be considered
in a thorough study of the matter of the TWA Flight 800 scenario.
My intent was to spare you of your obfuscating denials, and that I
could perhaps remind you that the previously mentioned (and deleted)
conjecture by analogy was valid.
/snip!/
M Soja
On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 10:21:19 -0600, Kurt Lochner
<Cap...@worldnet.tta.net> posted:
><ms...@javanet.com> M Soja wrote:
>> Kurt, you still aren't giving a clue as to having any higher
>> education.
>Your personal attacks do not mention any specific numbers, thus
>I feel that it's necessary to remind you that your blind belief
>in a "conspiracy" conjecture exhibits a dismal lack of knowledge.
A lot you know about my blind belief. The only thing I've commented
on re TWA800 is the theory that after the nose fell off the airplane
gained 3200 feet in altitude. Like you, it's ludicrous.
Kurt Lochner
M Soja <ms...@javanet.com> wrote:
>
> Kurt Lochner replied..
>
> ><ms...@javanet.com> M Soja wrote:
>
> >> Kurt, you still aren't giving a clue as to having any higher
> >> education.
>
> >Your personal attacks do not mention any specific numbers, thus
> >I feel that it's necessary to remind you that your blind belief
> >in a "conspiracy" conjecture exhibits a dismal lack of knowledge.
>
> A lot you know about my blind belief. The only thing I've commented
> on re TWA800 is the theory that after the nose fell off the airplane
> gained 3200 feet in altitude. Like you, it's ludicrous.
Your opinion, were it supported by scientific fact, would have
a great deal more of my interest, if only you could put more
real numbers to it instead of your usual personal attacks...
Craig Shields
M Soja wrote:
> >> Kurt, you still aren't giving a clue as to having any higher
> >> education.
>
> >Your personal attacks do not mention any specific numbers, thus
> >I feel that it's necessary to remind you that your blind belief
> >in a "conspiracy" conjecture exhibits a dismal lack of knowledge.
>
> A lot you know about my blind belief. The only thing I've commented
> on re TWA800 is the theory that after the nose fell off the airplane
> gained 3200 feet in altitude. Like you, it's ludicrous.
Why is it ludicrous? I'm curious. As an aero engineer, I can conceive
of several scenarios which would result in a crippled plane gaining
altitude. I've posted them all here before, yet the only response that
I ever receive is Mike Rivero calling me a government plant.
Do you have any hard facts and figures to refute these scenarios? Look
them up in dejanews. Otherwise, as someone who will post meaningless
ramblings with no basis in fact, you are the ludicrous one.
Michael Rivero
In article <348E062D...@cris.com>,
Ron Katona <ro...@crisNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>M Soja wrote:
>> A lot you know about my blind belief. The only thing I've commented
>> on re TWA800 is the theory that after the nose fell off the airplane
>> gained 3200 feet in altitude. Like you, it's ludicrous.
>
>http://cnn.com/US/9707/twa.800/reports/pdfs/
>under the heading Main Wreckage Flight Path Study.
>
>This is the most complete and accurate description of the trajectory
>there is. It concludes an ~1300 foot climb. The ~3000 foot figure has
>been misreported here. It may come from an initial finding the NTSB
>later rejected because the simulated flight path did not match the
>ground track from the radar data. When the simulations were run with the
>aircraft banking to approximate the real ground track it took, a 15,000
>max altitude was found to result.
>--
>Ron Katona mailto:ro...@cris.com
In short, someone finally realized that the vertical acceleration
required to achieve that 3000 foot climb exceeded the load limits on
the wingbox, and just as they did with the snapped control cables, the
official story is being changed yet again to accomodate the observations
posted here on the net (we ought to invoice the spooks for debugging their
fairy tales for them).
The FBI/CIA presentation on November 18th stated the 3000 foot value as
a fact. Now it's changed again to 1500 just 2 weeks later. For 18 months
the NTSB has been working with the wrong figures. That calls into doubt
everything else done during that 18 months. 3000 feet to 1500 feet? That's
an error factor of +-50%. The envelope for that error from the present
value of 1500 includes the possability that the plane didn't clim at
all!
The online NTSB report is another Warren Peport, incomplete, key details
missing, in one case diagrams referred to in the text are conveniently
not present for actual verification of the conclusions stated in the
summary.
Time to flush this sanatized crap dowen the sanatized toilet and let
those who were actually there tell us what they saw.
Take a hint from Kallstrom. It's time to quit this charade.
M Soja
On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 22:02:05 -0500, Ron Katona <ro...@cris.com>
posted:
>M Soja wrote:
>> A lot you know about my blind belief. The only thing I've commented
>> on re TWA800 is the theory that after the nose fell off the airplane
>> gained 3200 feet in altitude. Like you, it's ludicrous.
>Download the Acrobat file ex_22C.pdf from CNN's site at
>http://cnn.com/US/9707/twa.800/reports/pdfs/
>under the heading Main Wreckage Flight Path Study.
>This is the most complete and accurate description of the trajectory
>there is. It concludes an ~1300 foot climb. The ~3000 foot figure has
>been misreported here. It may come from an initial finding the NTSB
>later rejected because the simulated flight path did not match the
>ground track from the radar data. When the simulations were run with the
>aircraft banking to approximate the real ground track it took, a 15,000
>max altitude was found to result.
The 3200 feet came from the CIA video, which I guess is now being
retracted a contention at a time. There's a big difference between
1300 and 3200, and while the higher number is still ludicrous IMO,
1300 is probably a max guess, too. But the documents you pointed to
are certainly more plausible than the explanation that's being foisted
on the TV watching public.
One interesting thing is that power settings in the simulations didn't
make much difference in the guestimated behavior of the noseless
plane.
The 3200 foot climb is still ludicrous, and one has to wonder on the
motives for making the claim, and now the motives and means for
backing off it.
M Soja
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 06:47:48 -0600, Kurt Lochner
<Cap...@worldnet.tta.net> posted:
>Your opinion, were it supported by scientific fact, would have
>a great deal more of my interest, if only you could put more
>real numbers to it instead of your usual personal attacks...
I've posted More numbers than you have, Lochner, and I don't claim to
have a degree in Physics.
M Soja
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:57:09 -0600, Craig Shields
<cshi...@removethis.graymills.com> posted:
>M Soja wrote:
>> The only thing I've commented
>> on re TWA800 is the theory that after the nose fell off the airplane
>> gained 3200 feet in altitude. Like you, it's ludicrous.
>Why is it ludicrous? I'm curious. As an aero engineer, I can conceive
>of several scenarios which would result in a crippled plane gaining
>altitude. I've posted them all here before, yet the only response that
>I ever receive is Mike Rivero calling me a government plant.
TWA800 wasn't just crippled, it was decapititated. Go to the docs Ron
pointed to in this thread.
http://cnn.com/US/9707/twa.800/reports/pdfs/
>Do you have any hard facts and figures to refute these scenarios? Look
>them up in dejanews. Otherwise, as someone who will post meaningless
>ramblings with no basis in fact, you are the ludicrous one.
The simulations show a max 1300 ft climb, and I think that's pushing
it. The aircraft reached stall condition almost immediately the nose
fell off, just as several people have speculated. The CIA video was
and is a sham, so why was it even released? The 3200 ft climb was a
fabricated lie made to paint the witnesses as unreliable and mistaken.
Will the CIA make a video retracting their earlier flights of fancy?
Marilyn Brady
ms...@javanet.com (M Soja) wrote:
>
>The simulations show a max 1300 ft climb, and I think that's pushing
>it. The aircraft reached stall condition almost immediately the nose
>fell off, just as several people have speculated. The CIA video was
>and is a sham, so why was it even released? The 3200 ft climb was a
>fabricated lie made to paint the witnesses as unreliable and mistaken.
>Will the CIA make a video retracting their earlier flights of fancy?
The CIA made a big mistake with that video. Even the NTSB came up with
only a climb to 15,000 feet, which is already a big stretch.
I would like to see the CIA/FBI called before congress and made to play
the video and explain how their engineers came up with this. Then I would
like to see them questioned by various qualified persons who know better.
They got away with one when they staged that sham for the press and the
families. They will not fare so well in front of a more astute audience.
mb
Kurt Lochner
M Soja wrote:
>
> Kurt Lochner posted:
>
> >Your opinion, were it supported by scientific fact, would have
> >a great deal more of my interest, if only you could put more
> >real numbers to it instead of your usual personal attacks...
>
> I've posted More numbers than you have, Lochner,
> and I don't claim to have a degree in Physics.
That;s just it, you couldn't make sense of the equations, in
their general symbolic forms, to be able to tell that what you
were being told, third-hand, was an error by over-simplifications.
Zehr's quote-back by Beck seriously neglects the rest of the
airframe dynamics, and only treats the wing in its simple form.
Now I suppose that you're going to try and tell me that those
beans that you traded the cow for are supposed to be magic?
Daniel J. Lavigne
ms...@javanet.com (M Soja) in Message-ID:
<349a2996...@news.zippo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:57:09 -0600, Craig Shields
<cshi...@removethis.graymills.com> posted:
>M Soja wrote:
>>> The only thing I've commented on re TWA800 is the theory that >>>> after
the nose fell off the airplane gained 3200 feet in >> >> >>> altitude. Like
you, it's ludicrous.
>> Why is it ludicrous? I'm curious. As an aero engineer, I can >>
conceive of several scenarios which would result in a crippled >> plane
gaining altitude. I've posted them all here before, yet >> the only response
that I ever receive is Mike Rivero calling me >> a government plant.
> TWA800 wasn't just crippled, it was decapititated. Go to the > docs Ron pointed to in this thread.
> http://cnn.com/US/9707/twa.800/reports/pdfs/
>> Do you have any hard facts and figures to refute these >> >> >>
scenarios? Look them up in dejanews. Otherwise, as someone >> >> who
will post meaningless ramblings with no basis in fact, you >> are the
ludicrous one.
> The simulations show a max 1300 ft climb, and I think that's > > pushing it. The aircraft reached stall condition almost > > > immediately the nose fell off, just as several people have > > > speculated. The CIA video was and is a sham, so why was it even > released? The 3200 ft climb was fabricated lie made to paint > > the witnesses as unreliable and mistaken.
