para help
vic...@usread.com
is this a good paragraph?
4. When did the tail separate?
The NTSB stated at the 2002 Hearings that though they believe the tail
separation occurred in the Lane 1 view of the video they also stated that
no such event was noted on the video. Our examination of the video leads us
to suspect that tail separation occurred during the Lane 5 view after the
³flash² and plume of smoke because this is when:
a. the aircraft begins losing altitude,
b. the cockpit warning system (ECAM) indicates major structural and systems
failures have occurred,
c. more debris appears on the primary radar data, and
d. the majority of witnesses stated the tail departed.
What this means is that FL587 flew out of control (after the loud bang)
while the tail was still attached. Some other initiating event had disabled
the rudder and spoilers and contributed greatly to the loss of directional
stability.
Good?
Vic
vic...@usread.com
I meant to send this to Brett (who is working on our part 4 with me) and I
messed up with my emailer and sent it to the newsgroup instead.
Now you have a preview.
Vic
in article BD463B02.74C2%vic...@usread.com, vic...@usread.com at
vic...@usread.com wrote on 8/16/04 10:20 AM:
AbsolutelyCertain
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD463B02.74C2%vic...@usread.com...
1. There is a plume on the video, but it cannot be assumed to be smoke. It
looks more like the plume of unburned hydrocarbon that might be expected
immediately after engine separation. Also, is it possible that the plume is
result of engine compressor stall(s)? Or other phenomena?
2. Are we to infer, from the first sentence shown above, that the fact that
the tail is not visible on the video (or, more accurately, *discernable* on
the video) is being taken as an indication that it was still on the airplane
and functioning at that time? Isn't that rather a large speculative
stretch?
Doesn't your conclusion ("what this means .....") hang directly from two
pieces of speculation, namely (a) that the tail came of the the airplane at
a particular point, and (b) that a particular interpretation of the video --
one which cannot be validated with the information available -- is necessary
to support the tail's later (rather than earlier) separation hypothesis?
Another way to express this is: Suppose the NTSB's timeline is correct.
What happens to your working hypothesis at that point? Can you prove your
timeline with information provided so far?
AbsolutelyCertain
"AbsolutelyCertain" <eas...@entertained.net> wrote in message
news:cfqkqh$nup$0...@pita.alt.net...
Just to wrap up this line of thought ....
It seems to me that there might be (at least) two ways to leverage these
information snippets into a story:
One would be to say something like this: "We have developed an alternative
timeline which may fit the known data. We'd like to see NTSB address this
alternate possibility in their report."
Or, alternatively, "NTSB has botched this investigation. Our analysis
proves that the NTSB timeline cannot be the correct one."
The latter is intended to be a paraphrase, and therefore, rhetorical. If it
isn't what your story is saying, then at the very least, it should be
evident that it's a reasonable way to read the story.
The first version advances the position without drawing any lines in the
sand or creating an unnecessary and apparently unwarranted adversarial
posture. Therefore, it strengthens the case and makes USREAD look like part
of the solution, not part of the problem.
Thoughts?
vic...@usread.com
eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/16/04 11:45 AM:
I agree it (the plume) could be any number of things. I find Ralph's take
on this interesting. He thinks this is when tail sep occurs. But thee is a
bright flash that occurs in Lane 5 that precedes the major plame. That
flash runs the length of the fuselage, therefore seems very large. My copy
of the video is of better quality than the wmv file you've seen online.
also, the video is black and white.
When I take the video of he first plane hitting the WTC, with the huge
orange and grey fireball that emerges, and change it to black and white only
-- you cannot distinguish that from the 587 flash and smoke.
>
> 2. Are we to infer, from the first sentence shown above, that the fact that
> the tail is not visible on the video (or, more accurately, *discernable* on
> the video) is being taken as an indication that it was still on the airplane
> and functioning at that time? Isn't that rather a large speculative
> stretch?
That's not what we said. Read it carefully.
>
> Doesn't your conclusion ("what this means .....") hang directly from two
> pieces of speculation, namely (a) that the tail came of the the airplane at
> a particular point, and (b) that a particular interpretation of the video --
> one which cannot be validated with the information available -- is necessary
> to support the tail's later (rather than earlier) separation hypothesis?
No, it does not.
>
> Another way to express this is: Suppose the NTSB's timeline is correct.
> What happens to your working hypothesis at that point? Can you prove your
> timeline with information provided so far?
>
We're not "supposing" here. We're examining multiple pieces of evidence.
The multiple pieces, assembled together, suggest tail sep came later. Show
me multiple pieces of NTSB information, that is consistent, that suggests
what they have concluded.
I asked in this 587 thread many days ago for just that from you fine
Gentlemen -- to lay out what concise, clearly presented info the NTSB has
offered to you to back up their conclusion that tail sep occurred when it
did and was the initiating event. I heard back from not one soul, yet you
kind gentlemen have stated it is we who do not present a concise, point by
point case.
Vic
AbsolutelyCertain
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD465651.74F2%vic...@usread.com...
I mostly agree, but my core point was, the plume cannot be taken to be smoke
to the extent that you should refer to it as smoke. I think your
presentation is stronger if you use "could be" language for ever situation
that "could be" more than one thing.
>
> When I take the video of he first plane hitting the WTC, with the huge
> orange and grey fireball that emerges, and change it to black and white
only
> -- you cannot distinguish that from the 587 flash and smoke.
>
> >
> > 2. Are we to infer, from the first sentence shown above, that the fact
that
> > the tail is not visible on the video (or, more accurately, *discernable*
on
> > the video) is being taken as an indication that it was still on the
airplane
> > and functioning at that time? Isn't that rather a large speculative
> > stretch?
>
>
> That's not what we said. Read it carefully.
Well, that's what I read. Can you restate what you meant?
>
>
> >
> > Doesn't your conclusion ("what this means .....") hang directly from two
> > pieces of speculation, namely (a) that the tail came of the the airplane
at
> > a particular point, and (b) that a particular interpretation of the
video --
> > one which cannot be validated with the information available -- is
necessary
> > to support the tail's later (rather than earlier) separation hypothesis?
>
>
> No, it does not.
Why not? I can't work it out any other way. Imagine that some boater
turned up tomorrow with a home video that showed that the tail came off
exactly where NTSB supposes it did. It's a hypothetical, of course. How
does your story hold together in that case? I cannot extrapolate any
scenario in which your story works with NTSB's timeline ... and since the
timeline cannot be proven (by them or by you) as near as I can tell ....
there we are.
>
>
> >
> > Another way to express this is: Suppose the NTSB's timeline is correct.
> > What happens to your working hypothesis at that point? Can you prove
your
> > timeline with information provided so far?
> >
>
> We're not "supposing" here. We're examining multiple pieces of evidence.
> The multiple pieces, assembled together, suggest tail sep came later.
Show
> me multiple pieces of NTSB information, that is consistent, that suggests
> what they have concluded.
This is where we part ways. One can do nothing *other than* suppose with
the information presented. I can't find that your hypothesis is any more
bulletproof than theirs is. And the real damaging aspect -- to your
story -- is that in order to wallpaper over the holes in your hypothesis,
you must resort to what I would refer to as journalistic browbeating.
Strong language, language like "fine citizens" when referring to witnesses
.... these are red flags. The point you're missing is that you don't have
to prove your case to make your point. In addition, you can't prove it with
the information supplied so far. So why talk as if you have proved it? You
strengthen your case by making a presentation dripping with humility, not
one dripping with contempt for the other point of view. The latter works
in Usenet, but I don't think it works in your situation.
> I asked in this 587 thread many days ago for just that from you fine
> Gentlemen -- to lay out what concise, clearly presented info the NTSB has
> offered to you to back up their conclusion that tail sep occurred when it
> did and was the initiating event. I heard back from not one soul
Actually, I have given essentially the same feedback at least once before,
maybe more than once.
vic...@usread.com
eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/16/04 12:42 PM:
>> on this interesting. He thinks this is when tail sep occurs. But there is
> a
>> bright flash that occurs in Lane 5 that precedes the major plame. That
>> flash runs the length of the fuselage, therefore seems very large. My
> copy
>> of the video is of better quality than the wmv file you've seen online.
>> also, the video is black and white.
>
> I mostly agree, but my core point was, the plume cannot be taken to be smoke
> to the extent that you should refer to it as smoke. I think your
> presentation is stronger if you use "could be" language for ever situation
> that "could be" more than one thing.
This is good advice. Thank you. I'll make the change before posting.
>
>>
>> When I take the video of he first plane hitting the WTC, with the huge
>> orange and grey fireball that emerges, and change it to black and white
> only
>> -- you cannot distinguish that from the 587 flash and smoke.
>>
>>>
>>> 2. Are we to infer, from the first sentence shown above, that the fact
> that
>>> the tail is not visible on the video (or, more accurately, *discernable*
> on
>>> the video) is being taken as an indication that it was still on the
> airplane
>>> and functioning at that time? Isn't that rather a large speculative
>>> stretch?
>>
>>
>> That's not what we said. Read it carefully.
>
> Well, that's what I read. Can you restate what you meant?
It's an indication that the NTSB position is that the tail can rip off, 3
very powerful hydraulic lines will start spewing out fluid (actually 2, the
green system has a safety valve in the empennage I believe), and there will
be no "streak" or "smudge" on the video.
Again -- I find Ralph's comment about the flash and streak interesting. he
thinks it could be tail sep.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't your conclusion ("what this means .....") hang directly from two
>>> pieces of speculation, namely (a) that the tail came of the the airplane
> at
>>> a particular point, and (b) that a particular interpretation of the
> video --
>>> one which cannot be validated with the information available -- is
> necessary
>>> to support the tail's later (rather than earlier) separation hypothesis?
>>
>>
>> No, it does not.
>
> Why not? I can't work it out any other way. Imagine that some boater
> turned up tomorrow with a home video that showed that the tail came off
> exactly where NTSB supposes it did. It's a hypothetical, of course. How
> does your story hold together in that case? I cannot extrapolate any
> scenario in which your story works with NTSB's timeline ... and since the
> timeline cannot be proven (by them or by you) as near as I can tell ....
> there we are.
Brett and I got rid of that sentence by the way. Didn't like it. So
ultimately it's not worth debating. What we are saying is that the bulk of
evidence points towards our interpretation of the timeline. You missed
points a thru d above.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Another way to express this is: Suppose the NTSB's timeline is correct.
>>> What happens to your working hypothesis at that point? Can you prove
> your
>>> timeline with information provided so far?
>>>
>>
>> We're not "supposing" here. We're examining multiple pieces of evidence.
>> The multiple pieces, assembled together, suggest tail sep came later.
> Show
>> me multiple pieces of NTSB information, that is consistent, that suggests
>> what they have concluded.
>
> This is where we part ways. One can do nothing *other than* suppose with
> the information presented. I can't find that your hypothesis is any more
> bulletproof than theirs is. And the real damaging aspect -- to your
> story -- is that in order to wallpaper over the holes in your hypothesis,
> you must resort to what I would refer to as journalistic browbeating.
> Strong language, language like "fine citizens" when referring to witnesses
> .... these are red flags. The point you're missing is that you don't have
> to prove your case to make your point. In addition, you can't prove it with
> the information supplied so far. So why talk as if you have proved it? You
> strengthen your case by making a presentation dripping with humility, not
> one dripping with contempt for the other point of view. The latter works
> in Usenet, but I don't think it works in your situation.
I won't argue with you that we are supposing (actually ... I prefer the word
"theory" as that has less of a speculative nature than "suppose"). But ...
I have listed, on more than one occasion (our summary and parts 1 thru 3),
even in this post, the evidence that supports our conclusion. The NTSB has
not done the same. So ... how can you even comment on their conclusion
(whether it's as bulletproof as ours or not) without seeing their point by
point defense of their position?
By "fine citizens" I was differentiating them from some homeless guy high on
crack who might have been a witness to the crash. Sober retired Cops and
Firefighters, aircraft mechanics, etc., these are some of the fine citizens
who witnessed the crash and gave useful information.
You said:
"You strengthen your case by making a presentation dripping with humility,
not one dripping with contempt for the other point of view. The latter
works in Usenet, but I don't think it works in your situation."
I will try to keep that in mind.
>
>> I asked in this 587 thread many days ago for just that from you fine
>> Gentlemen -- to lay out what concise, clearly presented info the NTSB has
>> offered to you to back up their conclusion that tail sep occurred when it
>> did and was the initiating event. I heard back from not one soul
>
> Actually, I have given essentially the same feedback at least once before,
> maybe more than once.
>
>
I'm sorry -- if you did, I do not recall.
vic...@usread.com
Is "smoke or vapor or fumes trail" better?
AbsolutelyCertain
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD466650.7524%vic...@usread.com...
No, I didn't miss them. I don't agree with the argument contained in them.
I'll number my items here to correspond with yours:
a. This fact does not particularly support your argument. It can be a
cause, or an effect, or neither.
b. This is a tougher one, but one interpretation of the data is simply that
"all hell has broken loose" , or put another way, "the aircraft has gone
completely out of control." Like "a", this could be a cause, or an effect.
Unlike "a", I don't think it could be "neither."
c. Similar to "a"
d. I seriously doubt the reliability of those reports, even if your
statement is factually correct. I put these into the same category as the
"I'm sure I saw a missile" reports in TWA 800. Well meaning, sincere,
truthful ... but just as likely to be wrong as right, unless corroborated by
other kinds of evidence. This is a conundrum in a case like this. If there
is ample physical or direct evidence of a particular thing, then the witness
reports are superfluous. If there isn't, then those reports are too suspect
to be relied on. Either way, they're of extremely limited value.
Summary: Your early-separation timeline cannot be proved with this
information. Nor can any other timeline.
> >>>
> >>> Another way to express this is: Suppose the NTSB's timeline is
correct.
> >>> What happens to your working hypothesis at that point? Can you prove
> > your
> >>> timeline with information provided so far?
> >>>
> >>
> >> We're not "supposing" here. We're examining multiple pieces of
evidence.
Well, again, strong disagreement. First of all, yes, you are supposing.
Second, and most (by far, most) important, you should be supposing. Unless
you are testing your hypothesis against all of the relevant possibilities,
the hypothesis has no lasting value. Substitute "testing the hypothesis"
for "supposing" and I think my point becomes rather obvious.
I'm not commenting on their conclusion. I'm commenting on your conclusion.
My references to their timeline are based on what you have represented it to
be.
>
> By "fine citizens" I was differentiating them from some homeless guy high
on
> crack who might have been a witness to the crash. Sober retired Cops and
> Firefighters, aircraft mechanics, etc., these are some of the fine
citizens
> who witnessed the crash and gave useful information.
This may be true, but the reference is disturbing. I have never seen any
witnesses in any transportation accident case referred to as "fine citizens"
by investigators. I'd have no reason to think that any witness is a
homeless guy high on crack. On the other hand, I'd have no reason to think
that a homeless guy could not give as accurate a report of what he thought
he saw than a fine citizen. The language weakens your case. If you read
between the lines throughout our exchanges, you will see that I think you
have an interesting argument, but that your presentation damages it. Again,
you do not have to prove your case to make your point. So don't try so hard
to prove it.
>
> You said:
> "You strengthen your case by making a presentation dripping with humility,
> not one dripping with contempt for the other point of view. The latter
> works in Usenet, but I don't think it works in your situation."
>
> I will try to keep that in mind.
>
>
> >
> >> I asked in this 587 thread many days ago for just that from you fine
> >> Gentlemen -- to lay out what concise, clearly presented info the NTSB
has
> >> offered to you to back up their conclusion that tail sep occurred when
it
> >> did and was the initiating event. I heard back from not one soul
> >
> > Actually, I have given essentially the same feedback at least once
before,
> > maybe more than once.
> >
> >
> I'm sorry -- if you did, I do not recall.
No problem. The flame war is rather a distraction. We can put it aside, at
least for now.
AbsolutelyCertain
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD466730.7527%vic...@usread.com...
>
> Is "smoke or vapor or fumes trail" better?