> Will the CIA make a video retracting their earlier flights of > > fancy?
tax...@idirect.com (Daniel J. Lavigne) responds:
As a pilot with a pleasurable aerobatic experience (limited to a 135hp Champ
and a 150hp Citabria -brand new -Ocala Orange!- in 1974) and especially as one
who does not trust Craig Shields to be truthful in most matters, I must say
that his scenario regarding the subsequent climb after the nose fell off
"could be" correct. The possibility of the aircraft reducing forward motion to
stall speed shortly after the "incident" without climbing in any noticeable
amount is also within the realm of probability.
In spite of my belief that Craig Shields "aero" engineer's placard probably
came from Mr. Christie's "Oreo" box (Are you still licking the middle Craig?)
his offering with regard to the accelerated rate of climb to stall holds some
merit. To wit:
Immediately upon losing the weight associated with the portion of the nose
that fell or was blown off, the "center of gravity" would move backwards with
a subsequent skyward repointing of the remaining fuselage. The engines,
evidently, continued to run for an unknown period of time. Freed from the nose
weight and angled upwards, there is a possibility of the aircraft doing a bit
of a "Zoom Climb" to whatever altitude was recorded.
Questions: Did the explosion impart any downward forces that would have
effectively negated the altered "C of G"? Could the quick deceleration
associated with the downward impetus (if provided by the explosion) and
temporary, but necessarily tremendous, drag as the nose broke away, lead to an
immediate stall and dive to the sea? With the break-off of the left(?) wing
prior to contact with the ocean's surface, one is led to believe that any
"Zoom" climb could not have taken place due to a now structurally suspect
wing/wing root.
If so, it is entirely possible that there was no climb, or very little climb
and that there was very little subsequent forward motion prior to the stall
and dive to the sea and that "eyewitness reports" of an object spewing flames
for some horizontal distance could well have been a missile. Who knows?
As stated in my response to Ian Goddard's "Hussein's Hurrah!" posting, the
truth of the matter will come out. With the "body of evidence" has been a
suggestion that the plane, after the "incident", did continue flying for some
distance without change in altitude until speed dissipated to point of stall.
Again, "who knows"?
If anything constructive is too come of the event, it could be this: All
should strive to maintain their composure when witnessing such "incidents",
write down all relevant details immediately thereafter and then reconsider,
point by point, the sequence of events subsequent to first witnessing the
"incident". Then, when one is perfectly sure that they have written down all
relevant details as accurately as possible, make a copy and turn it over to
"proper" authorities, retaining the original in case of any apparent
contradiction at some future time. By such a process citizens may come to
better assist those charged with responsibility for identifying the possible
causes of such incidents and add to the safety and well-being of society.
As for any suggesting that Craig Shields may be a "government plant", surely
it is common knowledge that he is a verbose weed at best?
Craig, a quick review of your posts suggests that you remain ignorant of your
need for "normal" interaction, a need that any astute viewer will recognize is
not being met. Consider stepping away from your computer a bit. Go for a walk.
Share a coffee with your neighbours at a local cafe / whatever. Your
presentment of an "I know it all" mentality has negative connotations;
seriously, your scoring your cylinders for no "true" benefit.
Back to Flight TWA 800.
The matter of "eyewitnesses" changing their storys after "discussing" the
matter with authorities is disconcerting. Could such malleability on the part
of its citizens be one of the reasons that America felt free to develop
nuclear weapons, use nuclear weapons and continue the development of nuclear
weapons and other means by which it may murder millions with little risk to
its own population?
Remember "The Question":
“Does my birth as a human being truly condemn
me to paying taxes to or otherwise supporting
a society so cowardly and lost to the madness
of greed as to participate in plans and preparations
to wage nuclear war and risk thereby the murder
of hundreds of millions of defenceless fellow
human beings?”
Humanity's failure to act on the imperative contained in the only proper
answer has led us to willingly create an atmosphere that will, by the time our
grandchildren are adults, cause them to curse us for our greed and cowardice.
To a safer, saner world. To Duty. Join the tax refusal. Mail your statement to
your government. Think of your grandchildren.
Daniel J. Lavigne
Founder Co-ordinator
International Humanity House
--
To Duty
What is one’s duty, when acknowledging a threat
That would destroy all beauty,
Even steal childrens’ breath?
Does therein lie evil in avoiding a way
That forces the matter, that builds to a day
When humanity shatters greed’s guilty ways?
Copyright. Daniel J. Lavigne, February 21/88
Daniel J. Lavigne first refused to file tax returns or pay income taxes in
1980. Decision T2020-88 of The Federal Court Of Canada - Trial Division was
announced on December 12,1988.
It recognized the right to refuse to file tax returns or to pay taxes to any
society so lost and foolish as to participate in plans and preparations
involving the will and capacity to use nuclear and other weapons of mass
murder against defenceless fellow
human beings.
The Canadian government has accepted the decision without challenge. All any
need do, should their humanity be of significant meaning to them, is mail
their statement informing the government that they will no longer support
society until it makes a decision with regard to weapons of mass murder. By
searching T2020-88 you shall be able to obtain the language most usually
employed. Thank You.
--
The Poet’s Soul Is Different, Formed By The Fires Of Life,
It Guides His Passions, Leads His Heart And Lives Forever!
Copyright. June 10, 1996 Daniel J. Lavigne
Daniel J. Lavigne
M Soja
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:01:36 -0600, Kurt Lochner
<Cap...@worldnet.tta.net> posted:
>M Soja wrote:
>> Kurt Lochner posted:
>> >Your opinion, were it supported by scientific fact, would have
>> >a great deal more of my interest, if only you could put more
>> >real numbers to it instead of your usual personal attacks...
>> I've posted More numbers than you have, Lochner,
>> and I don't claim to have a degree in Physics.
>That;s just it, you couldn't make sense of the equations, in
>their general symbolic forms, to be able to tell that what you
>were being told, third-hand, was an error by over-simplifications.
It's YOU, Kurt, that couldn't make sense of the equations. Was there
something scary in their "general symbolic forms" for you? LOL pea
brain. Zehr didn't say the equations were all encompassing, just that
they'd give a framework for estimating rotation, AOA, etc, after the
nose of the 747 blew off.
>Zehr's quote-back by Beck seriously neglects the rest of the
>airframe dynamics, and only treats the wing in its simple form.
So, Mr BS degree, which of the factors that Zehr failed to address, as
in the aerodynamics of a ripped open fuselage, the aerodynamics of
leading and trailing edges damaged by debris, etc., which of these
things would have ADDED to the overall aerodynamics of the plane?
Oh, that's right, the plane got "Lighter." Here's Kurt's Physics
contribution from earlier in the week:
"If the fuselage gets *LIGHTER* the airplaine will go up."
But can you explain it so us laymen can understand??
Which of the factors that Zehr didn't address ADD to the flyability of
the plane (with no pilot)???
Did the plane climb 3200 feet without it's nose? Did it climb a 1000
feet? Tell us, Ku*t, which scenario of the week do you subscribe to
this week?
>Now I suppose that you're going to try and tell me that those
>beans that you traded the cow for are supposed to be magic?
No cow, no beans, you're just a pig in a poke. And not worth much.
Why is there a gag order on those involved in recovery of debris?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Join the fight against junk e-mail
Some handy addresses:
abuse@localhost, admin@localhost, fraud@localhost, postmaster@localhost, root@localhost, ab...@fbi.gov , u...@ftc.gov, pyr...@ftc.gov, cust...@email.usps.gov postal, net-...@nocs.insp.irs.gov, WE...@FDADR.CDRH.FDA.GOV, frau...@psinet.com, ab...@earthlink.net, fr...@earthlink.net, sp...@earthlink.net, ab...@hotmail.com, j...@mailloop.com, jo...@mailloop.com, ro...@mailloop.com, ab...@netcom.com, webm...@netcom.com
Kurt Lochner
M Soja wrote:
>
> Kurt Lochner posted:
> >M Soja wrote:
> >> Kurt Lochner posted:
>
> >> >Your opinion, were it supported by scientific fact, would have
> >> >a great deal more of my interest, if only you could put more
> >> >real numbers to it instead of your usual personal attacks...
>
> >> I've posted More numbers than you have, Lochner,
> >> and I don't claim to have a degree in Physics.
>
> >That;s just it, you couldn't make sense of the equations, in
> >their general symbolic forms, to be able to tell that what you
> >were being told, third-hand, was an error by over-simplifications.
>
> It's YOU, Kurt, that couldn't make sense of the equations.
Excuse you? I didn't see you (or Zehr) mention anything but
the simplest assumptions that indicated what you wanted them
to indicate... Real-world aeronautic engineering equations
are probably beyond your grasp anyways..
> Was there
> something scary in their "general symbolic forms" for you?
Nope..
> Zehr didn't say the equations were all encompassing, just that
> they'd give a framework for estimating rotation, AOA, etc,
> after the nose of the 747 blew off.
Oh? And now you're trying to make it sound like *YOU* knew that?
Nice try, but I mentioned it first..
> >Zehr's quote-back by Beck seriously neglects the rest of the
> >airframe dynamics, and only treats the wing in its simple form.
>
> So, Mr BS degree, which of the factors that Zehr failed to address,
> as in the aerodynamics of a ripped open fuselage, the aerodynamics
>of
> leading and trailing edges damaged by debris, etc., which of these
> things would have ADDED to the overall aerodynamics of the plane?
The rest of the fuselage, control vanes and don't forget the tail..
This is too easy..
> Which of the factors that Zehr didn't address ADD to the flyability
> of the plane (with no pilot)???
The fuselage, you know that cylindrical thingie that you sit in?
And don't forget the rudder and tail/winglets, that's how you
steer the airplane..
End of discussion.
Larry L. Jansen
The question remains: why won't they allow an independent investigation,
when the gov't could be culpuble? And what gives the "feds" the right
to violate state sovereignty?
In a previous article, Cap...@worldnet.tta.net (Kurt Lochner) says:
>M Soja wrote:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner posted:
>>
>> >Your opinion, were it supported by scientific fact, would have
>> >a great deal more of my interest, if only you could put more
>> >real numbers to it instead of your usual personal attacks...
>>
>> I've posted More numbers than you have, Lochner,
>> and I don't claim to have a degree in Physics.
>
>That;s just it, you couldn't make sense of the equations, in
>their general symbolic forms, to be able to tell that what you
>were being told, third-hand, was an error by over-simplifications.
>
>Zehr's quote-back by Beck seriously neglects the rest of the
>airframe dynamics, and only treats the wing in its simple form.
>
Craig Shields
Daniel J. Lavigne wrote:
> In spite of my belief that Craig Shields "aero" engineer's placard
> probably
> came from Mr. Christie's "Oreo" box (Are you still licking the middle
> Craig?)
> his offering with regard to the accelerated rate of climb to stall
> holds some
> merit. To wit:
Ah, hello, Daniel. How goes the tax protest world? If you really care
about the truth, yes, I WAS an aero engineer, but I am no more.
> Immediately upon losing the weight associated with the portion of the
> nose
> that fell or was blown off, the "center of gravity" would move
> backwards with
> a subsequent skyward repointing of the remaining fuselage. The
> engines,
> evidently, continued to run for an unknown period of time. Freed from
> the nose
> weight and angled upwards, there is a possibility of the aircraft
> doing a bit
> of a "Zoom Climb" to whatever altitude was recorded.
Very true.
> Questions: Did the explosion impart any downward forces that would
> have
> effectively negated the altered "C of G"? Could the quick deceleration
>
> associated with the downward impetus (if provided by the explosion)
> and
> temporary, but necessarily tremendous, drag as the nose broke away,
> lead to an
> immediate stall and dive to the sea? With the break-off of the left(?)
> wing
> prior to contact with the ocean's surface, one is led to believe that
> any
> "Zoom" climb could not have taken place due to a now structurally
> suspect
> wing/wing root.
True, but the question is "how was the wing weakened"? It could well
have been weakened as the plane started to plummet. Who knows.
> If so, it is entirely possible that there was no climb, or very little
> climb
> and that there was very little subsequent forward motion prior to the
> stall
> and dive to the sea and that "eyewitness reports" of an object spewing
> flames
> for some horizontal distance could well have been a missile. Who
> knows?
Very true. I sure don't.
> As for any suggesting that Craig Shields may be a "government plant",
> surely
> it is common knowledge that he is a verbose weed at best?
Thanks for your support!
> Craig, a quick review of your posts suggests that you remain ignorant
> of your
> need for "normal" interaction, a need that any astute viewer will
> recognize is
> not being met. Consider stepping away from your computer a bit. Go for
> a walk.
> Share a coffee with your neighbours at a local cafe / whatever. Your
> presentment of an "I know it all" mentality has negative connotations;
>
> seriously, your scoring your cylinders for no "true" benefit.
Actually, Dan, I never claimed to know what happened. Reread my posts.
I have no idea how TWA 800 was downed. However, when people like Mr.
Rivero fabricate evidence, I will call them on that. Is that not the
intellectually honest thing to do?
> Remember "The Question":
>
> “Does my birth as a human being truly condemn
> me to paying taxes to or otherwise supporting
> a society so cowardly and lost to the madness
> of greed as to participate in plans and preparations
> to wage nuclear war and risk thereby the murder
> of hundreds of millions of defenceless fellow
> human beings?”
Ah, yes, I knew we'd drag nuclear weapons in at some point.
<ipsnay ajormay>
FYI for this NG. Mr. Levigne is a veteran - and interesting - poster
who claims that he does not have to pay taxes due to his stand on
nuclear war. This claim has repeatedly been shot down by every Canadian
tax lawyer I've talked to (including the Canadian Tax Federation). Some
folks have e-mailed me info on T2020-88; his take on it is, well,
interesting. Take him for what it's worth; use your own judgement.
Craig Shields
Kurt Lochner wrote:
> M Soja wrote:
>
> > >Zehr's quote-back by Beck seriously neglects the rest of the
> > >airframe dynamics, and only treats the wing in its simple form.
> >
> > So, Mr BS degree, which of the factors that Zehr failed to address,
> > as in the aerodynamics of a ripped open fuselage, the aerodynamics
> >of
> > leading and trailing edges damaged by debris, etc., which of these
> > things would have ADDED to the overall aerodynamics of the plane?
>
> The rest of the fuselage, control vanes and don't forget the tail..
>
> This is too easy..
And let's not forget wing sweep, wing dihedral, tail dihedral, etc. All
of these are critical for stability and control analysis.
John Mazor
Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote in article
<66hbg2$6cb$1...@blaze.accessone.com>...
> In article <66fdt4$5...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> Kurt Lochner <Cap...@worldnet.tta.net> wrote:
> >Michael Rivero wrote:
> >>
> >> John Mazor wrote:
> >> >
> >> >The devil is in the details, Michael. You have to make it work in
the
> >> >details. Just waving your hands and saying "It could be so, so it's
> >> >gotta be so!" doesn't make it so.
> >
> >He's got a definite point Michael...
> >
> >> >Now remove the nose of the glider (or brick or whatever) and measure
the
> >> >height from the floor. (Hint: It'll be higher than before.) This
> >> >illustrates the *principle* that once the nose departed the
aircraft,
> >> >disregarding any other forces that came into play, the aircraft
would get
> >> >an altitude gain simply by virtue of the sudden loss of weight.
Yes, this
> >> >wouldn't go on for long because of everything else happening -- but
hey,
> >> >who gives a damn about these minor technical details, eh? It
*coulda* made
> >> >TWA 800 behave just like the CIA video showed, because I've "proven"
my
> >> >point with my own Mr. Wizard experiment.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The fallacy of your experiment is obvious.
> >
> >As is yours is to begins with, as he merely pointed out..
> >
> >You've consistantly ignored any explanations which make your "theory"
> >fall flat. I don't know how you manage to do this, excepting a sort
> >of "believer" mind-set (as a pathology)...
> >
> >Oh well, that's your problem, not mine..
> >
>
>
> This from the man who invented the KC-140.
>
> A rubber band does not simulate the lift force on the wing. The force
> remains constant and vertical with the rubber band, wheras with the
> 747 and the glider, it rotates weith the plane itself, sand ceases when
the
> wing stalls. Where the above experimentsal protocal failes is that he
> didn't cut the rubber band at the opint where the wings would stall.
>
> Using a small airplane to predict the behavior of large planes is
> perfectly appropriate. That's how Boeing designed their planes in the
days
> before computer simulations. Hanging the model from a rubber band
> lacks "precision".
>
Well, despite whatever I've said in immediately prior posts, Michael, yes
you definitely are that stupid. My point was simply that the mere loss of
the nose of the aircraft changes the balanace of the euation so that all
other things being equal, the mere loss of weight will cause the aircraft
to rise. Of course a stall eliminates lift on that portion of the wing.
So what? It does nothing to invalidate my analogy, which is as good an
example of Mr. Wizard science as is your Toy Glider Test, which by any
stretch of the imagination "lacks 'precision.' "
By the way, did you meet the inventor of the KC-140 while serving as a NASA
scientist? Still waiting...
Kurt Lochner
Craig Shields wrote:
>
> Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
> > M Soja wrote:
> >
> > > >Zehr's quote-back by Beck seriously neglects the rest of the
> > > >airframe dynamics, and only treats the wing in its simple form.
> > >
> > > So, Mr BS degree, which of the factors that Zehr failed to address,
> > > as in the aerodynamics of a ripped open fuselage, the aerodynamics
> > >of
> > > leading and trailing edges damaged by debris, etc., which of these
> > > things would have ADDED to the overall aerodynamics of the plane?
> >
> > The rest of the fuselage, control vanes and don't forget the tail..
> >
> > This is too easy..
>
> And let's not forget wing sweep, wing dihedral, tail dihedral, etc.
I didn't actually expect to get to those "finer" points.. <chuckling>
> All of these are critical for stability and control analysis.
Yup, all conveniently neglected byt the "conspiracy theorists."
Go figure..
> --
> Cheers...Craig
Salut!
John Mazor
M Soja <ms...@javanet.com> wrote in article
<349dc343...@news.zippo.com>...
> On Mon, 08 Dec 1997 18:34:14 -0600, Kurt Lochner
> <Cap...@worldnet.tta.net> posted:
>
> >Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
>
> >> The force
> >> remains constant and vertical with the rubber band, wheras with the
> >> 747 and the glider, it rotates weith the plane itself, sand ceases
when the
> >> wing stalls.
>
> >That right, the force ("lift") remains constant, and if the fuselage
> >gets *LIGHTER* the airplane will go up.. I see that you have no
> >formal training in physics, much less aeronautics..
>
> Kurt, you still aren't giving a clue as to having any higher
> education. Your statement, "if the fuselage gets *LIGHTER* the
> airplane will go up" seems to be missing a premise or two. You figure
> that out, if you can.
>
> The state of modern physics: "If the fuselage gets *LIGHTER* the
> airplaine will go up."
>
> Firesign Theater: "If you push something hard enough it WILL fall
> over."
>
> Ku*t Lochness: "If the fuselage gets *LIGHTER* the airplaine will go
> up."
>
> Good work Ku*t. Did you have a scholarship????
>
M, go ask an old bomber pilot what his airplane would do immediately after
he dropped his load of bombs. (Hint: Without touching a damn thing on the
controls, the airplane would immediately jump in what direction as a result
of the *lighter* load?)
Figure that out if you can.
M Soja
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:40:02 -0400, "Daniel J. Lavigne"
<taxfree@^remove^idirect.com> posted:
>Immediately upon losing the weight associated with the portion of the nose
>that fell or was blown off, the "center of gravity" would move backwards with
>a subsequent skyward repointing of the remaining fuselage. The engines,
>evidently, continued to run for an unknown period of time. Freed from the nose
>weight and angled upwards, there is a possibility of the aircraft doing a bit
>of a "Zoom Climb" to whatever altitude was recorded.
TWA800 was not a canoe with a fat person in the stern, it was an
aircraft with all its lift being generated from its front instead of
its middle.
>Questions: Did the explosion impart any downward forces that would have
>effectively negated the altered "C of G"? Could the quick deceleration
>associated with the downward impetus (if provided by the explosion) and
>temporary, but necessarily tremendous, drag as the nose broke away, lead to an
>immediate stall and dive to the sea? With the break-off of the left(?) wing
>prior to contact with the ocean's surface, one is led to believe that any
>"Zoom" climb could not have taken place due to a now structurally suspect
>wing/wing root.
>If so, it is entirely possible that there was no climb, or very little climb
Yup.