I think you're on the right track. "Mist" might be the best description;
vapor (and fumes) are not generally visible.
vic...@usread.com
eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/16/04 1:49 PM:
in re point A (the NTSB in effect saying the plane can fly level for up to 8
seconds with the tail and engines gone) -- we're getting out Part 4 today or
tomorrow I hope. Maybe we'll discuss this point again. The point is -- the
aircraft's altitude history does not support the NTSB's timeline. One
investigator, when I showed this to him said "that can't be" (meaning he was
surprised the plane stayed level while losing tail and engines). Again,
more in Part 4.
in re point B (the ECAM warnings not showing Level 3 warnings till the flash
and smoke/vapor/fumes trail appears) certainly does not support the NTSB
conclusion about the timeline.
C. I think the radar data is very strong evidence. Wait till Part 5
(that's all about the radar data).
D. All I can say is -- I disagree. I believe witnesses can be very
helpful. For example, eyewitness testimony puts a nail in the Jason
Christie Theory coffin. How many people said, "an American Airlines jet
slammed into the building"? Many. That does it for me. I can look at that
small hole in the building and say there HAS to be SOME physics that can
prove a 757 did that BECAUSE so many people saw just that occur. Those of
us with fully functioning brains understand that. But I am consistent
throughout I think witnesses can be useful. The physical evidence in 587 is
not perfect, it can easily be misinterpreted. The debris field handling is
highly questionable (Part 3 of our report). The evidence for when/where the
tail came off is at best inconclusive (Part 1). The majority of the
fuselage was consumed in the post crash fire. The CVR had stops/starts
during critical moments. The DFDR does not record everything and it was
filtered and its sampling rates were low, and it stopped recording BEFORE
the flash and smoke/vapor/fumes trail in the video, 13 secs before impact.
The 587 witnesses are important, IMO, to understanding what happened. as
for TWA 800, I'm sorry ... I do hold the opinion that what hundreds of
people saw (at least 100 saw a missile-like contrail rise from the horizon
and ascend to the aircraft) cannot be explained by the did-not-happen zoom
climb theory or any other theory. I've spoken to no less than two former
NTSB'ers who believe FL800 was shot down. Both of them I believe think it
was terrorists using MANPADS.
We may have to settle on -- we disagree on witnesses. ok?
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another way to express this is: Suppose the NTSB's timeline is
> correct.
>>>>> What happens to your working hypothesis at that point? Can you prove
>>> your
>>>>> timeline with information provided so far?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We're not "supposing" here. We're examining multiple pieces of
> evidence.
>
> Well, again, strong disagreement. First of all, yes, you are supposing.
> Second, and most (by far, most) important, you should be supposing. Unless
> you are testing your hypothesis against all of the relevant possibilities,
> the hypothesis has no lasting value. Substitute "testing the hypothesis"
> for "supposing" and I think my point becomes rather obvious.
You may be right. So I won't argue much except to say when I use the word
"suppose" I usually do when I have far less information and conviction than
I do with this 587 stuff. Like, "I suppose I want to go shopping with you
Dear". (not very convinced myself)
I kindly ask ... why don't ya? I don't mind you commenting on mine. Just
do the same to the NTSB conclusions.
>
>>
>> By "fine citizens" I was differentiating them from some homeless guy high
> on
>> crack who might have been a witness to the crash. Sober retired Cops and
>> Firefighters, aircraft mechanics, etc., these are some of the fine
> citizens
>> who witnessed the crash and gave useful information.
>
> This may be true, but the reference is disturbing. I have never seen any
> witnesses in any transportation accident case referred to as "fine citizens"
> by investigators. I'd have no reason to think that any witness is a
> homeless guy high on crack. On the other hand, I'd have no reason to think
> that a homeless guy could not give as accurate a report of what he thought
> he saw than a fine citizen. The language weakens your case. If you read
> between the lines throughout our exchanges, you will see that I think you
> have an interesting argument, but that your presentation damages it. Again,
> you do not have to prove your case to make your point. So don't try so hard
> to prove it.
I said this tongue-in-cheek. Next time I'll just stick to "trained
observers" for those that were/are.
I appreciate your "interesting argument" comment. I will be on guard for
the language that may weaken our case. Feel free to point things out.
Thank you.
vic...@usread.com
eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/16/04 1:50 PM:
how about smoke or misting fuel (that's exactly what the NTSB said)?
I don't recall ... what did Ralph say about the hydraulic fluid? That it
can atomize? Cuz Ralph thought the smoke/mist was hydraulic fluid.
When you say mist do you mean misting hydr. fluid and/or misting fuel?
I guess that would make sense.
AbsolutelyCertain
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD467608.7538%vic...@usread.com...
> in article cfqs2e$77m$0...@pita.alt.net, AbsolutelyCertain at
> eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/16/04 1:49 PM:
3),
> >> even in this post, the evidence that supports our conclusion. The NTSB
> > has
> >> not done the same. So ... how can you even comment on their conclusion
> >> (whether it's as bulletproof as ours or not) without seeing their point
by
> >> point defense of their position?
> >
> > I'm not commenting on their conclusion. I'm commenting on your
conclusion.
> > My references to their timeline are based on what you have represented
it to
> > be.
>
>
> I kindly ask ... why don't ya? I don't mind you commenting on mine. Just
> do the same to the NTSB conclusions.
I want to see what their draft report looks like first. Let them run it up
the old flagpole, as they say, and let's see what kind of stuff gets thrown
at it. My general comment about their materials is that their timeline is
speculative because they can't prove where and when the tail failed. At
least, not yet. Unless I missed something. So there is large vulnerability
there, it seems to me.
But you have to tread carefully, Vic, because you are in a similar position
to theirs, timeline-wise. That's why I popped the hypothetical
boater-home-video in there earlier. Imagine that the hypothetical video
"proves" you timeline, what happens to their case? I think it's in big
trouble. But if it "proves" theirs, your case is in big trouble. Since
there is no such proof, then I would think that everyone needs to tread
carefully on the timeline issue.
Also, I'm a little worried that this issue takes focus off the broken tail
itself. Except for the 747 in Japan that had a bulkhead failure, I'm not
aware of any modern airliner losing any of its vertical stabilizer in any
comparable way. I find this tail failure to be very disturbing. Are these
composite structures up to the job? I dunno.
AbsolutelyCertain
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD4676BE.753A%vic...@usread.com...
Yes. A mist of unknown composition, but probably largely fuel and hydraulic
fluid.
vic...@usread.com
eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/16/04 2:41 PM:
>
> <vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD467608.7538%vic...@usread.com...
>> in article cfqs2e$77m$0...@pita.alt.net, AbsolutelyCertain at
>> eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/16/04 1:49 PM:
>>>> I have listed, on more than one occasion (our summary and parts 1 thru
> 3),
>>>> even in this post, the evidence that supports our conclusion. The NTSB
>>> has
>>>> not done the same. So ... how can you even comment on their conclusion
>>>> (whether it's as bulletproof as ours or not) without seeing their point
> by
>>>> point defense of their position?
>>>
>>> I'm not commenting on their conclusion. I'm commenting on your
> conclusion.
>>> My references to their timeline are based on what you have represented
> it to
>>> be.
>>
>>
>> I kindly ask ... why don't ya? I don't mind you commenting on mine. Just
>> do the same to the NTSB conclusions.
>
> I want to see what their draft report looks like first. Let them run it up
> the old flagpole, as they say, and let's see what kind of stuff gets thrown
> at it. My general comment about their materials is that their timeline is
> speculative because they can't prove where and when the tail failed. At
> least, not yet. Unless I missed something. So there is large vulnerability
> there, it seems to me.
You didn't miss anything. I appreciate your open-mindedness.
>
> But you have to tread carefully, Vic, because you are in a similar position
> to theirs, timeline-wise. That's why I popped the hypothetical
> boater-home-video in there earlier. Imagine that the hypothetical video
> "proves" you timeline, what happens to their case? I think it's in big
> trouble. But if it "proves" theirs, your case is in big trouble. Since
> there is no such proof, then I would think that everyone needs to tread
> carefully on the timeline issue.
Good point. Look -- it took me (us) almost 3 years to get to the point
where we can say, tail sep. occurred later. I consider that treading
carefully. Prior to being able to say that -- I had been convinced in the
early going (2001 and 2002) that there was a fire or explosion before tail
sep. Only after the NTSB published a new timeline in Oct 2002, and we went
through the factual reports, and the video, and we found more witnesses in
the docket, did I also become convinced that tail sep. came later
But you are a right -- it's a serious accusation. and I have tread(ed)
carefully by only making that point when I became convinced. I'm at that
point now. Now ... if ANY evidence comes out to disprove this point I will
correct it. You have my word on that. I'll swallow my pride.
>
> Also, I'm a little worried that this issue takes focus off the broken tail
> itself. Except for the 747 in Japan that had a bulkhead failure, I'm not
> aware of any modern airliner losing any of its vertical stabilizer in any
> comparable way. I find this tail failure to be very disturbing. Are these
> composite structures up to the job? I dunno.
>
FL587 had flown violently out of control for a few seconds after the loud
bang, but several secs before the tail came off. The tail came off when the
aircraft had stabilized somewhat but it was descending with the nose up and
had a left roll (there was smoke trailing the aircraft at this point and a
visible fire to many people). at this point, a large blast occurred, debris
flew back towards the tail, and the tail fell off. The engines popped off
almost immediately after tail sep and the plane immediately rolled 180
degrees (inverted) and transferred to a severe nose-down attitude and went
straight down into 131st street and newport avenue.
The point is ... the aircraft seemed very doomed before the tail came off.
So I personally don't worry about airbus tails to be quite honest.
AbsolutelyCertain
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD467EAF.7545%vic...@usread.com...
I believe you. All in all, I think we have more to agree about than
disagree about.
Ralph Nesbitt
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
Ralph Nesbitt
the vertical stabilizer departed". Note on movie #3 the plume begins then
stops near the 9 oclock position of the circle centered on impact. This
would indicate the source of the material createing the plume had been
depleted. This would be ~ consistent with all hydraulic fluid from the
hydraulic system being discharged through "Open Butt" hydraulic lines
remaining as the vertical stabilizer departed the A/C.
Ralph Nesbitt
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD465651.74F2%vic...@usread.com...
"Flash" when released. I am adressing this issue in a seperate post re 3
major incidents. I must be careful re my statements re these incidents
because they involved job related Incidents.
>
<snip>
> Vic
vic...@usread.com
eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/16/04 12:07 PM:
>
> Just to wrap up this line of thought ....
>
> It seems to me that there might be (at least) two ways to leverage these
> information snippets into a story:
>
> One would be to say something like this: "We have developed an alternative
> timeline which may fit the known data. We'd like to see NTSB address this
> alternate possibility in their report."
>
> Or, alternatively, "NTSB has botched this investigation. Our analysis
> proves that the NTSB timeline cannot be the correct one."
>
> The latter is intended to be a paraphrase, and therefore, rhetorical. If it
> isn't what your story is saying, then at the very least, it should be
> evident that it's a reasonable way to read the story.
>
> The first version advances the position without drawing any lines in the
> sand or creating an unnecessary and apparently unwarranted adversarial
> posture. Therefore, it strengthens the case and makes USREAD look like part
> of the solution, not part of the problem.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
This is a good suggestion, of course. But ... let's relax just a bit, and
please let's get over that one quote of a retired NTSB ASI. That said, ...
I will attempt to keep our style as humble and modest as possible. At the
same time, we believe deeply in what we have seen here and in the
alternative timeline of events. This realization produces normal human
reactions in us: disbelief, frustration, etc etc. These reactions find
their way into words. Is it professional? Probably not. Can I (we)
change. Of course. Will we? I don't know.
I'm not trying to be Walter Cronkite. We've tried to analyze this and offer
to the public our findings. Since our work finds that a Gov't agency has
spent money and time on a crash that killed 265 people and seemingly failed
in so many areas -- it's almost impossible to curb our reaction (especially
since some of us are New Yorkers -- the only thing we curb is our dogs).
are you giving good advice? Yes. Are you right? You may be. But I will
have to admit that it might not be me. If "being me" (and Brett being
Brett) reduces the amount of people who take us seriously ... then I will
either wake up to that someday and say "hey, we need to tone things down"
(but it may be too late), or we'll just let it all hang out and stay true to
who we are today.
again -- believe it or not -- we do indeed try to keep our work on a humble
level. Our first draft of the full report was much "angrier". Much. So we
are improving. Maybe you're catching us (me) in mid-stream here, as we
evolve into something more professional.
Either way -- you have stated your case well on this approach/attitude. I
respect it and am keeping it in mind. That said ... we are going to have to
move on from this issue in our chats.
But thanks again,
Victor
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti
<vic...@usread.com> wrote:
[this is Victor earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating here]
>>>>> That's not what we said. Read it carefully.
I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but if Victor wants to make a
serious contribution to aircraft safety, this is not a helpful
response. If readers can misinterpret (in good faith) something so
badly, it needs to be redrafted to be clearer.
>D. All I can say is -- I disagree. I believe witnesses can be very
>helpful. For example, eyewitness testimony puts a nail in the Jason
>Christie Theory coffin. How many people said, "an American Airlines jet
>slammed into the building"? Many. That does it for me. I can look at that
>small hole in the building and say there HAS to be SOME physics that can
>prove a 757 did that BECAUSE so many people saw just that occur. Those of
>us with fully functioning brains understand that. But I am consistent
>throughout I think witnesses can be useful. The physical evidence in 587 is
>not perfect, it can easily be misinterpreted. The debris field handling is
>highly questionable (Part 3 of our report). The evidence for when/where the
>tail came off is at best inconclusive (Part 1). The majority of the
>fuselage was consumed in the post crash fire. The CVR had stops/starts
>during critical moments. The DFDR does not record everything and it was
>filtered and its sampling rates were low, and it stopped recording BEFORE
>the flash and smoke/vapor/fumes trail in the video, 13 secs before impact.
>The 587 witnesses are important, IMO, to understanding what happened. as
>for TWA 800, I'm sorry ... I do hold the opinion that what hundreds of
>people saw (at least 100 saw a missile-like contrail rise from the horizon
>and ascend to the aircraft) cannot be explained by the did-not-happen zoom
>climb theory or any other theory. I've spoken to no less than two former
>NTSB'ers who believe FL800 was shot down. Both of them I believe think it
>was terrorists using MANPADS.
>We may have to settle on -- we disagree on witnesses. ok?
I would suggest that one needs to be a bit more nuanced than
"witnesses helpful" and "witnesses not helpful." The three cases above
are quite different:
- TW800 was 10 miles offshore and 2.5 miles up, at dusk, on a hazy
July evening. The best any eyewitness could have seen was lights
moving in the sky; it's how those movements are interpreted that is at
the origin of much debate. At the time of the initial event,
shore-based observers would have had a very difficult time discerning
the horizon. (To digress for a moment, I also find it interesting that
the aeronautical engineering profession does not have any general
problem with the so-called "zoom climb theory," even if they regard
one video recreation as overly simplistic. Then there's the problem of
whether any MANPAD systems can reach an aircraft at 13,500 feet; much
evidence indicates they cannot. Victor's two former NTSB'ers hold
beliefs that are incompatible with a lot of evidence.)
- AA77 crashed into the Pentagon about 1/4 mile from one major highway
(I-395), a bit more from some office buildings, and a few hundred feet
from another highway (rte. 27) in full daylight. I-395 is descending a
hill there, and when stuck in traffic, the view to the Pentagon wall
that was hit is similar the view from the upper deck in a football
stadium. Also, 757s flying along Columbia Pike at low altitude are
sufficiently unusual as to grab people's attention, so people focused
on the plane.
- AA587 lies in between; visibility was good, but the distances
involved were greater than at the Pentagon, but less than for TW800.
Until the actual moment of the accident, it was just another aircraft
in a busy flight pattern, attracting little attention.
Also, consider what the eyewitnesses are being asked to identify. In
the AA77 crash, it's fairly simple; the eyewitness accounts support
that a twin-engined, silver airliner with red and blue stripes crashed
into a motionless building. No one asks about details such as whether
the plane was on fire before it hit the building, or whether the
wheels were up or down. In the other two cases, people are inferring
details of timing from the eyewitness testimony. Using eyewitness
testimony to establish which bits came off a disintegrating aircraft
in what order is a much more difficult proposition than establishing
that an airliner crashed.
I haven't studied AA587 in sufficient detail to critique Victor's
work. That said, I would recommend that he look at the following
article:
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/gwells/wellsandloftus.pdf
(published in A. Goldstein, Ed. Comprehensive handbook of psychology,
Volume 11, Forensic psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2002.)