M Soja
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:00:45 -0600, Craig Shields
<cshi...@removethis.graymills.com> posted:
>Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> M Soja wrote:
>> > >Zehr's quote-back by Beck seriously neglects the rest of the
>> > >airframe dynamics, and only treats the wing in its simple form.
>> > So, Mr BS degree, which of the factors that Zehr failed to address,
>> > as in the aerodynamics of a ripped open fuselage, the aerodynamics
>> >of
>> > leading and trailing edges damaged by debris, etc., which of these
>> > things would have ADDED to the overall aerodynamics of the plane?
>> The rest of the fuselage, control vanes and don't forget the tail..
>> This is too easy..
>And let's not forget wing sweep, wing dihedral, tail dihedral, etc. All
>of these are critical for stability and control analysis.
Two bright boys. Those things were already on the plane and operating
within parameters (we assume.) Did they suddenly have their lifting
properties enhanced by a massive jolt and explosive loss of the nose?
Zehr, by omission, assumed zero affect. Are you saying the wings and
tail performed better after the disaster than before?
M Soja
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:38:18 -0600, Kurt Lochner
<Cap...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>M Soja wrote:
>> So, Mr BS degree, which of the factors that Zehr failed to address,
>> as in the aerodynamics of a ripped open fuselage, the aerodynamics
>>of leading and trailing edges damaged by debris, etc., which of these
>> things would have ADDED to the overall aerodynamics of the plane?
>The rest of the fuselage, control vanes and don't forget the tail..
Brilliant. All those things were on the plane before the nose fell
off. Did they suddenly become MORE aerodynamic with ragged failing
metal edges plowing the air ahead of them?
>This is too easy..
You're dreaming.
>> Which of the factors that Zehr didn't address ADD to the flyability
>> of the plane (with no pilot)???
>The fuselage, you know that cylindrical thingie that you sit in?
>And don't forget the rudder and tail/winglets, that's how you
>steer the airplane..
Ku*t, on this one I have to say you are purposely being stupid. Zepp
used to call that willful ignorance, but I think you've taken it to a
new low.
Kurt Lochner
M Soja wrote:
>
> Kurt Lochner expounded more relevent details, and..
>
> >M Soja wrote:
>
> >> So, Mr BS degree, which of the factors that Zehr failed to address,
> >> as in the aerodynamics of a ripped open fuselage, the aerodynamics
> >>of leading and trailing edges damaged by debris, etc., which of these
> >> things would have ADDED to the overall aerodynamics of the plane?
>
> >The rest of the fuselage, control vanes and don't forget the tail..
>
> Brilliant. All those things were on the plane before the nose fell
> off. Did they suddenly become MORE aerodynamic with ragged failing
> metal edges plowing the air ahead of them?
control surfaces/vanes on the fuselage did become more a factor.
That's what they're there for. Uhnn, have you been to an airport
lately and even looked at an airplane? Just curious...
> >This is too easy..
>
> You're dreaming.
Thank's for the cheap laughs tonight..
> >> Which of the factors that Zehr didn't address ADD to the flyability
> >> of the plane (with no pilot)???
>
> >The fuselage, you know that cylindrical thingie that you sit in?
> >And don't forget the rudder and tail/winglets, that's how you
> >steer the airplane..
>
> [Kurt], on this one I have to say you are purposely being stupid.
It seems to get the idea across to you in terms you understand..
It works, it got your attention, now about your comprehension problems..
> Zepp used to call that willful ignorance, but I think you've taken it
> to a new low.
You're way ahead of me man... I doubt that I could touch you..
Kurt Lochner
M Soja wrote:
>
> Craig Shields explained..
>
> >Kurt Lochner wrote:
> >> M Soja wrote:
> >> > >Zehr's quote-back by Beck seriously neglects the rest of the
> >> > >airframe dynamics, and only treats the wing in its simple form.
>
> >> > as in the aerodynamics of a ripped open fuselage, the aerodynamics
> >> >of
> >> > leading and trailing edges damaged by debris, etc., which of these
> >> > things would have ADDED to the overall aerodynamics of the plane?
>
> >> The rest of the fuselage, control vanes and don't forget the tail..
>
>
> >And let's not forget wing sweep, wing dihedral, tail dihedral, etc. All
> >of these are critical for stability and control analysis.
>
> Two bright boys.
Apparently, he and I have seen aero-design work, and you haven't...
> Those things were already on the plane and operating
> within parameters (we assume.)
No, you're assuming for us. Stop that...
> Did they suddenly have their lifting
> properties enhanced by a massive jolt and explosive loss of the nose?
I don't think that it was a "massive jolt" so much as a rapid
decompression, and then things went to hell in a hurry..
Like I said earlier, this probably was more a case of "Shit happens"
than anything *ONE* thing else. I was with an ex-AF guy the night
it went down, and the first thing we discussed was the fuel pumps
and inert gases/ventilation causing a spark. Kinda funny to see
that come back around full-circle from here..
> Zehr, by omission, assumed zero affect.
Yeah, convenient that.. That's why it looked wrong to me, to start.
Why? Because it's common to make those types of 'assumptions' in
the design of a wing, and certainly isn't a forensic investigation.
> Are you saying the wings and
> tail performed better after the disaster than before?
If they were in more turbulent air-flow, then yes, generally they do.
I don't have to explain how air compresses to you, do I?
Go figure..
David Winslow
Please endure my primitive setup below.
As I understand things, wings provide lift at the point they connect to the
airframe. This is countered by gravity centered at nearly the same point
as the wing's lift. As long as the two primary forces are balanced, and
applied at the same central point, the plane can fly. The only deviation
possible would be within the range of control provided by the horizontal
stabilizer. The same balancing act applies to the other axis, wing lift
must be balanced on both sides within the control range of the ailerons,
and drag and thrust must be balanced on both sides within the control range
of the rudder. The slightest imbalance causes rotation or turn or bank
which must be stopped by deliberate counter action with the controls -- have
not all pilots learned this during hour 1?
So if the lift is applied at the front of the plane, and gravity applies
itself back toward the rear, we have torque which will tend to rotate the
plane until the forces are back in balance. In the case of the noseless
800, that is wings straight up, tail straight down. The rotation would
not go far off course before lift is lost or wings are ripped off.
Can someone tell me what countered the rotation? The wings are low, so
there is not a lot of inherent stability (what is the term for this). There
was no force applied to the elevator. Have I not represented the basic
forces properly? Is mine not the most obvious and immediate question that
should come to mind viewing the CIA simulation?
Thanks
John Mazor
David Winslow <Da...@Winslow.mv.com> wrote in article
<EL4q...@mv.mv.com>...
I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but I can take a stab at one of Rivero's
"Watch Mr. Wizard" science experiments to illustrate a point.
Take a toy glider (are you listening, Michael?). Insert a needle crossways
through the fuselage at a point slightly forward of the center of gravity,
so the tail just barely drops down. Now blow front-to-back (as the air
would in flight), directing it at the tail. What happens? The tail will
rise, correcting the upward pitch of the aircraft. In other words, the
tail is subjected to forces that tend to counteract the pitch up caused by
the rearward shift of the center of gravity when the nose falls off. On a
long airframe such as the B747 this can exert considerable torque.
Will this by itself maintain stable flight? Of course not, just as my
point that the loss of weight from the nose resulted in an altitude gain
would not nearly explain all of the gain in altitude shown on the videos;
but in both cases, they act in that direction.
And please, don't anybody bust me for neglecting the continuing forces that
still want to drive the aircraft to pitch up into a stall. I know that.
The NTSB video reflected that. My "experiment" purposely omits all that to
make a point that at least partially answers David's question. Unlike some
here, I readily admit that valid results cannot come from balsa gliders or
styrofoam cups. It would take a bitching big series of numbers crunchings
based on sophisticated computer modeling derived from carefully metered
wind tunnel tests to produce a reliable predictive model that would show
with any precision exactly how TWA 800 behaved after the CWT exploded.
So did the CIA video reflect that kind of analysis? Probably not. Did the
NTSB's? I don't know. It was far better than the CIA's; but all
post-explosion motion still was based on intelligent guesswork and teasing
data out of secondary sources such as primary returns of wreckage, rather
than solid data points from a flight data recorder.
Even with those limitations, though, I still find them more convincing than
eyewitness accounts of lights moving against a sky at great distances with
few if any points of reference. And anyone who looks at the record cannot
escape the conclusion that the evidence from the wreckage thoroughly
debunks the bomb and missile theories.
David P Benjamin
David Winslow (Da...@Winslow.mv.com) wrote:
[snip of good stuff]
: So if the lift is applied at the front of the plane, and gravity applies
: itself back toward the rear, we have torque which will tend to rotate the
: plane until the forces are back in balance. In the case of the noseless
: 800, that is wings straight up, tail straight down. The rotation would
: not go far off course before lift is lost or wings are ripped off.
: Can someone tell me what countered the rotation? The wings are low, so
: there is not a lot of inherent stability (what is the term for this). There
: was no force applied to the elevator. Have I not represented the basic
: forces properly? Is mine not the most obvious and immediate question that
: should come to mind viewing the CIA simulation?
Well, sure, but keep in mind that the CIA animation is based
on witness reports, and we know how potentially unreliable
they can be. :-)
What Boeing found in their humongous simulation is that
in the resulting pitchup, the lift was coming from the
wingtips. As the pitchup continued, the strength
of the tips were exceeded and they snapped off. When
they did, the remaining wing area was at or near stall.
So the only question is, how long will it take to go
from 1G to the 5-7G (IIRC) to snap off the wingtips?
If it takes a few seconds, like say about 20....
--
David Benjamin
http://www.duc.auburn.edu/~benjadp
Spam reported to ISPs and/or US Fraud hotline. Inquire within.
Michael Rivero
In article <348C4560...@removethis.graymills.com>,
Craig Shields <cshi...@removethis.graymills.com> wrote:
>Michael Rivero wrote:
>
>> This from the man who invented the KC-140.
>>
>> force
>> remains constant and vertical with the rubber band, wheras with the
>> 747 and the glider, it rotates weith the plane itself, sand ceases
>> when the
>> didn't cut the rubber band at the opint where the wings would stall.
>>
>> Using a small airplane to predict the behavior of large planes is
>> perfectly appropriate. That's how Boeing designed their planes in the
>> days
>> before computer simulations. Hanging the model from a rubber band
>> lacks "precision".