This is what's called a review article; it is based on and cites a
variety of articles in the peer-reviewed psychology literature. Wells
and Loftus focus on the use of eyewitnesses in the criminal justice
system, but their "Memory for Events" section is applicable to
considering eyewitness accounts of aircraft accidents. Note
particularly how memories of complex events can be skewed when
witnesses receive new, misleading information after the event. In the
case of TW800, it is plausible that media speculation about missiles
in the hours after the event skewed the memories of some witnesses.
This is human psychology; it effects fine upstanding citizens as well
as homeless crack fiends. I would also point out that Professor Wells
has shown that the confidence of eyewitnesses has nothing to do with
whether or not they are correct.
The bottom line is that there is ample scientific evidence to indicate
that eyewitnesses are not as reliable as lay people believe them to
be. Hypotheses that rest primarily on eyewitness accounts of the
detailed timing of relatively distant events ought to be treated with
an appropriate degree of caution. "Treated with an appropriate degree
of caution" is not the same as "disregarded entirely." It may mean
"disregarded when it's incompatible with objective evidence and
there's plausible reason to suspect it has been skewed."
Regards,
George
**********************************************************************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail: gbiz...@mitretek.org
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
**********************************************************************
AbsolutelyCertain
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD47547E.75B7%vic...@usread.com...
I concur. Although we don't totally agree on all aspects of the issue,
you've stated your position well here.
I wish you guys well, you've put a lot of work into this thing.
vic...@usread.com
Bizzigotti at gbiz...@mitretek.org wrote on 8/17/04 8:59 AM:
Were you there?? Did you interview people? aren't you GUESSING and
assuming and then applying across-the-board your theory that shore-based
observers would have had a very difficult time discerning the horizon? The
plane crashed around 8:30. I know in July (when 800 crashed) we're out till
at least 8:45 or 9 pm and there is still light out. if I'm on the beach
you'd better believe the horizon is discernible. You are a man of science.
A Dr., for God's sake. How can you make up stuff like this? These
witnesses gave these accounts IMMEDIATELY to Police (about the contrail
rising to the airplane -- many thought they were watching an amateur rocket
launch, or a Navy test). You imply people can't distinguish between lights
on airplanes with a steady missile/rocket contrail? Come on!
I read somewhere that one military group said that some portable missiles
could indeed climb to 13,000 plus feet -- their accuracy decreases if I
remember correctly but a strike is not impossible.
The zoom climb: MANY aerodynamicists say the zoom climb theory as it
applies to 800 is bunk! you have the nose off and wind rushing into the
cabin. Part of left wing structure as I understand it was severely damaged
or blown off by CWT explosion. The bottom line is that the radar data and
pilot witnesses absolutely do not at all support the zoom climb theory.
So ... what did hundreds of people see? You need to come up with something
much better Sir. and I suggest you speak to some of them or at least watch
their interviews.
When 43 people who are viewing an event from different positions and angles
and 39 of them generally agree as to what happened, THAT is pretty
consistent and reliable. I appreciate the link you gave. now I ask you
this. Is there any evidence that witnesses are reliable?? None?
Bottom line with 587 is the witnesses and physical evidence are in
agreement.
One reliability issue here is the NTSB which has provided practically no
strong evidence to back up their claims in re 587.
And I would humbly suggest that before you comment on people's work (mine)
you actually read it first. Thank you.
AbsolutelyCertain
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD47A3EC.7604%vic...@usread.com...
> in article abr3i0t1bud0tbk3n...@4ax.com, Dr. George O.
> Bizzigotti at gbiz...@mitretek.org wrote on 8/17/04 8:59 AM:
> The zoom climb: MANY aerodynamicists say the zoom climb theory as it
> applies to 800 is bunk! you have the nose off and wind rushing into the
> cabin. Part of left wing structure as I understand it was severely
damaged
> or blown off by CWT explosion. The bottom line is that the radar data and
> pilot witnesses absolutely do not at all support the zoom climb theory.
I have no dog in the fight, as they say, but on just this point .... the
zoom-climb issue was one of the most heavily trafficked items back in the
heyday of TWA 800 here. A few musings:
1) Noone will ever know what the airplane did after the fuselage breakup,
exactly. It's all speculation, no matter which side of the zoom-climb fence
you come down on. I recommend sitting on the fence, it's the only safe spot
in this argument.
2) The government did not err by making a video. It erred by doing the one
thing that no serious investigative bunch should ever do: Taking
speculation and putting lipstick on it to make it look like something else.
3) The government also erred by trying too hard to placate the
missile-proponents, the video being the prime example. The hard-to-swallow
truth is that without direct or physical evidence to corroborate the missile
reports, those reports are of just about no value. The video gave the
impression that the reports were more important than they actually are. Dr.
George said it correctly earlier (I paraphrase): The witnesses do not know
what they saw. They saw lights in the sky. What those lights were, or were
not, is not something that they can know. I don't even agree that they
actually saw lights going up. I think they were confused and that their
impressions were influenced by assumptions not true. Edwin Land proved that
people will "see" colors in a black and white photograph (they swore it was
a color photo, when in fact, it was not). If you are looking for that, try
the Scientific American magazine circa 1963. I'm not imagining it. The
brain sees what it knows how to see a good deal of the time.
4) I am not aware of any verifiable aerodynamic test or abstract model which
proves that the zoom-climb could not happen. My personal belief is that it
could, but the fact that it is possible has no bearing on whether it
happened or not. One reason why this question has never been given a
dispositive answer is that it really is not very important.
AbsolutelyCertain
Sorry, I should have taken the time to look this up earlier:
Edwin H. Land, "Experiments in Color Vision," Scientific American, Vol. 200,
No. 5, pp. 84-99, May 1959.
No points should be deducted for missing the date by 4 years; I was in high
school at the time and had other priorities.
AbsolutelyCertain
yet another reference to the Land article, complete with the original
illustrations.
vic...@usread.com
eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/17/04 3:28 PM:
>
> <vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD47A3EC.7604%vic...@usread.com...
>> in article abr3i0t1bud0tbk3n...@4ax.com, Dr. George O.
>> Bizzigotti at gbiz...@mitretek.org wrote on 8/17/04 8:59 AM:
>
>> The zoom climb: MANY aerodynamicists say the zoom climb theory as it
>> applies to 800 is bunk! you have the nose off and wind rushing into the
>> cabin. Part of left wing structure as I understand it was severely
> damaged
>> or blown off by CWT explosion. The bottom line is that the radar data and
>> pilot witnesses absolutely do not at all support the zoom climb theory.
>
> I have no dog in the fight, as they say, but on just this point .... the
> zoom-climb issue was one of the most heavily trafficked items back in the
> heyday of TWA 800 here. A few musings:
>
> 1) Noone will ever know what the airplane did after the fuselage breakup,
> exactly. It's all speculation, no matter which side of the zoom-climb fence
> you come down on. I recommend sitting on the fence, it's the only safe spot
> in this argument.
The primary radar data proves the zoom climb did not occur. I can get some
800 guys to comment on this if you'd like, but the basic issue is the
groundspeed of the aircraft deduced by the primary radar returns after the
CWT explosion and FDR / CVR cessation was far too high to allow for the
plane zoom climbing. if the zoom climb was true, it would mean the airspeed
was some astronomical number to account for the plane maintaining a high
groundspeed while climbing sharply. But I don't think I need to get some
people who know to comment on this because your point is a good one -- even
if we disprove this theory all we've done is disprove a theory which was
meant to disprove the witnesses. We still haven't proven (with physical
evidence) that an incendiary device or missile came in contact with the
plane. But I assume we can have a discussion about physical evidence, right?
Have you guys ever had communications, good chats, with the late Bill
Donaldson's brother, Bob? I think that fella has a good handle on issues.
I'd like to ask him to comment on the physical evidence. Do you mind?
(Crowd replies -- "knock yourself out")
Vic
Ralph Nesbitt
"Ralph Nesbitt" <ralph-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:...> news:cfqkqh$nup$0...@pita.alt.net...
> >
> > <vic...@usread.com> wrote in message
Ralph Nesbitt
news:BD465651.74F2%vic...@usread.com...
> > in article cfqkqh$nup$0...@pita.alt.net, AbsolutelyCertain at
> > eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/16/04 11:45 AM:
take
> > on this interesting. He thinks this is when tail sep occurs. But thee
is
> a
> > bright flash that occurs in Lane 5 that precedes the major plame. That
> > flash runs the length of the fuselage, therefore seems very large. My
> copy
> > of the video is of better quality than the wmv file you've seen online.
> > also, the video is black and white.
> >
> Hydraulic fluid at A/C system operateing pressure at operateing temp will
> "Flash" when released. I am adressing this issue in a seperate post re 3
> major incidents. I must be careful re my statements re these incidents
> because they involved job related Incidents.
> >
potential/possible exploitation/scenario that would support your theory of
whatever caused the plume occurred before vertical stabilizer separation.
"Fluid Hammer" can/does occur in any pressurized fluid transfer system when
valves within the system are closed/cycled rapidly. To laymen it is known as
"Water Hammer" that occurs when "Ball Valve/s" are closed/cycled rapidly in
water systems. This phenomena can/does occur in systems transferring any
fluid & some gasses
under pressure. The higher the system operateing pressure, the higher
potential for system damage from fluid hammer. This phenomena is more likely
to occur damage/cause system component failure when it occurs when fluid
usage is sufficient to cycle system operateing pressure below/above standard
system operateing pressure relief mechanisms relatively rapidly.
A/C training simulators are designed/certified to exactly match/mimic the
flight characteristics/response of the A/C they are certified for. Hydraulic
system operateing pressure on A300-600 simulators are observed to drop to ~
2,900 PSI with/during rapid control reversals with engine thrust set to
maintain airspeed range & not set for climb thrust, 2,900 psi is ~ 100 PSI
below system
design operateing pressure. See pg 12 of Operations 2 - Factual Report of
Group Chairman, Document 167209, @
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/exhibits/default.htm. Weight is not an
issue on simulators so hydraulic components are substantially heavier in
design while maintaining exact operateing characteristics of the A/C.
Discussion
It is known there were several rapid reversals of various flight control
surfaces as attempts were made to stabilize the A/C after the upset due the
turbulence encounter. These rapid reversals of various flight control
surfaces would be sufficient to cause hydraulic system pressure to drop to ~
2,900 PSI as all flight control surfaces were moved as directed.
It is my understanding on FBW A/C the flight computer issues instructions
for/controls all flight control surface movement. It is my understanding
when multiple flight control movements are necessary/called for by input
from either auto pilot or manual controls, the computer deals with each
input in the order received coordinating movement of other flight control
surfaces to maintain a smooth flight profile as programmed into the
computer, confirming each control input is completed before initiating the
next. Example: As the rudder is moved, other flight control surfaces are
directed to move to facilitate the called for instruction while maintaining
a smooth flight profile, but the entire sequence of movements is completed
before another sequence of movements is initiated.
In instances where manual controls are aggressively/rapidly used the flight
computer will stage/sequence the necessary instructions to complete each set
of control inputs if control inputs are received faster than the system/s
can respond as directed by the flight computer. The computer then deals with
flight control inputs as it is programmed to do on a first in/first out
staged/sequenced basis.
During rapid flight control movements, the hydraulic system will drop below
rated operateing pressure as noted above causing flight controls to respond
slower than expected, resulting in more aggressive crew control inputs
creating a backlog of staged/sequenced control inputs in the flight
computer.
The flight computer sends another set of flight control instructions as
quick as each set of flight control instructions are completed. As each
hydraulically operated flight control surface reaches it's instructed
position, it no longer draws fluid from the system creating a pressure
increase in the system. System pressure on controls that have not reached
their assigned position is increased by the amount of pressure increase
giving the remaining flight control surfaces heading toward their instructed
position a "Jolt" in pressure. Depending on which surface reaches it's
assigned setting/cut off first, the system could/will overpressure. All
fluid pressure systems have/should have a pressure relief system supposedly
designed to prevent catastrophic overpressure. A significant cause of "Fluid
Hammer" is rapid cycling of pressure relief mechanisms combined with/due
pressure jolts.
Where is the hydraulic system pressure relief mechanism located on A300-600
A/C? The pressure relief mechanism on most A/C I am familiar with are
located near the "Hydraulic accumulators, generally near the wing roots. At
what pressure does the A300-600 pressure relief mechanism activate? A/C
hydraulic pressure relief mechanisms I am familiar with are "Spring Loaded
Dual Piston Valves" with a seperate accumulator set to maintain a given
pressure. Any hydraulic fluid released during pressure relief mechanism
operation is recovered in the equilivant of a "Surge Tank/s" for future
system use. On most A/C this "Surge Tank/s" is also used to "Top Up"
hydraulic fluid as necessary. Where is the "Surge Tank/s" located on
A300-600 A/C.
Possible Scenario:
During the upset the flight computer was unable to keep up with the control
inputs creating a sequenced backlog of control inputs. As the crew perceived
the A/C was failing to respond to flight control inputs due the flight
computer sequence back log, control inputs became more aggressive creating a
greater sequence backlog. As the flight computer worked through the backlog
sequence it instructed more aggressive control inputs. The hydraulic system
cycled from over taxed/inadequate pressure to over pressure resulting in
"Fluid Hammer" resulting in catastrophic failure of the hydraulic system.
The failure could have occurred anywhere in the system, but most likely near
the pressure relief mechanism. Once the hydraulic system failed the vertical
stabilizer, already weakened by cyclic stress due failure of the rudder
actuator rod bearing, could have snapped off due additional dynamic stress.
Fluid Hammer in the hydraulic system followed by catastrophic failure of the
hydraulic system could possibly explain the "Chatter" followed by the "Loud
Bang" on the CVR, along with various anomalies re flight controls on the
FDR.
Hydraulic fluid when released @ pressure @ system operateing temps will self
ignite/flash then self extinguish leaving a visible "Whitish/Blue" plume
behind if the incident occurs in flight. There appears to be a "Flash" on
Bridge Movie #2. There appears to be a "Plume" following the A/C for a
period of time that stops before impact on Bridge Movie #3. If a Hydraulic
pressure relief mechanism "Catastrophic Failure" occurred in/near the wing
roots or catastrophic failure in a main hydraulic line occurred in/near the
wing roots, this would explain the observed/reported fire/plume.
Hydraulic System Catastrophic failure in the wing root area could have
damaged wiring resulting in the period of no to intermittent data on the
FDR.
It is my understanding rules were issued requiring Pax A/C operated by US
regulated carriers be designed so a single hydraulic component failure, or
failure of 1 hydraulic system would not result in total hydraulic failure
after the DC-10 incident in Iowa. Based on the DHL Baghdad incident
A300-600's apparently do not meet this regulation.
In the late 70's/early 80's a B-52 made a successful landing @ Barksdale
AFB, near Shreveport, La, after loosing it's vertical stabilizer to
turbulence in a thunder storm.
Could AAl587 been controlled/made a successful landing after loosing it's
vertical stabilizer using wing & remaining tail mounted flight controls, had
it not suffered "Total Hydraulic Failure" is a debatable question.
IMHO this incident resulted from the Turbulence Encounter complicated by
"Fundamental Hydraulic System Design Issues, Combined with Fundamental
Flight Computer Program/Programming Issues".
>
> <snip>
> > Vic
AbsolutelyCertain
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD47DB53.7662%vic...@usread.com...
I'll turn you over to Paul Nixon. I'm long ago burned out with TWA 800.
It's been a long (long, long, long) time since I've sat in a center and
looked at a radar screen, but it seems to me that it would be dicey to get
an accurate read on groundspeed in that situation.
Also, I am not convinced that a period of more or less level flight wouldn't
have produced the same pyrotechnic effects for the ground observers anyway.
> Have you guys ever had communications, good chats, with the late Bill
> Donaldson's brother, Bob? I think that fella has a good handle on issues.
> I'd like to ask him to comment on the physical evidence. Do you mind?
I certainly don't mind, but I don't think the gentleman is going to want to
talk to me. I have not exactly been kind to the Commander on this subject
over the years. I'll invite others who are more diplomatic field this one.
(The gallery should try to resist shouting "that's pretty much everybody!")
John Mazor
> By "fine citizens" I was differentiating them from some homeless guy high
on
> crack who might have been a witness to the crash.
Going slightly OT to provide some ada historical perspective, we've had
individuals post here who apparently fit that description minus the part
about witnessing the event in question. No, I'm not implicating you, just
explaining the hard-core scepticism that you're finding ere.
> Sober retired Cops and
> Firefighters, aircraft mechanics, etc., these are some of the fine
citizens
> who witnessed the crash and gave useful information.
Which takes them out of the homeless crackhead category and puts them
squarely in the class of earnest, well-intentioned witnesses who suffer from
all the limitations that have been described in scientific studies showing
that eyewitness testimony is problematical at best. (Cf. George's
referenced cite.)
Years ago in the midst of the TWA800 discussions, a poster cited an example
of a military a/c event where a witness said that a plume of vapor trailing
from the a/c ignited and spread in one direction. Time and memory fail me
here, I forget which direction the witness said that the ignition
propagated, toward or away from the a/c, but other evidence showed it was
the opposite. An appropos caution for TWA800 and for 587. In the United
Colorado Springs accident, an eyewitness said she saw the pilots waving a
red flag in the cockpit window to warn people on the ground to get out of
the way of the crash. At Fatima, Spain in 1917, 100,000 people saw the sun
"dance in the sky" when the Virgin Mary appeared to some peasant children
there (and only them, no one else saw or heard her), and we're talking about
accounts from journalists and other educated observers.
The point about witness accounts is not that they are always 100% wrong,
it's that absent other evidence, it is impossible to sort out the right from
the wrong. Even the pilots of an accident aircraft can get it wrong. They
tell the NTSB that A,B,C happened, whereas the CVR and FDR and other
evidence shows that A didn't happen, B didn't happen quite the way they
remembered it, and they forgot or didn't notice D, E, and F. If they can't
always get it all right, no wonder that witness accounts rank rather low on
an investigator's rankings.
John Mazor
> I'm not trying to be Walter Cronkite. We've tried to analyze this and
offer
> to the public our findings. Since our work finds that a Gov't agency has
> spent money and time on a crash that killed 265 people and seemingly
failed
> in so many areas -- it's almost impossible to curb our reaction
(especially
> since some of us are New Yorkers -- the only thing we curb is our dogs).
A great one-liner. Unfortunately, actually true only on occasion.
Or maybe that wasn't a dog. ;-)
> again -- believe it or not -- we do indeed try to keep our work on a
humble
> level. Our first draft of the full report was much "angrier". Much. So
we
> are improving. Maybe you're catching us (me) in mid-stream here, as we
> evolve into something more professional.
One of the hallmarks of intelligence is learning from one's mistakes.
(The reverse take on that is that insanity is performing the same action
over and over and expecting a different outcome.)
John Mazor
> 4) I am not aware of any verifiable aerodynamic test or abstract model
which
> proves that the zoom-climb could not happen.
You're forgetting Rivero's styrofoam glider photos?
John Mazor
> in article cftm83$3i7$0...@pita.alt.net, AbsolutelyCertain at
> Have you guys ever had communications, good chats, with the late Bill
> Donaldson's brother, Bob? I think that fella has a good handle on issues.
> I'd like to ask him to comment on the physical evidence. Do you mind?
I met the elder Donaldson at the TWA800 hearings and formed an opinion that
didn't change in later discussions.
"How about my Theory A? Would you believe A?"
"No? You demolished A? Well, how about B? Would you believe B?"
"Okay, so B is DOA. How about C?"
Yeah, this is ad hominem, but it is indicative of why we don't have much
truck with the Donaldsons.
AbsolutelyCertain
"John Mazor" <maz...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4122bad4$0$21747$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
Try as hard as I might ..... I can't seem to forget them.
John Mazor
They were classics.
1aircraftQAguy
Thanks Ralph! You have some interesting thoughts.
I'm no Airbus fan, but I have to back them up a little here. My time
is limited, but I'll make a few comments.
> Assuming your statements re the video are correct there is another
> potential/possible exploitation/scenario that would support your theory of
> whatever caused the plume occurred before vertical stabilizer separation.
>
> "Fluid Hammer" can/does occur in any pressurized fluid transfer system when
> valves within the system are closed/cycled rapidly. To laymen it is known as
> "Water Hammer" that occurs when "Ball Valve/s" are closed/cycled rapidly in
> water systems. This phenomena can/does occur in systems transferring any
> fluid & some gasses
> under pressure. The higher the system operateing pressure, the higher
> potential for system damage from fluid hammer. This phenomena is more likely
> to occur damage/cause system component failure when it occurs when fluid
> usage is sufficient to cycle system operateing pressure below/above standard
> system operateing pressure relief mechanisms relatively rapidly.
All modern aircraft are designed incorporating components to minimize
fluid hammer, the A300 is no different.
Accumulators, flexible hoses and check valves are used to prevent and
reduce the effects of system surges (fluid hammer), vibrations and
back pressure.
Hydraulic system failures (ruptures) are very rare.
> A/C training simulators are designed/certified to exactly match/mimic the
> flight characteristics/response of the A/C they are certified for. Hydraulic
> system operateing pressure on A300-600 simulators are observed to drop to ~
> 2,900 PSI with/during rapid control reversals with engine thrust set to
> maintain airspeed range & not set for climb thrust, 2,900 psi is ~ 100 PSI
> below system
> design operateing pressure. See pg 12 of Operations 2 - Factual Report of
> Group Chairman, Document 167209, @
> http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/exhibits/default.htm. Weight is not an
> issue on simulators so hydraulic components are substantially heavier in
> design while maintaining exact operateing characteristics of the A/C.
According to the A300-600 maintenance manual; The A300's engine driven
pumps have a nominal output pressure of 3000 psi (at zero delivery)
and 2848.7 psi at system nominal delivery. The hydraulic systems
operational test calls for; during engine dry motor, ECAM display
pressure reading of 3000 + - 200 psi.
> Discussion
> It is known there were several rapid reversals of various flight control
> surfaces as attempts were made to stabilize the A/C after the upset due the
> turbulence encounter. These rapid reversals of various flight control
> surfaces would be sufficient to cause hydraulic system pressure to drop to ~
> 2,900 PSI as all flight control surfaces were moved as directed.
>
> It is my understanding on FBW A/C the flight computer issues instructions
> for/controls all flight control surface movement. It is my understanding
> when multiple flight control movements are necessary/called for by input
> from either auto pilot or manual controls, the computer deals with each
> input in the order received coordinating movement of other flight control
> surfaces to maintain a smooth flight profile as programmed into the
> computer, confirming each control input is completed before initiating the
> next. Example: As the rudder is moved, other flight control surfaces are
> directed to move to facilitate the called for instruction while maintaining
> a smooth flight profile, but the entire sequence of movements is completed
> before another sequence of movements is initiated.
Forget about any flight computer/FBW ideas, the A300 isn't
FBW..........
In the DHL Baghdad incident a portion of the wing trailing edge was
blown away, I think all three hydraulic systems were lost.
> In the late 70's/early 80's a B-52 made a successful landing @ Barksdale
> AFB, near Shreveport, La, after loosing it's vertical stabilizer to
> turbulence in a thunder storm.
The B-52 mentioned didn't lose the complete vertical stabilizer as flt
587's
A300 did.
1aircraftQAguy
Thanks Ralph! Some interesting thoughts.
Forget about the flight computer/FBW idea. The A300-600 isn't FBW.
I'm no Airbus fan, but I have to back them up a little here. My time
is limited, but I'll make a few comments.
All modern aircraft are designed incorporating components to minimize
fluid hammer, the A300-600 is no different.
Accumulators, flexible hoses and check valves are used to prevent and
reduce the effects of system surges (fluid hammer), vibrations and
back pressure. Hydraulic system failures (ruptures) are very rare.
According to the A300-600 maintenance manual the engine hydraulic
pumps have a nominal pressure output of 3000 psi with zero delivery
(meaning, no demand) and 2842.7 psi with nominal delivery. Also;
The A300-600 hydraulic system operational test calls for an indication
of 3000 + - 200 psi during engine dry motor.
The DHL Baghdad aircraft had a portion of its wing trailing edge and
rear spar blown away, I think it lost all three hydraulic systems.
The B-52 mentioned didn't lose its complete vertical stabilized as
AA587 did.
Ralph Nesbitt
>
> <vic...@usread.com> wrote in message
position
> to theirs, timeline-wise. That's why I popped the hypothetical
> boater-home-video in there earlier. Imagine that the hypothetical video
> "proves" you timeline, what happens to their case? I think it's in big
> trouble. But if it "proves" theirs, your case is in big trouble. Since
> there is no such proof, then I would think that everyone needs to tread
> carefully on the timeline issue.
>
> itself. Except for the 747 in Japan that had a bulkhead failure, I'm not
> aware of any modern airliner losing any of its vertical stabilizer in any
> comparable way. I find this tail failure to be very disturbing. Are
these
> composite structures up to the job? I dunno.
>
late 70's/early 80's after loosing it's vertical stabilizer in a
Thunderstorm Encounter.
Ralph Nesbitt
temps 62 degrees F will not burn by throwing matches into a bucket of it.
This demonstration failed to take into act the vapors in the CWT had been
heated to ~ 115 degrees F or >, slightly above the ASA closed cup test flash
point for Jet A.
If you check Donaldson's work closely, most of it is or based on "out of
context smoke & mirrors illusions such as the 1 described above.
1aircraftQAguy
The A300-600 hydraulic systems operating temps are below 95 deg. C.
System overheat annunciator illuminates when temp exceeds 95 deg C.
The hydraulic fluids flash point is 171 or 182 deg C, depending upon fluid type.
vic...@usread.com
at glen...@aol.com wrote on 8/18/04 4:16 AM:
> The A300-600 hydraulic systems operating temps are below 95 deg. C.
>
> System overheat annunciator illuminates when temp exceeds 95 deg C.
>
> The hydraulic fluids flash point is 171 or 182 deg C, depending upon fluid
> type.
Good info.
Thanks Glenn.
Vic
Ralph Nesbitt
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD48D316.773B%vic...@usread.com...
do not take into consideration droplet size when atomized of frictional
heating occurring during atomization when released @ A/C operating pressure.
USAF Systems Command, Dayton, Ohio has overseen significant testing of
Atomized Hydraulic Leak issues. Temps of 400 to 600 degrees F have been
documented in high pressure hydraulic fluid releases @ 1 foot.
There is a new version of the military well known turbo prop transport A/C
that has a 9,000 psi hydraulic system to accommodate beefed up landing gear
& enhanced flight control systems to maximize short/rough field capability.
1aircraftQAguy
> <vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD48D316.773B%vic...@usread.com...
> > in article a83bb3a1.04081...@posting.google.com, 1aircraftQAguy
> > at glen...@aol.com wrote on 8/18/04 4:16 AM:
> >
> > > The A300-600 hydraulic systems operating temps are below 95 deg. C.
> > >
> > > System overheat annunciator illuminates when temp exceeds 95 deg C.
> > >
> > > The hydraulic fluids flash point is 171 or 182 deg C, depending upon
> fluid
> > > type.
> >
> > Good info.
> >
> > Thanks Glenn.
> >
> > Vic
> >
> The flash point is based on "Standard ASTM Test Protocols". These protocols
> do not take into consideration droplet size when atomized of frictional
> heating occurring during atomization when released @ A/C operating pressure.
>
> USAF Systems Command, Dayton, Ohio has overseen significant testing of
> Atomized Hydraulic Leak issues. Temps of 400 to 600 degrees F have been
> documented in high pressure hydraulic fluid releases @ 1 foot.
>
> Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
I think that defies some type of laws of physics......... the fluid
released would have a rapid pressure decrease with a proportional
temperature decrease!
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti
<vic...@usread.com> wrote:
[snip discussion of TW800 eyewitness information]
>Were you there?? Did you interview people? aren't you GUESSING and
>assuming and then applying across-the-board your theory that
shore-based
>observers would have had a very difficult time discerning the
horizon?
For the record, I was not there, and I have not interviewed anyone in
connection with TW800. However, I am fully capable of reading the
weather data from the date in question. My recollection is that the
reported visibility was somewhat less than the distance to the visual
horizon; if that constitutes a guess, then I was guessing. I'd call it
drawing a conclusion based on the available data. If Victor believes
that shore-based observers could have easily discerned the horizon, he
can either produce data that says I'm mistaken about the visibility at
the date and time when TW800 crashed, or he can explain how the
eagle-eyed eyewitness could have seen farther than the reported
visibility.
>The
>plane crashed around 8:30. I know in July (when 800 crashed) we're
out till
>at least 8:45 or 9 pm and there is still light out. if I'm on the
beach
>you'd better believe the horizon is discernible.
Every day? On clear July evenings, I have no doubts one can see the
horizon at 9 PM. I also know that on hazy days, the visibility can be
such that the horizon is indistinct. My comment noted that the event
occurred at dusk, on a hazy July evening; my recollection is that the
air temperature was close to the dew point and the reported visibility
was only a few miles. It was after sunset for that location. Note that
I did not say it was pitch black out, only that visibility was less
than perfect.
> You are a man of science.
>A Dr., for God's sake. How can you make up stuff like this?
Most of this was discussed years ago, and I really do not care enough
about this to go back and look up all the data again; if Victor wishes
to do so and can show that I'm mistaken, he's welcome to knock himself
out. That said, I did precisely what scientists do all the time; I
drew a conclusion based on reported data. That's different from
"making it up."
I'll also observe the irony that for someone so touchy about anyone
questioning his sainted motives, Victor sure knows how to go for my
hot button. Alleging implicitly that I'm being unscientific and
"making it up" are pretty serious charges; might it not be wiser to
ask whether I have any data to support a particular conclusion before
hurling such charges? I may misremember the data (it's been a few
years), but I don't make things up.
>These
>witnesses gave these accounts IMMEDIATELY to Police (about the
contrail
>rising to the airplane -- many thought they were watching an amateur
rocket
>launch, or a Navy test). You imply people can't distinguish between
lights
>on airplanes with a steady missile/rocket contrail? Come on!
I'm sorry that I wasn't clear enough; that's not what I meant to
imply. If one accepts for the sake of argument that the NTSB report is
close to what occurred, there was an initial explosion (perceptible
flash) followed by roughly half a minute of flight of a damaged,
burning aircraft (a streak of light), followed by a final breakup and
crash (a fireball). That's what I meant by lights moving in the sky;
if that's what happened, that's what witnesses would have seen. A
contrail, in contrast, is a trail of water vapor that follows a rocket
or aircraft; I'm simply less than confident that anyone could have
seen a contrail from at a minimum 10 miles away, over water, through
haze, after sunset, even if it was not completely dark. On the other
hand, I do know that most of the accounts were given to FBI agents
over several days after the crash, during which time every media
outlet on Long Island was speculating about missiles. Based on what is
known about witness memory, it is quite plausible that people who saw
unusual patterns of light in the sky, then heard that a missile was a
potential cause, would very sincerely believe that they saw a missile.
There may have been people who walked into a police station to give an
account before they looked at a TV set or heard a radio. However,
those accounts were absent from the debate that occurred here several
years ago about eyewitnesses; my recollection is that all the accounts
debated in a.d.a were drawn from published FBI interview forms,
accounts of interviews which took place in the days that followed the
crash, which in my book is a bit different from immediate.
>I read somewhere that one military group said that some portable
missiles
>could indeed climb to 13,000 plus feet -- their accuracy decreases if
I
>remember correctly but a strike is not impossible.
This isn't my area of expertise, but there were a few experts in
military ordnance who posted on this issue in a.d.a after the TW800.
They gave figures for several widely-used MANPADS, citing reputable
sources such a Jane's; none were capable of reaching 13,500 feet. The
consensus was that if it was a missile, it would have to have been
significantly larger than a MANPAD.
Incidentally, the MANPAD hypothesis is inconsistent with the
eyewitness accounts. MANPAD engines all burn out too quickly to
provide streaks of light (or contrails, if one prefers) as large or as
long as those reported by the eyewitnesses. Anyone who thinks it was a
MANPAD has exactly the same problem as the NTSB probable cause has
regarding how well it fits the eyewitness accounts.
>The zoom climb: MANY aerodynamicists say the zoom climb theory as it
>applies to 800 is bunk! you have the nose off and wind rushing into
the
>cabin. Part of left wing structure as I understand it was severely
damaged
>or blown off by CWT explosion. The bottom line is that the radar
data and
>pilot witnesses absolutely do not at all support the zoom climb
theory.