>
>
>I'd agree with you that the rubber band experiment is sketchy at best.
>I understand the point that was being made, but the common fallacy on
>this thread is to confuse static and dynamic issues.
>
You are trying to sell everyone on the idea that a 1 foot long
plane without it's nose can be unstable, but if it grows to 100
feet it becomes stable wihtout any other changes at all.
Instability caused by having the center of mass move aft of the center
of lift is the same regardless of the size of the aircraft.
The Boeing engineers agreed with me. A noseless 747 cannot
maintain stable flight. It will swap ends.
Daniel J. Lavigne
Craig Shields <cshi...@removethis.graymills.com> wrote:
Daniel J. Lavigne wrote:
>> As for any suggesting that Craig Shields may be a "government
>> plant", surely it is common knowledge that he is a verbose weed >> at best?
> Thanks for your support!
<snip>
> Actually, Dan, I never claimed to know what happened. Reread my
> posts. I have no idea how TWA 800 was downed. However, when
> people like Mr. Rivero fabricate evidence, I will call them on
> that. Is that not the intellectually honest thing to do?
When one believes something to be wrong, they must do their utmost to correct
or otherwise mitigate such wrong. "Duty" requires that we do no less.
Ian Goddard, whether he is right or wrong, is to be commended for his efforts
to give a view of the matter that is not consistent with official reasons for
the disaster.
In any event, the NTSB may have identified the wiring attached to the fuel
tank measuring devices as the possible source of sparks or electrical surges
that may have caused possibly overheated fuel vapours to ignite/explode.
America's Navy and Air Force aircraft have been using a foam addition to their
fuel tanks with special additives to their fuels to lessen the possibility of
such events.
It seems as if Russia, in the Second World War, used exhaust blow back to
positively pressurize their fuel tanks and diminish oxygen availability with
some success in lowering the incident of exploding gas tanks on aircraft
utilized for low level attacks against strongly defended positions.
Speaking of war and fools losing their lives for the greed of other fools;
"The Question" is leading people to make their own decisions with regard to
the insanity of support for plans and preparations involving the will and
capacity to mass murder fellow human beings.
The tax refusal continues to grow. The lawyers / tax twiddlers upon whom you
relied to form your early opinions now say nothing with regard to Decision
T2020-88.
It finally dawned on them that the rule of law is paramount and that, in
Canada at least, the courts and the government are bound to follow the rules
of the court in all matters before the court.
The application of Rule 419(1)(a) as I claimed it applied, continues to stand.
I continue with the tax refusal and have never again been asked to file tax
returns or pay taxes. That alone should have told you something. Now, "The Question":
“Does my birth as a human being truly condemn
me to paying taxes to or otherwise supporting
a society so cowardly and lost to the madness
of greed as to participate in plans and preparations
to wage nuclear war and risk thereby the murder
of hundreds of millions of defenceless fellow
human beings?”
To a safer, saner world. To Duty. Join the tax refusal. Think of your
grandchildren, mail your statement to your government.
Daniel J. Lavigne
Founder Co-ordinator
International Humanity House
--
To Duty
What is one’s duty, when acknowledging a threat
That would destroy all beauty,
Even steal childrens’ breath?
Does therein lie evil in avoiding a way
That forces the matter, that builds to a day
When humanity shatters greed’s guilty ways?
Copyright. Daniel J. Lavigne, February 21/88
Daniel J. Lavigne first refused to file tax returns or pay income taxes in
Daniel J. Lavigne
Kurt Lochner
M Soja wrote:
>
> On 13 Dec 1997 04:15:54 GMT, "John Mazor" posted:
>
> >M, go ask an old bomber pilot what his airplane would do immediately after
> >he dropped his load of bombs. (Hint: Without touching a damn thing on the
> >controls, the airplane would immediately jump in what direction as a result
> >of the *lighter* load?)
>
> fuselage! That's why Cessna 150s fly higher than 747s. They weigh
> less.
Cessna's also have a smaller wingspan and chord.. Go figure..
> I was ridiculing the utterly simplistic utterance by the prince of
> simplistics, [Kurt] L. [Kurt]'s been attempting to pooh pooh the casual
> but not fanciful calculations offered by Zehr by saying that they are
> too simplistic. So far [Kurt]'s only direct comment buttressing (I
> suppose) his own view on the fate of an aircraft without its nose is:
>
> "If the fuselage gets *LIGHTER* the airplaine will go up."
You apparently don't know how stupid you're acting..
Clue: You're refuting the Laws of Physics.
How do you plead? Stupid or not Stupid?
> Apparently [Kurt] has a higher view of his own simplistics than others
> do.
That's not my problem, as I kinda doubt Zehr's claims and estimates
as to only considering the wing [Angle of attack, stall speed, etc..]
Oh, and pardon me for not buying into your presumptions about the
design of aeronautics, and the accompanying instrumentations. **NOT!**
M Soja
On 13 Dec 1997 04:15:54 GMT, "John Mazor" <maz...@erols.com> posted:
>M, go ask an old bomber pilot what his airplane would do immediately after
>he dropped his load of bombs. (Hint: Without touching a damn thing on the
>controls, the airplane would immediately jump in what direction as a result
>of the *lighter* load?)
So, dropping a load of bombs is analogous to dropping 30% of the
fuselage! That's why Cessna 150s fly higher than 747s. They weigh
less.
I was ridiculing the utterly simplistic utterance by the prince of
simplistics, Ku*t L. Ku*t's been attempting to pooh pooh the casual
but not fanciful calculations offered by Zehr by saying that they are
too simplistic. So far Ku*t's only direct comment buttressing (I
suppose) his own view on the fate of an aircraft without its nose is:
"If the fuselage gets *LIGHTER* the airplaine will go up."
Apparently Ku*t has a higher view of his own simplistics than others
do.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
M Soja
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997 15:40:30 -0500, Ron Katona <ro...@cris.com>
posted:
>Total, complete, typical Rivero bullshit. The NTSB simulation that
>showed a 3000 foot climb does not show a failure of the wingbox. It
>shows that a wings level climb (required to reach 17,000 feet) does not
>match the actual ground track from six radar known to have skin returns
>after the explosion. Have you bothered to read the NTSB data? In the
>three simulations ran, the G-forces run 2 to 2.5 G.
What G forces were required to break the necks of the majority of the
occupants of the plane?
M Soja
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997 00:09:10 -0500, Ron Katona <ro...@cris.com>
posted:
>M Soja wrote:
>> What G forces were required to break the necks of the majority of the
>> occupants of the plane?
>I don't know what G force is needed to snap one's neck. I would guess
>it's substantially higher than the decelerative forces from the
>increased drag as the nose separated, or from the resultant climb. I
>think Formula 1 race drivers have survived momentary 40-50g deceleration
>as recorded from on-board telemetry during crashes.
F1 drivers work in specialized environments, undergo special training,
etc.
>However, aren't we overlooking one big fact? The plane hit the water at
>between 300-500 knots depending on what scenario you want to believe.
>Don't you think that the impact with the water is the *obvious* source
>of the broken necks? It seems so to me unless we believe that a 350-550
>mph impact with water would leave no evidence on the bodies.
Most passengers were supposed to have died instantaneously, with the
initial event, whatever that event may have been. Their necks were
broken long before they hit the water.
Your argument also fails on several other levels, one of them being
that with 280 different ways to fall out of the sky you don't end up
with nearly all of the passengers dying the same way.
M Soja
On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 23:32:40 -0600, Kurt Lochner
<Cap...@worldnet.tta.net> posted:
>Oh, and pardon me for not buying into your presumptions about the
>design of aeronautics, and the accompanying instrumentations. **NOT!**
*What* is "design of aeronautics"??? Another in a string of idiotic
verbal constructions from Ku*t Lochner.
Kurt Lochner
M Soja <ms...@javanet.com> wrote:
>
> Kurt Lochner posted:
>
> >Oh, and pardon me for not buying into your presumptions about the
> >design of aeronautics, and the accompanying instrumentations.
> >**NOT!**
>
> *What* is "design of aeronautics"???
Oh, stuff that flies in the air, or do I have to explain the
compressibility of gases to you now? It must've just flown by you..
M Soja
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997 21:25:11 -0500, Ron Katona <ro...@cris.com>
posted:
>M Soja wrote:
>> Most passengers were supposed to have died instantaneously, with the
>> initial event, whatever that event may have been. Their necks were
>> broken long before they hit the water.
>But what did they die of? You offer no proof of their necks being broken
>before the impact. My claim was obviously that the broken necks were not
>the cause of death, but happened after death when the plane hit the
>water. I haven't seen the autopsy reports, have you? If so, let me know
>where to find them. (although I suspect that the NTSB has regulations
>about releasing them for the privacy of the families)
Reposted:
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
First autopsy report released from TWA 800 crash
January 3, 1997
HAUPPAUGE, New York (CNN) -- The Suffolk County medical examiner has
released the first autopsy report on the victims from TWA Flight 800.
[...]
But Watli has said since early in the investigation that he believes
the victims either died instantly or were rendered unconscious when
the plane exploded. On Friday, he again said he believed most of the
victims died after suffering "the ultimate whiplash," separation of
the spine from the skull.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Coroner releasing autopsies from TWA crash to families
Associated Press
January 4, 1997
HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. -- The coroner who oversaw autopsies on most of the
victims of TWA Flight 800 has started releasing details to family
members, though he can't understand why they would want the "chilling
documents."
[...]
He emphasized the explosion of the Paris-bound flight was different
from some crashes in which victims may experience the horror of
knowing that they are about to die.
"In this crash, the victims were killed instantly or were unconscious
by the time they hit the water," he said.
Large numbers of those killed in the TWA 800 disaster suffered
separation of the skull from their spines, making it likely that death
was instantaneous, he said.
There were some individuals whose heart might have still been beating
when they hit the water but it was unlikely that they were conscious,
he said.
The medical examiner said he still could not understand why passengers
were not burned even though investigators have determined that the
center fuel tank somehow exploded, knocking the plane out of the sky.
"As far as I can tell, I don't believe anyone suffered," he said.
"It's not impossible but it's highly unlikely."
David Winslow
John Mazor wrote in message <01bd07ed$578c54a0$9a6faccf@mazorj>...
>
>
>David Winslow <Da...@Winslow.mv.com> wrote in article
><EL4q...@mv.mv.com>...
>> Please endure my primitive setup below.
>>
>> As I understand things, wings provide lift at the point they connect to
>the
>> airframe. This is countered by gravity centered at nearly the same
>point
>> as the wing's lift. As long as the two primary forces are balanced,
>and
>> applied at the same central point, the plane can fly. The only
>deviation
>> possible would be within the range of control provided by the horizontal
>> stabilizer. The same balancing act applies to the other axis, wing lift
>> must be balanced on both sides within the control range of the ailerons,
>> and drag and thrust must be balanced on both sides within the control
>range
>> of the rudder. The slightest imbalance causes rotation or turn or bank
>> which must be stopped by deliberate counter action with the controls --
>have
>> not all pilots learned this during hour 1?
>>
>> So if the lift is applied at the front of the plane, and gravity applies
>> itself back toward the rear, we have torque which will tend to rotate
>the
>> plane until the forces are back in balance. In the case of the noseless
>> 800, that is wings straight up, tail straight down. The rotation would
>> not go far off course before lift is lost or wings are ripped off.
>>
>> Can someone tell me what countered the rotation? The wings are low, so
>> there is not a lot of inherent stability (what is the term for this).
>There
>> was no force applied to the elevator. Have I not represented the basic
>> forces properly? Is mine not the most obvious and immediate question
>that
>> should come to mind viewing the CIA simulation?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
>I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but I can take a stab at one of Rivero's
>"Watch Mr. Wizard" science experiments to illustrate a point.
>
>Take a toy glider (are you listening, Michael?). Insert a needle crossways
>through the fuselage at a point slightly forward of the center of gravity,
>so the tail just barely drops down. Now blow front-to-back (as the air
>would in flight), directing it at the tail. What happens? The tail will
>rise, correcting the upward pitch of the aircraft. In other words, the
>tail is subjected to forces that tend to counteract the pitch up caused by
>the rearward shift of the center of gravity when the nose falls off. On a
>long airframe such as the B747 this can exert considerable torque.
>
Not a vaid experiment. You are holding the pin, that is the fulcrum, and
coutering gravity with your wind which will of course lift the tail. If the
pin was not held however, there would be lift on the wings as well, and
with the CG behind them would tend to rotate the front up.
>Will this by itself maintain stable flight? Of course not, just as my
>point that the loss of weight from the nose resulted in an altitude gain
>would not nearly explain all of the gain in altitude shown on the videos;
>but in both cases, they act in that direction.
>
>And please, don't anybody bust me for neglecting the continuing forces that
>still want to drive the aircraft to pitch up into a stall. I know that.
>The NTSB video reflected that.
I did not see that reflected at all. That is the problem that Mike
originally posted. The video I saw at least showed a relatively stable
flight, with only a moderately lifted nose (if there had been one). The
video looks smooth, and moderate, showing the plane role back and forth as
if pushed around a little, yet balanced and returning to nearly level
flight. This is what looks impossible. If they make their data
available, many independant people can do their own simulations and we may
have more rational reasons for dought (or faith).
>My "experiment" purposely omits all that to
>make a point that at least partially answers David's question. Unlike some
>here, I readily admit that valid results cannot come from balsa gliders or
>styrofoam cups. It would take a bitching big series of numbers crunchings
>based on sophisticated computer modeling derived from carefully metered
>wind tunnel tests to produce a reliable predictive model that would show
>with any precision exactly how TWA 800 behaved after the CWT exploded.
>
Seems to me we are talking about a very gross inbalance, it should not take
a Crey (are they still around?) to yield some basic answers that would make
the CIA videa at least plausable.
>So did the CIA video reflect that kind of analysis? Probably not. Did the
>NTSB's? I don't know. It was far better than the CIA's; but all
>post-explosion motion still was based on intelligent guesswork and teasing
>data out of secondary sources such as primary returns of wreckage, rather
>than solid data points from a flight data recorder.
>
The basic data I would like to see is just where the CG would be after the
nose seperated, approximately where the force of lift would be applied,
how much force rotating the front up and tail down, and how much rough
coutering force. Just a few approximate static numbers would tell a lot.
Seems to me they would show an awfull lot of torque pulling the front up and
the drag of the air on the tail a minimal factor compared to the drag on the
raising wing.
>Even with those limitations, though, I still find them more convincing than
>eyewitness accounts of lights moving against a sky at great distances with
>few if any points of reference. And anyone who looks at the record cannot
>escape the conclusion that the evidence from the wreckage thoroughly
>debunks the bomb and missile theories.
>
There are apparently many witnesses who report something rise from the
horizon, and merge just at the time of the explosion. I don't see how you
can just write them off. This description does not leave room for a small
rise in altitude after an explosion, it doesn't fit at all in my mind.
As for the wreckage, most people have become suspicious of this government.
Too many questions have come up in the past and continue to this day
concerning the government's forthrightness. The FBI and CIA are covert
organizations, and very tainted ones at that. So we have every reason to
question the way in which the wreckage was handled, and continues to be
guarded. The Navy is suspected, yet they are the ones entrusted with the
vital evidence. I think we should believe no one, and keep and open and
watchful mind.
Craig Shields
M Soja wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:00:45 -0600, Craig Shields
> <cshi...@removethis.graymills.com> posted:
>
> >Kurt Lochner wrote:
> >> M Soja wrote:
> >> > >Zehr's quote-back by Beck seriously neglects the rest of the
> >> > >airframe dynamics, and only treats the wing in its simple form.
>
> >> > So, Mr BS degree, which of the factors that Zehr failed to
> address,
> >> > as in the aerodynamics of a ripped open fuselage, the
> aerodynamics
> >> >of
> >> > leading and trailing edges damaged by debris, etc., which of
> these
> >> > things would have ADDED to the overall aerodynamics of the plane?
>
> >> The rest of the fuselage, control vanes and don't forget the tail..
>
> >> This is too easy..
>
> >And let's not forget wing sweep, wing dihedral, tail dihedral, etc.
> All
> >of these are critical for stability and control analysis.
>
> Two bright boys. Those things were already on the plane and operating
>
> within parameters (we assume.) Did they suddenly have their lifting
> properties enhanced by a massive jolt and explosive loss of the nose?
> Zehr, by omission, assumed zero affect. Are you saying the wings and
> tail performed better after the disaster than before?
Mr. Soja-
Please explain to me the difference between static and dynamic
stability. If you cannot do so, I understand why you ignore my points.
If you can, then it is possible to have an intelligent debate. I will
also be happy to answer why I do not believe that the ripped off nose
had as great of an aerodynamic effect as you seem to think that it did.
However, I need to know whether you understand the basics before I go
into more complex details.
Docky Wocky
Coroner releasing autopsies from TWA crash to families
Associated Press
January 4, 1997
HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. -- The coroner who oversaw autopsies on most of the
victims of TWA Flight 800 has started releasing details to family
members, though he can't understand why they would want the "chilling
documents."
[...]
He emphasized the explosion of the Paris-bound flight was different
from some crashes in which victims may experience the horror of
knowing that they are about to die.
"In this crash, the victims were killed instantly or were unconscious
by the time they hit the water," he said.
Just like the crew of the space shuttle explosion several years ago....
Craig Shields
M Soja wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:57:09 -0600, Craig Shields
> <cshi...@removethis.graymills.com> posted:
>
> >M Soja wrote:
>
> >> The only thing I've commented
> >> on re TWA800 is the theory that after the nose fell off the
> airplane
> >> gained 3200 feet in altitude. Like you, it's ludicrous.
>
> >Why is it ludicrous? I'm curious. As an aero engineer, I can
> conceive
> >of several scenarios which would result in a crippled plane gaining
> >altitude. I've posted them all here before, yet the only response
> that
> >I ever receive is Mike Rivero calling me a government plant.
>
> TWA800 wasn't just crippled, it was decapititated. Go to the docs Ron
>
> pointed to in this thread.
Tom-ay-to/Tom-ah-to. I know it was decapitated. I can still see how a
plane minus its nose could - for a short time - continue in a stable
flight path. Lockerby (sp?), anyone?
> >Do you have any hard facts and figures to refute these scenarios?
> Look
> >them up in dejanews. Otherwise, as someone who will post meaningless
>
> >ramblings with no basis in fact, you are the ludicrous one.
>
> The simulations show a max 1300 ft climb, and I think that's pushing
> it. The aircraft reached stall condition almost immediately the nose
> fell off, just as several people have speculated. The CIA video was
> and is a sham, so why was it even released? The 3200 ft climb was a
> fabricated lie made to paint the witnesses as unreliable and mistaken.
>
> Will the CIA make a video retracting their earlier flights of fancy?
Actually, I was one of those people. I still think that the most likely
course of action would have been a quick pitch (including a sharp climb)
followed by a stall. However, everything depends on two major things:
how the controls reacted to the nose being severed and how badly the
stability derivatives were degraded. Calling the CIA video a
"fabricated lie" without any evidence is intellectually dishonest. I
personally think that 3200' is high, but it's only a matter of degree.
Craig Shields
Daniel J. Lavigne wrote:
> Craig Shields <cshi...@removethis.graymills.com> wrote:
>
> Daniel J. Lavigne wrote:
>
> >> As for any suggesting that Craig Shields may be a "government
> >> plant", surely it is common knowledge that he is a verbose weed
> >> at best?
>
> > Thanks for your support!
>
> <snip>
>
> > Actually, Dan, I never claimed to know what happened. Reread my
> > posts. I have no idea how TWA 800 was downed. However, when
> > people like Mr. Rivero fabricate evidence, I will call them on
> > that. Is that not the intellectually honest thing to do?
>
> When one believes something to be wrong, they must do their utmost to
> correct
> or otherwise mitigate such wrong. "Duty" requires that we do no less.
And so Paul Adam and I should be commended for calling Rivero's bluff
and providing evidence and facts where speculation once existed.
> Ian Goddard, whether he is right or wrong, is to be commended for his
> efforts
> to give a view of the matter that is not consistent with official
> reasons for
> the disaster.
>
> In any event, the NTSB may have identified the wiring attached to the
> fuel
> tank measuring devices as the possible source of sparks or electrical
> surges
> that may have caused possibly overheated fuel vapours to
> ignite/explode.