Who are these "many" aerodynamicists? It is worth noting that the
phrase "zoom climb theory" is beloved of several individuals and
organizations (e.g., FIRO, Donaldson, Captain Lahr) who have an ax to
grind and have been shown over the years to be somewhat less than
objective. For example, one of Captain Lahr's proofs that "a zoom
climb is impossible" is to calculate the speed of the aircraft using
the same laws of motion that apply to a "rope swing." The argument is
that the radar data show that TW800's forward velocity didn't decrease
to the extent predicted by the rope swing model, therefore the climb
was impossible. The problem with that analysis is that a 747, even
minus a good bit of it's fuselage, is not a rope swing; it has these
things on the side called wings, generating lift, and this noisy bits
dangling below the wings called engines, generating thrust. On other
web sites, using more scientific terms, Dr. Stalcup of FIRO speaks of
"conservation of energy" and mentions kinetic and potential energy,
but that's simply the equivalent of the "rope swing" model using more
technical terms; Stalcup fails to mention that the engines converted
chemical energy into kinetic and potential energy.
I'm not an aeronautical engineer, so I won't argue the specifics of
what might have happened, but we did have an aeronautical engineer
post here who indicated that a short climb before breakup was not
unreasonable; he noted that predicting the exact behavior requires
using some sophisticated calculations and making assumptions about the
state of the aircraft (for which there are no data). I do know enough
to recognize that Captain Lahr's and Dr. Stalcup's arguments are so
simplistic as to be disingenuous. That after 8 years they haven't come
up with arguments that acknowledge that the aerodynamics of a crippled
747 are a bit more complex than a rope swing suggests that their
"proof" is a bit thin. If this crowd is the "many" aerodynamicists, I
strongly suspect that Victor has been taken in; the only plausible
alternative is that he shares their motives, which don't have much to
do with aircraft safety.
>So ... what did hundreds of people see? You need to come up with
something
>much better Sir. and I suggest you speak to some of them or at least
watch
>their interviews.
I'm not sure what they saw. I do know that there is no evidence in the
wreckage of any missile strike, evidence that most (although not all)
agree would have been there is a missile was involved. The explanation
that they could have seen the stricken aircraft and been convinced
that they saw a missile due to post-event suggestion is plausible, but
not provable.
[snip]
>> The bottom line is that there is ample scientific evidence to
indicate
>> that eyewitnesses are not as reliable as lay people believe them to
>> be. Hypotheses that rest primarily on eyewitness accounts of the
>> detailed timing of relatively distant events ought to be treated
with
>> an appropriate degree of caution. "Treated with an appropriate
degree
>> of caution" is not the same as "disregarded entirely." It may mean
>> "disregarded when it's incompatible with objective evidence and
>> there's plausible reason to suspect it has been skewed."
>When 43 people who are viewing an event from different positions and
angles
>and 39 of them generally agree as to what happened, THAT is pretty
>consistent and reliable. I appreciate the link you gave. now I ask
you
>this. Is there any evidence that witnesses are reliable?? None?
Reread what I wrote, particularly the part about how "Treated with an
appropriate degree of caution" is not the same as "disregarded
entirely." There is quite a bit of evidence that witnesses are
reliable, just not as reliable as most people think they are. The
problem is that there's no good way to tell who is reliable and who is
not reliable without independent evidence. Hence, their accounts
should be treated with due caution.
>Bottom line with 587 is the witnesses and physical evidence are in
>agreement.
>One reliability issue here is the NTSB which has provided practically
no
>strong evidence to back up their claims in re 587.
That's Victor's interpretation. Let me pose a series of rhetorical
questions:
- Is Airbus involved in the NTSB investigation?
- Doesn't the thrust of the NTSB argument reflect badly on Airbus? I
mean, I'd like to fly on aircraft where pilots can't make the tail
fall off even if they try.
- If there is evidence pointing towards an internal explosion or fire
rather than the composite tail falling off as the cause, why isn't
Airbus protesting mightily? I interpret one of the articles on
Victor's web site as arguing that Airbus is conspiring with the NTSB
to withhold data so that the NTSB will announce that if pilots aren't
careful, they can make the tail fall off Airbus aircraft, all to hide
the real cause, which is an explosion of some sort. Many people might
think that it would be rational for Airbus to cover up because there
is something wrong with their aircraft.
That appears to be a good reason for a healthy level of skepticism.
Victor is asking us to believe that Airbus is participating in a
criminal cover up to ... unfairly implicate their own design as the
probably cause of AA587? Either Airbus is behaving irrationally, or
some of Victor's more sensational charges are inconsistent with his
probable cause.
>And I would humbly suggest that before you comment on people's work
(mine)
>you actually read it first. Thank you.
Thanks, but I have better things to do with my time than to wade
through Victor's entire web site. I've read some of it, and therefore
qualified my opinion appropriately. That means that Victor could
reasonably reply along the lines of "did you look at
'obscure_reference.htm'?" I have read enough to identify some degree
of internal inconsistency (Airbus coverup of non-Airbus cause). I have
read enough to at least form a general opinion, which is that although
there may be some evidence that the NTSB investigation was not
perfect, I do not see anything that convinces me that the NTSB
investigation is fatally flawed.
AbsolutelyCertain
"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" <gbiz...@mitretek.org> wrote in message
news:299125a2.04082...@posting.google.com...
> questions:
>
> - Is Airbus involved in the NTSB investigation?
> - Doesn't the thrust of the NTSB argument reflect badly on Airbus? I
> mean, I'd like to fly on aircraft where pilots can't make the tail
> fall off even if they try.
> - If there is evidence pointing towards an internal explosion or fire
> rather than the composite tail falling off as the cause, why isn't
> Airbus protesting mightily? I interpret one of the articles on
> Victor's web site as arguing that Airbus is conspiring with the NTSB
> to withhold data so that the NTSB will announce that if pilots aren't
> careful, they can make the tail fall off Airbus aircraft, all to hide
> the real cause, which is an explosion of some sort.
One has to imagine a placard over the door to this airplane: "This aircraft
is proven to be safe unless the pilots inadvertently make the tail come off.
Kicking the tail off is prohibited."
Beautifully made point, George. The integrity of the composite materials is
still, it seems to me, the central issue in this case. To the extent that,
even if the investigation establishes that this tail met certification
standards and failed only after the loads on it exceeded those specified in
the standards, as far as I am concerned, that ain't good enough, to coin a
phrase. My response would be, raise the damned standards and make damned
sure that these structures exceed them with a comfortable margin. The
spectacle of an airplane like this coming apart on a clear, sunny day two
minutes after takeoff, for any reason short of being hit by the Nixon
Immaculata Missile (Retrograde Oblique Diatribimatic), aka the NIMROD ....
is shocking and disturbing.
Laurence Doering
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:00:44 -0400, "vic...@usread.com"
><vic...@usread.com> wrote:
>
> [snip discussion of TW800 eyewitness information]
>
>>Were you there?? Did you interview people? aren't you GUESSING and
>>assuming and then applying across-the-board your theory that
> shore-based
>>observers would have had a very difficult time discerning the
> horizon?
>
> For the record, I was not there, and I have not interviewed anyone in
> connection with TW800. However, I am fully capable of reading the
> weather data from the date in question. My recollection is that the
> reported visibility was somewhat less than the distance to the visual
> horizon; if that constitutes a guess, then I was guessing. I'd call it
> drawing a conclusion based on the available data.
According to the NTSB report, the weather observations made at
Francis Gabreski Airport (FOK), 12 miles north of TWA 800's
crash site and the nearest weather reporting station, were:
1945: Winds 240 degrees at 4 knots, visibility 4 miles; haze;
clouds at 6,000 feet scattered; temperature 73 degrees F,
dewpoint 66 degrees F, altimeter setting 30.08 in Hg,
total sky cover 3/8.
2045: Winds calm; visibility 6 miles; haze; clouds at 6,000
feet scattered; temperature 72 degrees F, dewpoint 66
degrees F, altimeter setting 30.09 in Hg, total sky
cover 3/8.
>> The plane crashed around 8:30. I know in July (when 800 crashed)
>> we're out till at least 8:45 or 9 pm and there is still light
>> out. if I'm on the beach you'd better believe the horizon is
>> discernible.
>
> Every day? On clear July evenings, I have no doubts one can see the
> horizon at 9 PM. I also know that on hazy days, the visibility can be
> such that the horizon is indistinct. My comment noted that the event
> occurred at dusk, on a hazy July evening; my recollection is that the
> air temperature was close to the dew point and the reported visibility
> was only a few miles. It was after sunset for that location. Note that
> I did not say it was pitch black out, only that visibility was less
> than perfect.
TWA 800 was cleared for takeoff from JFK at 2018 EDT and
the CVR recording ended at 2031.
Sunset at FOK on July 17, 1996 was at 2019. At 2031 the sun
was about 3 degrees below the horizon as seen from sea level,
and about 2 degrees below the horizon as seen from an altitude
of 13,000 feet (so TWA 800 would not have been illuminated by
the setting sun.)
It was dusk, the visibility was somewhere around 4
to 6 miles in haze, and the temperature/dewpoint spread
was 6 degrees F.
I think Dr. Bizzigotti can safely say that observers
on the shore would not have been able to see the horizon,
even though he wasn't there at the time.
> [...]
>
>>These witnesses gave these accounts IMMEDIATELY to Police (about
>>the contrail rising to the airplane -- many thought they were
>>watching an amateur rocket launch, or a Navy test). You imply
>>people can't distinguish between lights on airplanes with a
>>steady missile/rocket contrail? Come on!
>
> [...]
>
> There may have been people who walked into a police station to give an
> account before they looked at a TV set or heard a radio. However,
> those accounts were absent from the debate that occurred here several
> years ago about eyewitnesses; my recollection is that all the accounts
> debated in a.d.a were drawn from published FBI interview forms,
> accounts of interviews which took place in the days that followed the
> crash, which in my book is a bit different from immediate.
This is correct -- all of the TWA 800 eyewitness accounts that
are generally available come from interviews conducted by the FBI
over a period of several weeks after the crash. None of them, as
far as I have ever seen, came from statements given by witnesses who
spoke to the authorities immediately.
I can't claim to have read all of the TWA 800 eyewitness accounts
that were collected by the FBI (there are hundreds of them, all
available on the NTSB's website), but the great majority of the
ones I have read are nowhere near as specific as Victor implies.
Very few of the witnesses claim to have seen a missile or a
smoke or vapor trail moving upward -- almost all saw some
variation on moving lights in the sky, often described as
resembling flares or fireworks.
On a personal note with respect to the reliability of eyewitness
testimony, I was an eyewitness to the crash of an Air Force F-117
Stealth fighter at an airshow near Baltimore, MD in September 1997.
I am a respectable member of the community (in my opinion, anyway),
college-educated, a licensed private pilot, and have been interested
in aviation since childhood. I had always sort of assumed that,
if I ever happened to have the misfortune to see an airplane
crash, I would be an ideal witness.
Turns out I was wrong. Several people caught the F-117's crash
sequence on video, and I was very surprised to see how different
the actual sequence of events was from what I remembered. The
aircraft crashed because the left outer wing panel failed (due
to a maintenance error, it turned out). For several hours, until
I saw video of the crash on the local TV news, I had no idea
what had caused the crash.
You'd think I would have seen the left wing part from the
plane and fall separately -- it happened right before my eyes,
no more than half a mile away -- but I didn't. It was plainly
visible in the videos. In fact, one of the people who videotaped
the crash fixated on the falling left wing and followed it down
to the ground, totally missing the pilot ejecting from the
stricken aircraft and the rest of the crash sequence.
How come I didn't see it?
The videos also showed a prominent puff of white smoke or
vapor as the wing separated (most likely hydraulic fluid,
since as far as I know the F-117 doesn't have fuel tanks
in the wings.) I don't remember seeing that.
I don't remember hearing any sounds, either, except a loud
THUMP several seconds after I saw the F-117 disappear behind
some trees on shore (I witnessed the crash from the deck of
a boat.) After the structural failure the F-117 pitched up
nearly 90 degrees. I should have heard the engine noise
stop abruptly as its engines flamed out, but I didn't.
I remember being convinced that the out-of-control aircraft
was falling directly towards the boat I was standing on, and
that it finally turned away just before it went behind the
trees. In reality, it fell almost straight down after the
wing failed and never came closer to me than about half a
mile.
The actual crash sequence from wing separation to impact
was less than 20 seconds, but if you had asked me right
afterwards how long it took, I would have said it took
more than a minute.
I could go on. My point is that, based on my own
experience, people are just not that good at producing
coherent objective accounts of sudden dramatic events.
ljd
Victor T.
> For the record, I was not there, and I have not interviewed anyone in
> connection with TW800. However, I am fully capable of reading the
> weather data from the date in question. My recollection is that the
> reported visibility was somewhat less than the distance to the visual
> horizon; if that constitutes a guess, then I was guessing. I'd call it
> drawing a conclusion based on the available data. If Victor believes
> that shore-based observers could have easily discerned the horizon, he
> can either produce data that says I'm mistaken about the visibility at
> the date and time when TW800 crashed, or he can explain how the
> eagle-eyed eyewitness could have seen farther than the reported
> visibility.
>
George, what I meant by horizon was "eye-level" – the streak ascended
from eye-level to the plane. I did not intend to say that it was the
literal horizon –– my bad. The weather therefore has nothing to do
with this. If close to 100 people say they saw this –– then whatever
the weather was like it obviously did not impeded their view.
I won't debate the witnesses any longer since this issue is dead in
the water in this group. This group calls for physical evidence.
I'll get to that shortly.
In re missiles rising to 13,000 or above, I received this email from
someone familiar with the investigation:
"The "official" "effective range" for the Stinger is 10,000ft.
However, a
missile expert for the Air Force told the FBI in 1996, that this is
the
effective range against a maneuvering fighter aircraft, not a
lumbering 747
taking no evasive actions. They did computer modeling that proved
even the
older model stingers could easily have shot down Flight 800, then the
FBI
publicly stated the opposite. The Russian and Chinese copies of the
stinger
both have a higher effective range than the early stinger."
>
> Incidentally, the MANPAD hypothesis is inconsistent with the
> eyewitness accounts. MANPAD engines all burn out too quickly to
> provide streaks of light (or contrails, if one prefers) as large or as
> long as those reported by the eyewitnesses. Anyone who thinks it was a
> MANPAD has exactly the same problem as the NTSB probable cause has
> regarding how well it fits the eyewitness accounts.
I'll try and get some info on the above.
Let's start with Boeing. They said they had no clue how the CIA and
NTSB came up with that theory. Such an important part of the
investigation—heavily dependent on CFD data of that 747 model, some
heavy duty aerodynamics calculations, and the NTSB didn't ask Boeing
to work with them on it. Hmmm – what ever happened to that "peer
review" thing you keep preaching? Oh, I forgot, the NTSB is above
peer review.
In my FL587 travels I've met Boeing engineers who say that zoom climb
is B.S.
Lahr? Axe to grind? Bob Donaldson (Bill's brother), axe? I've met
Ray and spoken to Bob on more than one occasion. What axe do they
have?
What you're saying is that post-explosion the aircraft will experience
a tremendous *increase* in airspeed to account for both the climb and
forward progress as noted on the radar data. What supporting data do
you have for this? You can ridicule the Lahr and Stalcup examples but
you don't even offer for an explanation for your position.
Like I said in an earlier email – let's forget the zoom climb. Even if
we could prove it to be impossible, all it would ultimately prove is
that the NTSB has not explained what the witnesses saw and that is not
physical evidence.
I'll add these last two items re FL800 and then call it a day – I
can't focus on FL800 and I'm no expert on it:
1. There was explosive residue that did return positives after more
than one test. These residue samples were ALL attributed to some dog
training exercise, which has been shown was not the aircraft that was
FL800. Even if it was the same craft, the places these multiple
positive hits were returned were not part of the dog training
exercise. Bottom line is – we have significant residue, proven
residue, in more than one part of the aircraft that has not been
explained. These seems to me to qualify as "physical evidence".
2. Check out these comments from ALPA's James Speer. I reckon you'll
tell me he has an axe to grind too?:
(turn your volume up high – the audio track is weak)
http://raylahr.entryhost.com/JamesSpeer.wmv
>
> >So ... what did hundreds of people see? You need to come up with
> something
> >much better Sir. and I suggest you speak to some of them or at least
> watch
> >their interviews.