> America's Navy and Air Force aircraft have been using a foam addition
> to their
> fuel tanks with special additives to their fuels to lessen the
> possibility of
> such events.
Also, they purge with nitrogen. No oxygen = no explosion.
> It seems as if Russia, in the Second World War, used exhaust blow back
> to
> positively pressurize their fuel tanks and diminish oxygen
> availability with
> some success in lowering the incident of exploding gas tanks on
> aircraft
> utilized for low level attacks against strongly defended positions.
Interesting. I had never heard that.
Dan - you make rational points here. I'm sure your input would be
appreciated. However, please leave the Canadian tax issues and the
poetry for the proper newsgroups.
--
Cheers...Craig
Craig Shields
Michael Rivero wrote:
Yup. Actually, planes which show stability can be shrunken to a
geometrically similar model which is not stable. Plus, you fail to
account for the aerodynamics of the 747 in your model. Where did you
account for wing sweep, dihedral, planform, section, etc.?
> Instability caused by having the center of mass move aft of the
> center
> of lift is the same regardless of the size of the aircraft.
Statically, yes. Dynamically, no. You still haven't figured out the
difference, have you?
> The Boeing engineers agreed with me. A noseless 747 cannot
> maintain stable flight. It will swap ends.
Um...the last "Boeing" post you had revolved around the control cables.
Craig Shields
David Winslow wrote:
You made what is a very easy error. For airplane analysis, you need to
look at two things: static and dynamic. Your setup fairly accurately
described a static analysis of an airplane Unfortunately, for stability
and control design, you need to look at the dynamic side of things.
Factors here include wing sweep, wing placement (as you mentioned),
dihedral, and many others Frankly, I can't accurately guess what
happened; I'll admit that freely. However, it *is* conceivable that the
dynamic stability of a 747 could overcome the loss of the nose for a
short period of time. From a historical standpoint, the Lockerby (sp?)
747 was fairly stable with a smaller chunk of its nose blown off.
What really happened? Who knows. Are the CIA and NTSB videos
possible? Definitely yes. What I really don't understand is why the
missile crowd is so against these videos. They do nothing to prove or
disprove a missile hit; they only deal with what happened after the nose
was severed.
Craig Shields
David Winslow wrote:
> Seems to me we are talking about a very gross inbalance, it should
> not take
> a Crey (are they still around?) to yield some basic answers that would
> make
> the CIA videa at least plausable.
Unfortunately, CFD of that scale takes some serious equipment. Yes, I
could quickly (15 hours or so) calculate some rough stability
derivatives for an estimated speed, control setting, and attitude.
However, remember that as the plane's speed and attitude varied, the
control derivatives would vary also. There's no quick work around.
> The basic data I would like to see is just where the CG would be after
> the
> nose seperated, approximately where the force of lift would be
> applied,
> how much force rotating the front up and tail down, and how much
> rough
> coutering force. Just a few approximate static numbers would tell a
> lot.
> Seems to me they would show an awfull lot of torque pulling the front
> up and
> the drag of the air on the tail a minimal factor compared to the drag
> on the
> raising wing.
Static numbers don't mean much in a dynamic situation. They're a good
starting point, but they won't give you useful information.
Craig Shields
Ron Katona wrote:
> However, aren't we overlooking one big fact? The plane hit the water
> at
> between 300-500 knots depending on what scenario you want to believe.
> Don't you think that the impact with the water is the *obvious* source
>
> of the broken necks? It seems so to me unless we believe that a
> 350-550
> mph impact with water would leave no evidence on the bodies.
Correct, and it's also a possible (probable?) source of the "shrapnel".
There are reports of a Harrier pilot who "augerred in". The force of
the water hitting the plane drove metal debris into his body.
Craig Shields
M Soja wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 1997 00:09:10 -0500, Ron Katona <ro...@cris.com>
> posted:
>
> >However, aren't we overlooking one big fact? The plane hit the water
> at
> >between 300-500 knots depending on what scenario you want to believe.
>
> >Don't you think that the impact with the water is the *obvious*
> source
> >of the broken necks? It seems so to me unless we believe that a
> 350-550
> >mph impact with water would leave no evidence on the bodies.
>
> Most passengers were supposed to have died instantaneously, with the
> initial event, whatever that event may have been. Their necks were
> broken long before they hit the water.
And why do you think that it was the broken necks which killed them?
Dead bodies in the seats would have their necks snapped also.
> Your argument also fails on several other levels, one of them being
> that with 280 different ways to fall out of the sky you don't end up
> with nearly all of the passengers dying the same way.
Who said they did? Again, the snapped necks would have happened upon
impact with the water. Who's to say they weren't dead already.
John Mazor
David Winslow <Da...@Winslow.mv.com> wrote in article
<ELA68...@mv.mv.com>...
Did you read the rest of this section (see below) before you typed this?
Or were you so in love with your reply that you wanted to let it stand even
though my following statements made it clear that my experiment neglects
this in the interest of just showing the torque effect of the horizontal
stabilizer.
>
> >Will this by itself maintain stable flight? Of course not, just as my
> >point that the loss of weight from the nose resulted in an altitude gain
> >would not nearly explain all of the gain in altitude shown on the
videos;
> >but in both cases, they act in that direction.
> >
>
>
> >And please, don't anybody bust me for neglecting the continuing forces
that
> >still want to drive the aircraft to pitch up into a stall. I know that.
> >The NTSB video reflected that.
>
> I did not see that reflected at all. That is the problem that Mike
> originally posted. The video I saw at least showed a relatively stable
> flight, with only a moderately lifted nose (if there had been one). The
> video looks smooth, and moderate, showing the plane role back and forth
as
> if pushed around a little, yet balanced and returning to nearly level
> flight. This is what looks impossible. If they make their data
> available, many independant people can do their own simulations and we
may
> have more rational reasons for dought (or faith).
>
Get this into your heads, folks. The vieos are only approximations. The
CIA video is a poor approximation of the details of motion, etc., because
it wasn't intended to be a complete motion study. The NTSB's were better,
but they still contained errors (e.g., the spiralling o the nose section
after separation was unintentional, not supported by *any* data, and by
their own admission, shouldn't have been in the final product). Both
videos were not based on solid data points from the FDR. You're shooting
down straw men here David.
And here you put your finger on it. The conspiracy theorists start with
the assumption "This looks like a government screw-up and cover-up! Lets
dig through the evidence looking for proof of it!" The people who really
are interested in finding the cause of the accident don't tie one hand
behind their back by saying 'Okay, it's obvious a Navy missile done it.
Let's prove it."
If I'm not right about the conspiracy theorists, why do so many of their
postings -- not all! but a lot! -- end (or begin, or are filled with) rants
that you can't trust (Clinton, Navy, FBI, CIA, NTSB, non-believers on the
Web, anyone else), the government is out to screw the citizenry, they lie,
lie, lie all the time, they'll cover up anything, they're also involved in
(JFK, Foster, Brown, ad nauseam), and other, similar accusations?
I'm not saying that they can't have these feelings. It just makes it hard
to credit their arguments when they can't discuss an airline accident
without sooner or later getting back to this mantra.
David Winslow
David Winslow wrote in message ...
>>Will this by itself maintain stable flight? Of course not, just as my
>>point that the loss of weight from the nose resulted in an altitude gain
>>would not nearly explain all of the gain in altitude shown on the videos;
>>but in both cases, they act in that direction.
>>
>
>
>>And please, don't anybody bust me for neglecting the continuing forces
that
>>still want to drive the aircraft to pitch up into a stall. I know that.
>>The NTSB video reflected that.
>
>I did not see that reflected at all. That is the problem that Mike
>originally posted. The video I saw at least showed a relatively stable
>flight, with only a moderately lifted nose (if there had been one). The
>video looks smooth, and moderate, showing the plane role back and forth
as
>if pushed around a little, yet balanced and returning to nearly level
>flight. This is what looks impossible. If they make their data
>available, many independant people can do their own simulations and we may
>have more rational reasons for dought (or faith).
>
Kurt Lochner
M Soja wrote:
>
/snip!/
>
> Let me put it this way: I *used* to be able to do calculations such
> as Zehr's. I *used* to know the Greek alphabet pretty well. Explain
> whatever you think you can.
That you don't rember enough about recent commercial aircraft
to be held accountable as any kind of "authority" on this issue?
Thought so...
See, and you told on yourself, too..
Larry L. Jansen
WHY WON'T THEY ALLOW AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION?
In a previous article, cshi...@removethis.graymills.com (Craig Shields) says:
>M Soja wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:00:45 -0600, Craig Shields
>> <cshi...@removethis.graymills.com> posted:
>>
M Soja
On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:45:47 -0600, Craig Shields
<cshi...@removethis.graymills.com> posted:
>Calling the CIA video a
>"fabricated lie" without any evidence is intellectually dishonest. I
>personally think that 3200' is high, but it's only a matter of degree.
If the plane didn't climb 3200 feet for 16 seconds without its nose
the video is a lie.
M Soja
On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:30:30 -0600, Craig Shields
<cshi...@removethis.graymills.com> posted:
>Please explain to me the difference between static and dynamic
>stability.
While the 'static stability' of Lochner's
one-eyed-between-the-trouser-buttons view of the world is utterly
consistent within its own context (ie., his own elevator shaft), the
'dynamic INstability' of his day to day non-informative nebulous
nebbishness reveals that he probably has serious mental problems and
will most likely crash and burn, unless the CIA makes the video, in
which case he will burn first, and then crash.
> If you cannot do so, I understand why you ignore my points.
>If you can, then it is possible to have an intelligent debate. I will
>also be happy to answer why I do not believe that the ripped off nose
>had as great of an aerodynamic effect as you seem to think that it did.
Maybe the loss of the nose wasn't aerodynamically catastrophic (in and
of itself), but the point is, it didn't "help", either. I would give
you a 50/50 chance that if you blew the nose off a plane but balanced
the weight loss with an equal point sized mass (choose your own
material) that the plane would go farther than TWA800 did.
>However, I need to know whether you understand the basics before I go
>into more complex details.
Let me put it this way: I *used* to be able to do calculations such
as Zehr's. I *used* to know the Greek alphabet pretty well. Explain
whatever you think you can.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
M Soja
On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 19:32:03 -0500, Ron Katona <ron3b...@cris.com>
posted:
>Thanks for posting that, I hadn't seen it before. There is an even more
>detailed report at: http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/twa800/exhibit.htm
I do not see the report that you're referring to. There is the
Medical/Forensic Factual Report, but there are no accompanying charts.
>After reading both, I believe that the broken necks were caused by the
>impact with the water. You can read the other report to see where it
>differs from the report you posted and why I believe so. (read the parts
>on the injuries to the occupants of the seats over the CFT vs. the rest
>of the plane, the reports of broken legs from seat failures, the
>shrapnel wounds, and some sloppy work done at the initial autopsy)
The Factual Report only refers to damage to extremities, which may or
may not include crushed heads. To which specific report are you
referring? There are at least 30.
Craig Shields
M Soja wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:30:30 -0600, Craig Shields
> <cshi...@removethis.graymills.com> posted:
>
> >Please explain to me the difference between static and dynamic
> >stability.
>
> While the 'static stability' of Lochner's
> one-eyed-between-the-trouser-buttons view of the world is utterly
> consistent within its own context (ie., his own elevator shaft), the
> 'dynamic INstability' of his day to day non-informative nebulous
> nebbishness reveals that he probably has serious mental problems and
> will most likely crash and burn, unless the CIA makes the video, in
> which case he will burn first, and then crash.
An interesting interpretation, and humorous at that...
> > If you cannot do so, I understand why you ignore my points.
> >If you can, then it is possible to have an intelligent debate. I
> will
> >also be happy to answer why I do not believe that the ripped off nose
>
> >had as great of an aerodynamic effect as you seem to think that it
> did.
>
> Maybe the loss of the nose wasn't aerodynamically catastrophic (in and
>
> of itself), but the point is, it didn't "help", either. I would give
> you a 50/50 chance that if you blew the nose off a plane but balanced
> the weight loss with an equal point sized mass (choose your own
> material) that the plane would go farther than TWA800 did.
To the first point, no it definitely didn't help. Frankly, my educated
guess is that the loss of the nose *would* cause the plane to pitch
sharply up (given that the controls stayed neutral). If, and this is
the big if, the dynamic stability of the plane could overcome the loss
of the nose, the increase in drag (combined with the fact that the plane
would start climbing) would quickly bring the plane to a stall. It's
also possible that as the plane slowed down, the dynamic stability would
falter (in any world other than the one in Rivero's mind, stability
tends to increase with speed in the subsonic range). There are a lot of
ifs involved here. It would take me about 15 hours to crunch the
numbers for the stability and control derivatives at just one point.
Even to do them for every second for twenty seconds would be
overwhelming. That's where the Cray computers come in...
> >However, I need to know whether you understand the basics before I go
>
> >into more complex details.
>
> Let me put it this way: I *used* to be able to do calculations such
> as Zehr's. I *used* to know the Greek alphabet pretty well. Explain
> whatever you think you can.
I'll try to compile a list of variables which effect stability and their
relative weighting. It might take some time, but it would answer some
questions. In the mean time, if you can find Jan Roskam's book on
airplane stability, it covers this whole subject in depth. Otherwise,
the AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, if I
remember correctly) might have some on-line references.
TIMOTHY GUEGUEN
M Soja (ms...@javanet.com) wrote:
: On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:45:47 -0600, Craig Shields
: <cshi...@removethis.graymills.com> posted:
: >Calling the CIA video a
: >"fabricated lie" without any evidence is intellectually dishonest. I
: >personally think that 3200' is high, but it's only a matter of degree.
: If the plane didn't climb 3200 feet for 16 seconds without its nose
: the video is a lie.
Without proof of ill intent this would be called a mistake, not a lie.
tim gueguen 101867
Billy Beck
Kurt Lochner <Cap...@worldnet.tta.net> wrote:
>M Soja wrote:
>>
>/snip!/
>>
>> Let me put it this way: I *used* to be able to do calculations such
>> as Zehr's. I *used* to know the Greek alphabet pretty well. Explain
>> whatever you think you can.
>
>That you don't rember enough about recent commercial aircraft
>to be held accountable as any kind of "authority" on this issue?
>blink<
>Thoug...
"KC-140"
(Wow. Not *only* does he get the DesinexBurger...but he gets
nothing with his "college degree".)
Billy
Kurt Lochner
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> Kurt Lochner <Cap...@worldnet.tta.net> wrote:
>
> >M Soja wrote:
> >>
> >/snip!/
> >>
> >> Let me put it this way: I *used* to be able to do calculations such
> >> as Zehr's. I *used* to know the Greek alphabet pretty well. Explain
> >> whatever you think you can.
> >
> >That you don't rember enough about recent commercial aircraft
> >to be held accountable as any kind of "authority" on this issue?
>
> >blink<
>
> >Thoug...
>
> "KC-140"
I already told you about that, it was misreported, not only
on my behalf, as it *DID8 look like a Hercules tanker to me..
Also mentioned, flying with empty center fuel tanks is a relatively
new aviation practice, so they fill military aircraft "voids" with
inert gases since...
>(Wow. Not *only* does he get the DesinexBurger...but he gets
> nothing with his "college degree".)
Billy, you've been down here in this killer fog TOO long...
You need something to get up and go to school on..
Dummy up? I heard it again....
Craig Shields
M Soja wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:45:47 -0600, Craig Shields
> <cshi...@removethis.graymills.com> posted:
>
> >Calling the CIA video a
> >"fabricated lie" without any evidence is intellectually dishonest. I
>
> >personally think that 3200' is high, but it's only a matter of
> degree.
>
> If the plane didn't climb 3200 feet for 16 seconds without its nose
> the video is a lie.
That number is based on a lot of assumptions. Myself, I believe it to
be an error. However, to call it a lie implies intent to deceive. With
the number of aero engineers out there who can poke holes in any fake
theory, I find that intent hard to believe.
Ron May
In article <01bd0a72$841d3ca0$e638accf@MAZORJ>, maz...@erols.com says...
>
>And here you put your finger on it. The conspiracy theorists start with
>the assumption "This looks like a government screw-up and cover-up! Lets
>dig through the evidence looking for proof of it!"
Good observation John. Have you also considered WHY these people are
suspicious of a screw-up and cover-up? Has our government ever committed these
types of criminal acts before? Why do you try to shame them for digging
through the evidence? Just exactly what do you think a police detective does
when he suspects someone of committing a criminal act?
The people who really
>are interested in finding the cause of the accident don't tie one hand
>behind their back by saying 'Okay, it's obvious a Navy missile done it.
>Let's prove it."
The people who are REALLY interested don’t put on the blinders and refuse to
discuss any evidence that might tend to disprove their own pet theory.
>If I'm not right about the conspiracy theorists, why do so many of their
>postings -- not all! but a lot! -- end (or begin, or are filled with) rants
>that you can't trust (Clinton, Navy, FBI, CIA, NTSB, non-believers on the
>Web, anyone else), the government is out to screw the citizenry, they lie,
>lie, lie all the time, they'll cover up anything, they're also involved in
>(JFK, Foster, Brown, ad nauseam), and other, similar accusations?
Are you really surprised that people have doubts in these matters? Do YOU have
the clear and perfect truth? Do YOU have no doubts, no curiosity that would
lead you to examine the evidence and discuss your own conclusions with others?
Do YOUR own conclusions line up 100% with those of our President on every
issue? Are YOU completely satisfied that our government has been completely
truthful in the JFK, Foster, Brown and other nauseam cases?
>I'm not saying that they can't have these feelings.
Gee, that’s very gracious of you.
It just makes it hard
>to credit their arguments when they can't discuss an airline accident
>without sooner or later getting back to this mantra.
It is also hard to credit the arguments of the legions of statists who fall in
lock-step with the official government line and refuse to consider any
evidence that might be contrary. Unfortunately this IS a political matter.
--
RM
=============================================
Annoy the liberals - work hard and enjoy life
=============================================
Fix and use for E-mail
ron_may<at>usa<dot>net
David Winslow
Craig Shields wrote in message
<34995CA6...@removethis.graymills.com>...
>M Soja wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:45:47 -0600, Craig Shields
>> <cshi...@removethis.graymills.com> posted:
>>
>> >Calling the CIA video a
>> >"fabricated lie" without any evidence is intellectually dishonest. I
>>
>> >personally think that 3200' is high, but it's only a matter of
>> degree.
>>
>> If the plane didn't climb 3200 feet for 16 seconds without its nose
>> the video is a lie.
>
>That number is based on a lot of assumptions. Myself, I believe it to
>be an error. However, to call it a lie implies intent to deceive. With
>the number of aero engineers out there who can poke holes in any fake
>theory, I find that intent hard to believe.
>
Do those engineers have the raw data to dispute the simulations? Wonder
Why?
John Mazor
Ron May <s...@spam.note.below.com> wrote in article
<67bsc7$h15$3...@ruby.digisys.net>...
> In article <01bd0a72$841d3ca0$e638accf@MAZORJ>, maz...@erols.com says...
> >
(snip)
>
> It is also hard to credit the arguments of the legions of statists who
fall in
> lock-step with the official government line and refuse to consider any
> evidence that might be contrary. Unfortunately this IS a political
matter.
>
For you it is a government accountability issue that happens to involve an
airline crash with an as yet unproven cause. I approach it as an airline
crash that happens to have some as yet unproven government accountability
issues.
Craig Shields
David Winslow wrote:
You don't need raw data to poke holes in a poor theory. You just need
to understand the aerodynamic relationships. That's why I've said that
while I'm not sure that the CIA video is really representative of what
happened, given the right inputs and assumptions, it is valid.
Unfortunately, the raw data needed to accurately recreate the accident
died with the pilots. I'm not trying to be flippant, but knowing what
happened to the control surfaces and engines is critical. Without this
data, all that we will have is assumptions.
David Winslow
Craig Shields wrote in message
<349A9910...@removethis.graymills.com>...
>Cheers...Craig
>
Well the CIA video has been represented to be a simulation which to me means
the result of some sort of model with some real data. Even without any
knowledge of the event, we should be able to set certain givens, like the
weight of the nose section, the center of gravity after the nose separated,
the resulting torque about the lateral axis which would result. They could
simply provide those 3 figures along with what ever theory they might have
as to what prevented the rapid rotation to way beyond stall, to way beyond
where the wings tear off.