>
> I'm not sure what they saw. I do know that there is no evidence in the
> wreckage of any missile strike, evidence that most (although not all)
> agree would have been there is a missile was involved. The explanation
> that they could have seen the stricken aircraft and been convinced
> that they saw a missile due to post-event suggestion is plausible, but
> not provable.
> >Bottom line with 587 is the witnesses and physical evidence are in
> >agreement.
>
> >One reliability issue here is the NTSB which has provided practically
> no
> >strong evidence to back up their claims in re 587.
>
> That's Victor's interpretation. Let me pose a series of rhetorical
> questions:
No … it's not my interpretation. I asked this group to list for me
the clear evidence that the NTSB has provided that tail sep was the
initiating event. No one responded. Your interpretation is that they
have but you fail to say how or where.
>
> - Is Airbus involved in the NTSB investigation?
> - Doesn't the thrust of the NTSB argument reflect badly on Airbus? I
> mean, I'd like to fly on aircraft where pilots can't make the tail
> fall off even if they try.
> - If there is evidence pointing towards an internal explosion or fire
> rather than the composite tail falling off as the cause, why isn't
> Airbus protesting mightily? I interpret one of the articles on
> Victor's web site as arguing that Airbus is conspiring with the NTSB
> to withhold data so that the NTSB will announce that if pilots aren't
> careful, they can make the tail fall off Airbus aircraft, all to hide
> the real cause, which is an explosion of some sort. Many people might
> think that it would be rational for Airbus to cover up because there
> is something wrong with their aircraft.
>
I have made it clear in our articles that the parties to the
investigation sincerely believe that tail sep. was the cause of the
crash. I believe the NTSB sincerely believes this. In other words, I
DO NOT believe, nor have I ever alleged, an NTSB (or parties)
cover-up. I hope we are clear on this now.
I also believe that the parties and the NTSB have missed clues and
misinterpreted evidence. And some evidence is simply unaccounted for
as we mentioned in parts 2 and 3 of our report.
Unfortunately, either you did not read through our Coverups and
Foulups article, or you have misinterpreted it. In that article I do
not allege what you say I do. Again – you critique our work without
reading it or understanding it. It's at:
http://www.usread.com/flight587/coverups_n_foulups/default.html
> >And I would humbly suggest that before you comment on people's work
> (mine)
> >you actually read it first. Thank you.
>
> Thanks, but I have better things to do with my time than to wade
> through Victor's entire web site. I've read some of it, and therefore
> qualified my opinion appropriately. That means that Victor could
> reasonably reply along the lines of "did you look at
> 'obscure_reference.htm'?" I have read enough to identify some degree
> of internal inconsistency (Airbus coverup of non-Airbus cause). I have
> read enough to at least form a general opinion, which is that although
> there may be some evidence that the NTSB investigation was not
> perfect, I do not see anything that convinces me that the NTSB
> investigation is fatally flawed.
We uncovered evidence that the NTSB fouled up the FL903 investigation
and then when they learned of a serious problem with the A300's RTLU
(in june 2002) they failed to come up with a safety recommendation
until months after we came out with our article.
We've uncovered evidence that the NTSB may not be the lead agency
investigating this crash. If they are … their investigation does not
engender confidence for those very familiar with it.
Victor
Victor T.
>
> Beautifully made point, George. The integrity of the composite materials is
> still, it seems to me, the central issue in this case. To the extent that,
> even if the investigation establishes that this tail met certification
> standards and failed only after the loads on it exceeded those specified in
> the standards, as far as I am concerned, that ain't good enough, to coin a
> phrase. My response would be, raise the damned standards and make damned
> sure that these structures exceed them with a comfortable margin. The
> spectacle of an airplane like this coming apart on a clear, sunny day two
> minutes after takeoff, for any reason short of being hit by the Nixon
> Immaculata Missile (Retrograde Oblique Diatribimatic), aka the NIMROD ....
> is shocking and disturbing.
And a very good point by you Paul. An issue (certification) we
addressed in this article:
(you can skip the Intro and go right to the 4th paragraph)
Victor T.
> This isn't my area of expertise, but there were a few experts in
> military ordnance who posted on this issue in a.d.a after the TW800.
> They gave figures for several widely-used MANPADS, citing reputable
> sources such a Jane's; none were capable of reaching 13,500 feet. The
> consensus was that if it was a missile, it would have to have been
> significantly larger than a MANPAD.
I stated I would follow up on this -- here's the reply I got:
"Many eyewitnesses saw a white contrail that disappeared shortly before they
saw a white flash (high explosive), then seconds later they saw an orange
fireball. The flight time, at Mach 2, of a stinger would be about 10
seconds. The engine burn time is about 6 seconds. When the engine burns
out, the stinger is still coasting at Mach 2 and still highly maneuverable.
These descriptions are very consistent with a Manpads attack."
Ralph Nesbitt
"1aircraftQAguy" <glen...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a83bb3a1.04081...@posting.google.com...
Ralph Nesbitt
of the main wreckage field, (See: Pg 3 & 4 of 22 or PDF Pg 5 & 6 of 24
document 168195 @
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/exhibits/default.htm ) The engines
would not have come to final rest this close to the main body of the
wreckage unless they did not separate from the A/C until near final impact.
If the engine/s separating had been the cause of the flash/plume, they more
than likely would have landed in the water before the vertical stabilizer
did. The Vertical stabilizer would have "Fluttered Down" due it's
aerodynamic properties. The engines would have fallen, ~ like rocks after
separation, with minimal forward travel after separation.
Based on the locations the Engines came to rest after separation from the
A/C, it could be possible to argue the A/C was in a "Flat Spin" at the time
the engines separated. Pylon mounted A/C engines are designed to separate
when forces from directions other than normal exceed design specifications.
See locations engines were found above.
>
> > > >
> > > > I agree it (the plume) could be any number of things. I find
Ralph's
> > take
> > > > on this interesting. He thinks this is when tail sep occurs. But
thee
> > is
> > a
> > > > bright flash that occurs in Lane 5 that precedes the major plame.
That
> > > > flash runs the length of the fuselage, therefore seems very large.
My
> > copy
> > > > of the video is of better quality than the wmv file you've seen
online.
> > > > also, the video is black and white.
> > > >
> > > Hydraulic fluid at A/C system operateing pressure at operateing temp
will
> > > "Flash" when released. I am adressing this issue in a separate post re
> > Dual Piston Valves" with a separate accumulator set to maintain a given
The A300-600 is "Quasi FBY". Per Pg 3 of document 167209 @
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/exhibits/default.htm
To paraphrase; During preflight check of the A/C by flight crew prior the
incident flight, specified flight control surfaces, the yaw damper being
one, failed to engage. AA Avionics techs were dispatched to work the
problem. The techs confirmed/determined the specified flight control
surfaces would not engage. The problem was identified as a #2 Flight
Augmentation Computer (FAS) Fault". The FAS computer/s were cycled/reset by
cycling the circuit breaker for FAS. This resolved the problems. The
avionics techs were on the A/C 5 - 7 minuets.
It is my understanding all control inputs are filtered through/controlled by
the FAS Computer System/s. Could some fault/malfunction of the FAS system
during/after take off have caused the "Yaw Damper" to not function
appropriately allowing the stop to stop rudder travel/reversals? There has
been mention in previous posts of "Flight Control Surface Anomalies"
registering on the FDR.
Control inputs being filtered through/controlled by the FAS again raises the
computer sequencing/staging Issue. Could a fault in the FAS Computer/s have
disengaged/caused some flight control surfaces to not function properly?
>
> I'm no Airbus fan, but I have to back them up a little here. My time
> is limited, but I'll make a few comments.
>
> All modern aircraft are designed incorporating components to minimize
> fluid hammer, the A300-600 is no different.
>
Agreed
>
> Accumulators, flexible hoses and check valves are used to prevent and
> reduce the effects of system surges (fluid hammer), vibrations and
> back pressure. Hydraulic system failures (ruptures) are very rare.
>
Agreed.
In this instance there is photographic evidence of a flash/plume the best
fitting explanation hypothesis/theory for which would be catastrophic
hydraulic failure.
There are two possible hypothesis/theories that would explain possible
catastrophic hydraulic failure.
1. It is known the Vertical Stabilizer departed the A/C for reasons unknown
at this time after the turbulence encounter. As the Vertical stabilizer
departed the A/C, hydraulic lines going to the Vertical Stabilizer would
have broken, most likely flattening the open ends to some extent. This
"flattening" would have resulted in atomization of the hydraulic fluid as it
discharged, increasing the chances a Flash due self ignition, which then
self extinguished would occur resulting in the plume visible on Bridge Movie
#3. The plume is shown to start then stop before impact on Bridge Movie #3.
The depletion of hydraulic fluid from the A/C systems would explain the
start/stop of the plume on Bridge Movie #3 before final impact.
2. Fluid Hammer occurred in the hydraulic system due aggressive flight
control
inputs resulting in a catastrophic failure within/of the A/C
hydraulic/system/s. Fluid hammer would explain the chatter followed by a
loud Bang recorded on the CVR. Fluid Hammer within the A/C hydraulic system
could also explain the anomalies in the hydraulic system/s recorded on the
FDR. The hydraulic fluid would have flashed then self extinguished as
released due Catastrophic failure of the hydraulic system component/s. If
the catastrophic failure occurred in the wing root area, it would explain
eye
witness reports of a "Flash/Poof" & Fire trailing from the wing root areas.
The Bridge 3 plume could/would have been the result of hydraulic fluid
release by
> According to the A300-600 maintenance manual the engine hydraulic
> pumps have a nominal pressure output of 3000 psi with zero delivery
> (meaning, no demand) and 2842.7 psi with nominal delivery. Also;
> The A300-600 hydraulic system operational test calls for an indication
> of 3000 + - 200 psi during engine dry motor.
>
> The DHL Baghdad aircraft had a portion of its wing trailing edge and
> rear spar blown away, I think it lost all three hydraulic systems.
>
The manpad impacted/entered the fuel tank resulting in an in flight fire
eventually resulting in "Total/Complete Hydraulic Failure. It is my
understanding as a result of the Iowa DC-10 incident FAA requires hydraulic
systems on all A/C > a specified class to be designed so damage to all
hydraulic systems in a given area will not result in total/complete
hydraulic failure.
>
> The B-52 mentioned didn't lose its complete vertical stabilized as
> AA587 did.
>
A minimal portion remained due the manner/method of attachment. For all
practical purposes it did loose the complete vertical stabilizer.
Ralph Nesbitt
"Victor T." <vic...@usread.com> wrote in message
news:e9198860.04082...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> No . it's not my interpretation. I asked this group to list for me
> the clear evidence that the NTSB has provided that tail sep was the
> initiating event. No one responded. Your interpretation is that they
> have but you fail to say how or where.
>
They have stated the tail seperated.To my knowledge NTSB has not stated
"tail sep" was the initiateing event. NTSB practice is not make declarations
re initateing Event/s until "The Probable Cause Statement" is issued to my
knowledge.
NTSB will go through availiable evidence then make a "Educated Statement" re
"Initiateing Event & Contributeing Factors", then issue a "Probable Cause
Statement" with supporting documentation. .
>
<snip>
> Victor
khobar
news:299125a2.04082...@posting.google.com...
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:00:44 -0400, "vic...@usread.com"
> <vic...@usread.com> wrote:
>
> [snip discussion of TW800 eyewitness information]
>
> >Were you there?? Did you interview people? aren't you GUESSING and
> >assuming and then applying across-the-board your theory that
> shore-based
> >observers would have had a very difficult time discerning the
> horizon?
>
> For the record, I was not there, and I have not interviewed anyone in
> connection with TW800. However, I am fully capable of reading the
> weather data from the date in question. My recollection is that the
> reported visibility was somewhat less than the distance to the visual
> horizon; if that constitutes a guess, then I was guessing. I'd call it
> drawing a conclusion based on the available data. If Victor believes
> that shore-based observers could have easily discerned the horizon, he
> can either produce data that says I'm mistaken about the visibility at
> the date and time when TW800 crashed, or he can explain how the
> eagle-eyed eyewitness could have seen farther than the reported
> visibility.
I assume this last comment is in reference to Lisa Perry. Anyone who wants
to read this person's "account" is welcomed to do so at
http://twa800.com/lahr/affidavits/u-lisa-perry.pdf.
"And I could see all along the spine of the plane, and then the plane
shatters, as if you were to take a candy bar and slam it on the ground, on
the countertop, and it just shatters.
"And there are these fissures that are through the plane and there's space
in the plane, but there's no fire and there's no smoke, there's just space
between the pieces of the plane."
>
> >The
> >plane crashed around 8:30. I know in July (when 800 crashed) we're
> out till
> >at least 8:45 or 9 pm and there is still light out. if I'm on the
> beach
> >you'd better believe the horizon is discernible.
>
> Every day? On clear July evenings, I have no doubts one can see the
> horizon at 9 PM. I also know that on hazy days, the visibility can be
> such that the horizon is indistinct. My comment noted that the event
> occurred at dusk, on a hazy July evening; my recollection is that the
> air temperature was close to the dew point and the reported visibility
> was only a few miles. It was after sunset for that location. Note that
> I did not say it was pitch black out, only that visibility was less
> than perfect.
From: http://www.ntsb.gov/events/twa800/exhibits/TWA_submission.pdf
Visual meteorological conditions prevailed. The following surface
observations were taken at JFK at 1951 hours (Eastern Daylight Time): Winds
220 degrees at 8 knots; clear skies with 25 miles visibility, temperature
71° Fahrenheit, dew point 68° Fahrenheit and an altimeter setting of 30.09
inches of mercury.
From: http://www.ntsb.gov/events/twa800/exhibits/Ex_5A.pdf
KJFK - 2351Z .. Winds 220 degrees at 8 knots; visibility 10 miles; 6,000
feet scattered, ceiling 7,000 feet broken, 9,000 feet broken; temperature
27.8 degrees C; dew point 21.1 degrees C; altimeter setting 30.07 inches of
Hg.; wind shift 2306Z; rain began 2318Z and ended 2329Z; precipitation 0.00
inch between 2327Z and 2351Z.
EDT = Z - 4
Closest station to crash site - KFOK @12NM
2345Z . . Winds 240 degrees at 4 knots; visibility 4 miles; haze; 6,000 feet
scattered; temperature 23 degrees C; dew point 19 degrees C; altimeter
setting 30.08 inches of Hg.; total sky cover 3/8.
July 18, 1996 at 0045Z . . Winds calm; visibility 6 miles; haze; 6,000 feet
scattered; temperature 22 degrees C; dew point 19 degrees C; altimeter
setting 30.09 inches of Hg.; total sky cover 3/8.
The NTSB performed Stinger flyout tests
(http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/06/01/stinger.missile.test/). The results
demonstrated that under similar conditions to July 17, 1996, witnesses had
NO trouble seeing the launch, flight, and self-destruct flash of the Stinger
from 14 miles away.
> hand, I do know that most of the accounts were given to FBI agents
> over several days after the crash, during which time every media
> outlet on Long Island was speculating about missiles. Based on what is
> known about witness memory, it is quite plausible that people who saw
> unusual patterns of light in the sky, then heard that a missile was a
> potential cause, would very sincerely believe that they saw a missile.
I seem to recall most of the "reports" involved sitings of flares, rising
lights, fireworks, that sort of thing. I don't recall any reports which
stated they had seen a missile intercept TWA 800.
>
> There may have been people who walked into a police station to give an
> account before they looked at a TV set or heard a radio. However,
> those accounts were absent from the debate that occurred here several
> years ago about eyewitnesses; my recollection is that all the accounts
> debated in a.d.a were drawn from published FBI interview forms,
> accounts of interviews which took place in the days that followed the
> crash, which in my book is a bit different from immediate.
>
> >I read somewhere that one military group said that some portable
> missiles
> >could indeed climb to 13,000 plus feet -- their accuracy decreases if
> I
> >remember correctly but a strike is not impossible.
>
> This isn't my area of expertise, but there were a few experts in
> military ordnance who posted on this issue in a.d.a after the TW800.
> They gave figures for several widely-used MANPADS, citing reputable
> sources such a Jane's; none were capable of reaching 13,500 feet. The
> consensus was that if it was a missile, it would have to have been
> significantly larger than a MANPAD.
These experts mentioned above apparently don't know much about missiles and
have never bothered to read the NTSB report.
>
> Incidentally, the MANPAD hypothesis is inconsistent with the
> eyewitness accounts. MANPAD engines all burn out too quickly to
Eh?
"Two days after the crash, experienced analysts from DIA's Missile and Space
Intelligence Center (MISIC) were on the scene in Long Island and
accompanying FBI Agents on interviews and reinterviews of some of the
eyewitnesses. The MISIC personnel who reported to Long Island are among the
U.S. Government's foremost experts on shoulder launched surface to air
missiles, known as MANPADS. They reported to us that many of the
descriptions given by eyewitnesses were very consistent with the
characteristics of the flight of such missiles. " Lewis D. Schiliro, May 10,
1999.
The only other example of a 747 that suffered loss of its forward fuselage
at almost the exact same location as TWA 800 did exactly the opposite of TWA
800.
"It was therefore concluded from this evidence that the wing with all of the
engines attached had achieved a marked nose down and left roll attitude
change well within 5 seconds of the explosion."
http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/mr/MR-02-90.pdf
> I'm not an aeronautical engineer, so I won't argue the specifics of
> what might have happened, but we did have an aeronautical engineer
> post here who indicated that a short climb before breakup was not
> unreasonable; he noted that predicting the exact behavior requires
> using some sophisticated calculations and making assumptions about the
Well, unless this "aeronautical engineer" had access to the pertinent Boeing
data then his calculations rank up there with the styrofoam airplane
"experiment". Of course the Boeing data is highly protected which is why
it's the subject of current litigation.
> state of the aircraft (for which there are no data). I do know enough
> to recognize that Captain Lahr's and Dr. Stalcup's arguments are so
> simplistic as to be disingenuous. That after 8 years they haven't come
> up with arguments that acknowledge that the aerodynamics of a crippled
> 747 are a bit more complex than a rope swing suggests that their
> "proof" is a bit thin. If this crowd is the "many" aerodynamicists, I
> strongly suspect that Victor has been taken in; the only plausible
> alternative is that he shares their motives, which don't have much to
> do with aircraft safety.
>
> >So ... what did hundreds of people see? You need to come up with
> something
> >much better Sir. and I suggest you speak to some of them or at least
> watch
> >their interviews.
>
> I'm not sure what they saw. I do know that there is no evidence in the
> wreckage of any missile strike, evidence that most (although not all)
> agree would have been there is a missile was involved. The explanation
> that they could have seen the stricken aircraft and been convinced
> that they saw a missile due to post-event suggestion is plausible, but
> not provable.
The China Lake report actually states: "No conclusive evidence of missile
impacts exists on the recovered wreckage of TWA Flight 800." Evidence would
manifest itself in a number of ways: for example, high-velocity impacts
would be present if a missile warhead had exploded either within or in close
proximity to TWA 800. However, if the warhead failed to detonate, no such
impacts would be present.
The official conclusion was that the witness documents could neither prove
nor refute any particular scenario.
[snip]
Paul Nixon
khobar
news:299125a2.04082...@posting.google.com...
> <vic...@usread.com> wrote:
>
> [snip discussion of TW800 eyewitness information]
>
> eyewitness accounts. MANPAD engines all burn out too quickly to
> provide streaks of light (or contrails, if one prefers) as large or as
> long as those reported by the eyewitnesses. Anyone who thinks it was a
> MANPAD has exactly the same problem as the NTSB probable cause has
> regarding how well it fits the eyewitness accounts.
Just a quick followup:
From: http://www.ntsb.gov/events/twa800/transcript%5F8%5F23%5F3.htm
"Using our knowledge of how shoulder launch missiles perform, let's examine
what a hypothetical missile attack would've looked like. The rocket motor of
the missile would be visible and it would look like a light ascending
rapidly for about 8 seconds. Then the motor would burn out and the light
would disappear for as much as 7 seconds. After this, a second streak of
light, the airplane in crippled flight would become visible. It would be
different from the first streak moving slower, then it would develop into a
fireball. We carefully reviewed the witness accounts to determine if anyone
described a scenario like this, one that began with two sequential streaks
of light and concluded with a fireball. We could not find anyone who was
describing this scenario. "
Which would seem to be in direct contradiction with:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/51099lss.htm
"Two days after the crash, experienced analysts from DIA's Missile and Space
Intelligence Center (MISIC) were on the scene in Long Island and
accompanying FBI Agents on interviews and reinterviews of some of the
eyewitnesses. The MISIC personnel who reported to Long Island are among the
U.S. Government's foremost experts on shoulder launched surface to air
missiles, known as MANPADS. They reported to us that many of the
descriptions given by eyewitnesses were very consistent with the
characteristics of the flight of such missiles."
Paul Nixon
vic...@usread.com
ralph-...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 8/22/04 1:10 AM:
>
> "Victor T." <vic...@usread.com> wrote in message
> news:e9198860.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip>
>> No . it's not my interpretation. I asked this group to list for me
>> the clear evidence that the NTSB has provided that tail sep was the
>> initiating event. No one responded. Your interpretation is that they
>> have but you fail to say how or where.
>>
> They have stated the tail seperated.To my knowledge NTSB has not stated
> "tail sep" was the initiateing event. NTSB practice is not make declarations
> re initateing Event/s until "The Probable Cause Statement" is issued to my
> knowledge.
Hi Ralph:
The NTSB has very clearly stated that the tail sep. was the cause of the
crash and the tail separated because of the rudder movements (specifically,
the 5th rudder movement).
What the investigation has been focusing on up till now is ... WHY did the
pilot do that?
a. is it because the A300-600 has the most sensitive rudder system in the
industry?
b. in addition, is it because the A300-600 was not properly certified for
yaw axis characteristics?
c. is it because AA emphasized rudder use in response to wake induced
rolls?
d. is it because AA had modified the simulators to over-emphasize the use
of rudder in response to wake encounters.
But what is CLEAR is that they believe tail sep. occurred at the time of the
5th rudder movement and that tail sep IS the cause of the crash.
My point is the NTSB has not given clear, convincing evidence to back up
their claim of when the tail failed.
It's almost 3 years -- I think they should have done this by now.
Victor
AbsolutelyCertain
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD4EB5CF.7AAE%vic...@usread.com...
This is not a rhetorical question ..... let's say that the cause of the load
which was the proximate cause of tail failure was one of the things listed
above. Do any of those events, or any combination of them, lead you to a
conclusion that the tail structure is adequate to its task, those four
things notwithstanding?
AllKnow909
>computer sequencing/staging Issue. Could a fault in the FAS Computer/s have
>disengaged/caused some flight control surfaces to not function properly?
Ralph, excellent question. I wondered the same thing early and even had a
proposal to AAL to investigate it under contract. They weren't interested,
even though other A300's in their fleet had similar yaw upset problems
reported. The A300 Pilot Report (downloadable from the usread.com web site)
also mentioned yaw damper and rudder upset problems.
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in Scarlet,
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
vic...@usread.com
eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/22/04 9:01 PM:
Let me clarify, the NTSB and all the parties to the investigation agree that
the loads placed on the tail at the time of the 5th rudder movement took the
tail beyond 1.9 times the limit load, and that's why the tail broke off.
What I'm saying is that the evidence proving the tail actually came off when
they all say the tail did is weak at best -- and unsubstantiated at worst.
To your question: As a passenger, if what they are telling us in this
investigation is true -- that the tail can break off with a 10 degree rudder
deflection at 250 knots, with a 10 degree opposite sideslip -- then "NO"
...the tail structure is NOT adequate and the tail certification standards
are PATHETICALLY weak. We talk about this briefly in this article:
http://www.usread.com/flight587/2003_update1/default.html
Can tails fall off so easily? I'm not sure. The FL903 aircraft sustained
greater loads than FL587 and its tail survived.
But you are right. If THEY believe the tail failed when it did -- they MUST
raise the certification standard and I think they might do that.
Victor
AbsolutelyCertain
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD4ED118.7AC9%vic...@usread.com...
I've lost track of this particular point in the case, hoping you'll know:
To what extent is it either believed or speculated now that this
*particular* vertical stab was defective, or damaged, and therefore failed
sooner (under this load) than would have been expected? In other words, was
this stabilizer in nominal condition up until the moment it failed?
vic...@usread.com
eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/22/04 10:52 PM:
The NTSB declared in Oct. 2002, that the tail performed as good as a new one
even "if" there was pre-existing damage.
from their standpoint, it's all about understanding WHY the pilot moved the
rudder as he did. They have no doubt his 5th rudder movement broke the tail
off.
Vic
AbsolutelyCertain
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD4EDA32.7ADA%vic...@usread.com...
Wow. How can they know that? I mean, are they modeling the loads and
making an assertion based on that?
Has anyone actually taken this structure and stressed it with an aerodynamic
load up to the breaking point?
vic...@usread.com
eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/22/04 11:37 PM:
Yes -- and the two main factors are (1) the sideslip angles (which is
derived -- it's not in the DFDR), and (2) the rudder deflection which was
filtered. The DFDR showed a 6 degree rudder deflection. The deferred
rudder deflection (from the inverse filter) was 10 to 11.5 degrees.
> Has anyone actually taken this structure and stressed it with an aerodynamic
> load up to the breaking point?
Airbus says they've done. NTSB says they have tested some A300 vert stabs
lugs since the accident -- to the breaking point.
Vic
vic...@usread.com
vic...@usread.com wrote on 8/23/04 12:43 AM:
It's too late for this stuff -- (12:43 a.m.) -- I meant to say the "derived"
rudder deflection.
Vic
1aircraftQAguy
This particular stabilizer was found to be defective and repaired in a
questionable manner (numerous holes drilled and fasteners installed in
one main mount).
AbsolutelyCertain
> "AbsolutelyCertain" <eas...@entertained.net> wrote in message
news:<cgbm69$g27$0...@pita.alt.net>...
> This particular stabilizer was found to be defective and repaired in a
> questionable manner (numerous holes drilled and fasteners installed in
> one main mount).
Thanks.
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti
> "Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" <gbiz...@mitretek.org> wrote in message
> news:299125a2.04082...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> >If Victor believes
> > that shore-based observers could have easily discerned the horizon, he
> > can either produce data that says I'm mistaken about the visibility at
> > the date and time when TW800 crashed, or he can explain how the
> > eagle-eyed eyewitness could have seen farther than the reported
> > visibility.
> I assume this last comment is in reference to Lisa Perry. Anyone who wants
> to read this person's "account" is welcomed to do so at
> http://twa800.com/lahr/affidavits/u-lisa-perry.pdf.
Not specifically. Victor originally asserted that witnesses saw
contrails rising from the horizon. My point was that the visibility
conditions at the time of the crash were such that for most
observeers, the horizon over the ocean was very likely indistinct.
Witnesses may have seen objects, or more likely, lights, coming from
where they assumed the horizon to be, rather than being able to see a
distinct horizon. Ms. Perry's account has it's own difficulties, from
her ability to see detail beyond that perceptible to ordinary humans
at such distances, to the Road-Runner physics.
[snip]
> The NTSB performed Stinger flyout tests
> (http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/06/01/stinger.missile.test/). The results
> demonstrated that under similar conditions to July 17, 1996, witnesses had
> NO trouble seeing the launch, flight, and self-destruct flash of the Stinger
> from 14 miles away.
Does someone have a URL that describes the results of those tests? I
don't doubt that witnesses could see a Stinger while the motor was
burning, or the flash of the ordnance detonating. I have doubts about
whether anynoe saw the missile flying while the motor was burned out,
or a contrail, which was Victor's original asssertion. I've seen the
link to Dr. Mayer's testimony to the Board, and the 8-page report in
the docket, but I'm wondering if there's a more extensive report of
these results available.
> I seem to recall most of the "reports" involved sitings of flares, rising
> lights, fireworks, that sort of thing. I don't recall any reports which
> stated they had seen a missile intercept TWA 800.
That's close to my recollection as well, although Maj. Meyer mentioned
ordnance in his eyewitness testimony, and I seem to recall some
accounts in a.d.a that trumpted the odd eyewitness that explicitly
mentioned a missile. I'm way too tired of this to go back and read all
700 plus accounts and parse them for lights on the one hand and
missiles on the other.
> > Incidentally, the MANPAD hypothesis is inconsistent with the
> > eyewitness accounts. MANPAD engines all burn out too quickly to
> Eh?
It turns out that there are some contradictory accounts. In another
post, khobar notes the testimony of Dr. David Mayer of NTSB at the
Board Meeting on TW800 on 23 August 2000, which differs from the
example he cites here from Lewis D Schiliro, Assistant Director in
Charge of the NY office of the FBI. Although the analysts from DIA's
Missile and Space Intelligence Center may have initially reported that
many of the descriptions given by eyewitnesses were very consistent
with the characteristics of the flight of MANPADS, Dr. Mayers account
has the benefit of using the results of the Florida tests.
> The only other example of a 747 that suffered loss of its forward fuselage
> at almost the exact same location as TWA 800 did exactly the opposite of TWA
> 800.
Well, except for the fact that PA103 was level at FL 310, rather than
climbing through 13,500 ft, they're pretty much the same, aren't they?
I'd wager that the two aircraft were trimmed differently, and aircraft
behave differently in thinner air than they do in the thicker air at
lower altitude. Sorry, but I don't buy that the behavior of PA103
gives any insights into how TW800 would have behaved.
[snip]
> > I'm not an aeronautical engineer, so I won't argue the specifics of
> > what might have happened, but we did have an aeronautical engineer
> > post here who indicated that a short climb before breakup was not
> > unreasonable; he noted that predicting the exact behavior requires
> > using some sophisticated calculations and making assumptions about the
> Well, unless this "aeronautical engineer" had access to the pertinent Boeing
> data then his calculations rank up there with the styrofoam airplane
> "experiment". Of course the Boeing data is highly protected which is why
> it's the subject of current litigation.
Um, he didn't _do_ the calculations, he explained _how_ they would
need to be done in order to be correct, and he also explained that at
least some of the inputs to those calculations were not available and
so required assumptions, so there would always be a degree of
uncertainty about any conclusions. Nonetheless, he thought that a
short climb (a few thousand feet in a few tens of seconds) before
breakup was plausible. This, to me, rings true when compared to heated
claims of "proof" using demonstrably simplistic arguments. Your
mileage may vary. Khobar is welcome to search Google for the original
posts; look for some of CJS's contributions.
khobar
Indeed, Ms. Perry seems to possess superhuman vision. That's going to be
easy to demonstrate and thus, IMO, she is a liability to any case.
>
> [snip]
>
> > The NTSB performed Stinger flyout tests
> > (http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/06/01/stinger.missile.test/). The results
> > demonstrated that under similar conditions to July 17, 1996, witnesses
had
> > NO trouble seeing the launch, flight, and self-destruct flash of the
Stinger
> > from 14 miles away.
>
> Does someone have a URL that describes the results of those tests? I
> don't doubt that witnesses could see a Stinger while the motor was
> burning, or the flash of the ordnance detonating. I have doubts about
> whether anynoe saw the missile flying while the motor was burned out,
> or a contrail, which was Victor's original asssertion. I've seen the
> link to Dr. Mayer's testimony to the Board, and the 8-page report in
> the docket, but I'm wondering if there's a more extensive report of
> these results available.
No one actually saw the missile body (though one fellow said he thought
maybe there was a possibility).
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/twa800/8_Witnesses.htm (link to a slide)
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti
[snip]
> Let's start with Boeing. They said they had no clue how the CIA and
> NTSB came up with that theory. Such an important part of the
> investigation?heavily dependent on CFD data of that 747 model, some
> heavy duty aerodynamics calculations, and the NTSB didn't ask Boeing
> to work with them on it. Hmmm ? what ever happened to that "peer
> review" thing you keep preaching? Oh, I forgot, the NTSB is above
> peer review.
I'm not saying that the NTSB is right; I don't know. I'm saying that
based on the posts in this group, those supporting the NTSB are
reasonable whereas those opposing the NTSB are so simplistic as to be
disingenuous, and come from organizations that have been shown in
multiple instances to be incompetent.
Also, the above is Victor's paraphrase of Boeing's statements. As I
posted perviously, the reconstruction of TW800's trajecotry between
the center wing tank explosion and impact requires some complex
aerodynamic calculations and some assumptions. My recollection is that
Boeing stated that, because they were not familiar with the full
details of the calcualtions, they couldn't comment on the detailed
results. Note that if it were so obvious, they could have added, "we
believe on simple energetic grounds that it would have been more
likely to drop immediately without any climb" (the same argument Lahr
and Stalcup make), but they failed to do so. So far as I know, the
Boeing Company has taken no official position on this, either for or
against, probably because it's got no bearing on what actually
happened to TW800.
> In my FL587 travels I've met Boeing engineers who say that zoom climb
> is B.S.
Who are they? If the zoom-climb is B.S., then why are the Lahr and
Stalcup accounts the only available arguments against it.
> Lahr? Axe to grind? Bob Donaldson (Bill's brother), axe? I've met
> Ray and spoken to Bob on more than one occasion. What axe do they
> have?
There's a small industry that's grown up around "proving" that a
missile downed TW800. First there's money:
http://www.flight800.org/donate.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31559
Then, there's attention:
http://raylahr.entryhost.com/RL_TWA800_28K.wmv
If Tom Stalcup were to admit a missile was unlikely, he would no
longer be able to attract donations from people suspicious of the
"official government story." If Sanders were to admit a missile was
unlikely, he would no longer be able to sell books. If Meyers were to
admit a missile was unlikely, he would no longer be able to appear on
the all-expenses-paid lecture circuit. If Lahr were to admit a missile
was unlikely, he would no longer be able to appear on television. Bob
Donaldson has a somewhat different axe to grind; were he to admit a
missile was unlikely, he would also have to admit that his late
brother was a crank.
> What you're saying is that post-explosion the aircraft will experience
> a tremendous *increase* in airspeed to account for both the climb and
> forward progress as noted on the radar data. What supporting data do
> you have for this? You can ridicule the Lahr and Stalcup examples but
> you don't even offer for an explanation for your position.
I'm not saying that TW800 experienced any increase in airspeed. It
would probably loose airspeed, but no where near as much as claimed in
Lahr's analysis.
[snip]
> In other words, I
> DO NOT believe, nor have I ever alleged, an NTSB (or parties)
> cover-up. I hope we are clear on this now.
[snip]
> Unfortunately, either you did not read through our Coverups and
> Foulups article, or you have misinterpreted it.
If Victor does not believe, nor has he ever alleged that the NTSB or
parties engaged in a cover-up, then why is there an article entitled
"Coverups and Foulups?" I guess I must have misinterpreted the article
as having something to do with a coverup.
[snip]
> Again ? you critique our work without
> reading it or understanding it. It's at:
I've read it. If I misunderstand it that badly, then either I'm
stupid, or the article could be better written. It probably is the
former case, but on the off chance that it's not, perhaps some
judicious rewriting and reorganizing might be advised.
John Mazor
news:299125a2.04082...@posting.google.com...
I was "on the ground" when Boeing issued that statement. Because of that,
and because I do those things for a living, I saw it as a carefully worded
disclaimer, meant neither to confirm nor deny the zoom theory, on grounds
that they hadn't seen any calculations. When in doubt, the safest PR course
is to say as little as possible, which in this case is to just say you don't
know.
The most cynical view would be that it was Boeing's polite way of saying
"that's BS, it can't happen" but then that would be coming from the same
people who would have told you before TWA800 that a mechanical/electrical
flaw couldn't have blown a CWT, either. Boeing never advocated a missile
theory and was very cooperative in the changes made after TWA800 to address
CWT explosion issues. You would have to be extremely cynical (as opposed to
having a healthy skepticism, which is always warranted) to believe that in
the face of a finding that indicted one of its own products, Boeing refused
to pursue a missile theory and/or oppose expensive fixes to its products.
> > In my FL587 travels I've met Boeing engineers who say that zoom climb is
B.S.
Out of curiosity, Victor, did they show you their calculations?
> Who are they? If the zoom-climb is B.S., then why are the Lahr and
> Stalcup accounts the only available arguments against it.
>
> > Lahr? Axe to grind? Bob Donaldson (Bill's brother), axe? I've met
> > Ray and spoken to Bob on more than one occasion. What axe do they have?
I know Ray from way back and saw him at a safety function last week - as
usual, accompanied by another retired pilot, Dick Russel, his partner in
TWA800 conspiracy theory. Unlike the others, whose mottoes seem to be "Show
me the money!" and "Carpe dais," I think they're sincere.
But then, I know airline pilots who, on logical procedural grounds, think
that security screeners shouldn't be reporting pilots who show up at the
gate with alcohol on their breath. Or they think that the mere fact that
they are airline pilots makes them qualified to carry a gun in the cockpit,
don't need no stinking background checks or screening or training or limits
on authority and procedure. They are seriously sincere in these
convictions. (Hopefully, there is no confluence between those two groups!)
To all:
The TWA800 debate has carried on this long because of several factors:
1. Ambiguous and even apparently contradictory material in the record
provides a happy hunting ground for revisionists. This is hardly
surprising, given the copious amount of investigative material, the
sometimes odd tangents that NTSB felt compelled to pursue because of the
conspiracy theories, and, by the same token, the failure to go off on even
more proposed tangents, seen as further proof of a cover-up.
2. The disruptive effect of FBI participation.
3. The NTSB's inability to produce a smoking gun (or electrical component).
4. The existence of armchair experts (of various opinions, and of various
qualifications or lack thereof) who, for various reasons, continue to pursue
it.
5. The predilections of people who don't know squat about aviation or
accident investigation but want to believe in a missile and/or cover-up
because of various personal dispositions.
6. The Internet.
Eight years after the fact, except for some newbies, no one is likely to
change his opinion. The same old arguments are recycled endlessly and we're
all stuck in a time warp, black hole, dead end. So I'd like to propose a
new approach to the problem.
Let's all try a thought experiment. Suppose that, based on exactly the same
body of evidence that now exists, the NTSB had ruled that a missile hit
TWA800.
Enumerate the various theories (pro and con) and their proponents. Some
might switch sides, or at least emphasize different evidence and hypotheses,
under the conditions of the thought experiment. Some would do so out of
scruple, others because that was where the book money or political animus
led them. Bonus points: Predict which missile supporter would be the first
to call an opponent a "conspiracy whacko". Predict the recipient of that
flame.
Compare and contrast the opposing arguments under those conditions.
Predict the scope, venues, and vehemence of the debate and the degree to
which it would attract attention beyond a few Internet groups. Bonus point:
Predict the number of websites and e-mail groups that would be devoted to
disproving the missile theory.
Evaluate the following alternative or variant theories to a missile:
1. Boeing, TWA and the pilots knew it was a mechanical/electrical flaw but
rammed the missile finding through, to protect the reputation of their
product or service.
2. The government knew it was a mechanical/electrical flaw but conspired to
fix the outcome because it was politically advantageous to wave the bloody
flag of terrorism as a distraction (remember, Clinton is supposed to have
had no scruples whatsoever when it came to political advantage), and because
it wanted to protect Boeing, a major U.S. supplier of jobs and export
dollars, and TWA, a U.S. flag carrier.
3. FBI didn't care what the real cause was, it fixed the missile finding to
get good PR for its role, more funding, and new laws to loosen its
constraints on hunting down terrorists.
4. The government knew it was a missile but found incontrovertible evidence
on the sea floor that the missile came from an attack by an alien spaceship
and felt it had to hide that aspect of the missile's origins from the
public.
5. Other possible cover-up theories are left as an exercise for the
student.
I know we'll get (and I welcome) witty but facetious responses; but I'm
entirely serious in this modest proposal. Take a look through the other end
of the telescope and tell us what you see.
vic...@usread.com
Bizzigotti at gbiz...@mitretek.org wrote on 8/23/04 11:04 AM:
Boeing made a politically correct and non-inflammatory, but factual,
statement. They had no idea how the FBI/NTSB came up with the zoom climb
scenario. Again I ask you fine gentlemen, why did only 1 or 2 guys at NTSB
work on this ... theory? Where's the peer review? Why didn't the parties
work together on it??
>
>> In my FL587 travels I've met Boeing engineers who say that zoom climb
>> is B.S.
>
> Who are they? If the zoom-climb is B.S., then why are the Lahr and
> Stalcup accounts the only available arguments against it.
Because they don't want to be hassled for a number of reasons. One guy I
know used to post to this group. He left Boeing specifically because of the
FL800 affair. You just don't read about this in the NY Times. One former
Boeing aerodynamicist has provided support to Ray Lahr's lawsuit.
>
>> Lahr? Axe to grind? Bob Donaldson (Bill's brother), axe? I've met
>> Ray and spoken to Bob on more than one occasion. What axe do they
>> have?
>
> There's a small industry that's grown up around "proving" that a
> missile downed TW800. First there's money:
>
> http://www.flight800.org/donate.htm
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31559
>
> Then, there's attention:
> http://raylahr.entryhost.com/RL_TWA800_28K.wmv
>
> If Tom Stalcup were to admit a missile was unlikely, he would no
> longer be able to attract donations from people suspicious of the
> "official government story." If Sanders were to admit a missile was
> unlikely, he would no longer be able to sell books. If Meyers were to
> admit a missile was unlikely, he would no longer be able to appear on
> the all-expenses-paid lecture circuit. If Lahr were to admit a missile
> was unlikely, he would no longer be able to appear on television. Bob
> Donaldson has a somewhat different axe to grind; were he to admit a
> missile was unlikely, he would also have to admit that his late
> brother was a crank.
You're a nasty fellow. You move ahead with judging people's motives when
you really don't know and can't provide any evidence. In fact, the
available evidence leads the objective to conclude these are genuine decent
activists.
FIRO -- I see their emails, and Stalcup's, etc etc. These folks collect
money for the main purpose of FOIA lawsuits -- since the FBI and NTSB
believe in secrecy. They appoint one member of the group (on a rotating
basis) to collect the funds and keep track and pay bills (usually attorney's
fees). I've never seen them with more than $2,000 in the bank and these
people are ALWAYS digging into their own pockets for more contributions. You
are wrong about these people.
Your attack on Lahr is cruel. I know Ray. Ray is one helluva nice guy.
The LAST reason on earth why he would go ahead with his lawsuit if fame.
he has spect over $8,000 of his own money suing the NTSB. When Ray
accompanied me to the NTSB's public viewing at NASA in 2002 -- Ray did it to
simply help me out. He never asked me to highlight him on my web site. or
promote him. He was only trying to help. he is my friend and you just
dissed my friend -- I'm tempted to do something very New Yorkish right now
but I won't. Just know that your personal attacks of these people is really
a low blow, and seems like a lame way to dismiss them short of truly
engaging them in discourse. Have it your way.
>
>> What you're saying is that post-explosion the aircraft will experience
>> a tremendous *increase* in airspeed to account for both the climb and
>> forward progress as noted on the radar data. What supporting data do
>> you have for this? You can ridicule the Lahr and Stalcup examples but
>> you don't even offer for an explanation for your position.
>
> I'm not saying that TW800 experienced any increase in airspeed. It
> would probably loose airspeed, but no where near as much as claimed in
> Lahr's analysis.
How much then? The bottom line is -- the radar data does not support the
zoom climb. if you want to be a scientist about this -- find out from these
quacks the deal with the radar data. Then come back to us and say how the
zoom climb and the radar data reconcile. Otherwise, your statements are
completely unsubstantiated.
>
> [snip]
>
>> In other words, I
>> DO NOT believe, nor have I ever alleged, an NTSB (or parties)
>> cover-up. I hope we are clear on this now.
>
> [snip]
>
>> Unfortunately, either you did not read through our Coverups and
>> Foulups article, or you have misinterpreted it.
>
> If Victor does not believe, nor has he ever alleged that the NTSB or
> parties engaged in a cover-up, then why is there an article entitled
> "Coverups and Foulups?" I guess I must have misinterpreted the article
> as having something to do with a coverup.
Dude -- I have never alleged an NTSB or parties coverup ... of FL587 !
Clear? Good. I have provided strong evidence that Airbus covered up major
problems in the A300 as early as 1997 in the FL903 investigation. The NTSB
fouled up that investigation. The NTSB is fouling up again in FL587.
Clear? Good.
Victor
vic...@usread.com
maz...@erols.com wrote on 8/23/04 2:17 PM:
No -- they told me to file a FOIA lawsuit.
Doesn't it bother you that the FBI/CIA/NTSB have been fighting Lahr's
lawsuit??
>
>> Who are they? If the zoom-climb is B.S., then why are the Lahr and
>> Stalcup accounts the only available arguments against it.
>>
>>> Lahr? Axe to grind? Bob Donaldson (Bill's brother), axe? I've met
>>> Ray and spoken to Bob on more than one occasion. What axe do they have?
>
> I know Ray from way back and saw him at a safety function last week - as
> usual, accompanied by another retired pilot, Dick Russel, his partner in
> TWA800 conspiracy theory. Unlike the others, whose mottoes seem to be "Show
> me the money!" and "Carpe dais," I think they're sincere.
Good -- I hope Dr. George, the Judge of men's hearts, reads this.
Vic
vic...@usread.com
I have a simpler exercise.
I just have two questions/issues re FL800 -- and we can forget the
witnesses. ok?
1. There was explosive residue that DID return positives after MORE
than one test. These residue samples were ALL attributed to some dog
training exercise, which has been shown was not the aircraft that was
FL800. Even if it was the same craft, the places these multiple
positive hits were returned were not part of the dog training
exercise. Bottom line is -- we have significant residue, proven
residue, in more than one part of the aircraft that has not been
explained. This seems to me to qualify as "physical evidence".
2. Check out these comments from ALPA's James Speer. I reckon you'll
tell me he has an axe to grind too?:
(turn your volume up high -- the audio track is weak)
http://raylahr.entryhost.com/JamesSpeer.wmv
Vic
AbsolutelyCertain
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD4FC10A.7B40%vic...@usread.com...
Gee, Vic, they sound very successful. Not obsessed, or anything.
>
> Your attack on Lahr is cruel. I know Ray. Ray is one helluva nice guy.
Victor, I am going to have to start charging you for my advice. If you will
send me your credit card numbers and expiration dates, I will see that you
get the best possible rate. Now, a lot of people said that the Menendez
brothers were nice guys. If you want to be taken seriously in a field like
this, you need to stop this good-old-boy stuff and at least pretend to be
objective. Trust me on this.
> The LAST reason on earth why he would go ahead with his lawsuit if fame.
> he has spect over $8,000 of his own money suing the NTSB. When Ray
> accompanied me to the NTSB's public viewing at NASA in 2002 -- Ray did it
to
> simply help me out. He never asked me to highlight him on my web site.
or
> promote him. He was only trying to help. he is my friend and you just
> dissed my friend -- I'm tempted to do something very New Yorkish right now
> but I won't. Just know that your personal attacks of these people is
really
> a low blow, and seems like a lame way to dismiss them short of truly
> engaging them in discourse. Have it your way.
This reminds me of what we used to call the Loon Wars here in 1998.
"Personal attacks?" Avid proponents of a missile theory in this case are
charging that a whole gaggle of people are involved in the coverup of a mass
murder, and doing so with precious little in the way of evidence to back
those charges up. And you want to whine about "personal attacks?" That
bucket didn't hold water in 1998, and it doesn't hold water now.
>
>
> >
> >> What you're saying is that post-explosion the aircraft will experience
> >> a tremendous *increase* in airspeed to account for both the climb and
> >> forward progress as noted on the radar data. What supporting data do
> >> you have for this? You can ridicule the Lahr and Stalcup examples but
> >> you don't even offer for an explanation for your position.
I read the thread, I didn't see that anyone was saying any such thing,
Victor. And as I said much earlier, the zoom-climb issue is unresolved for
a very important reason: It doesn't matter. It didn't matter in 1998 and
it doesn't matter now. It simply is not relevant to the case. It's a red
herring issue and always has been.
vic...@usread.com
eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/23/04 4:04 PM:
Dr. george's point was that they do this for financial gain. My point is,
that is not true. Not that any of this matters of course.
>
>>
>> Your attack on Lahr is cruel. I know Ray. Ray is one helluva nice guy.
>
> Victor, I am going to have to start charging you for my advice. If you will
> send me your credit card numbers and expiration dates, I will see that you
> get the best possible rate. Now, a lot of people said that the Menendez
> brothers were nice guys. If you want to be taken seriously in a field like
> this, you need to stop this good-old-boy stuff and at least pretend to be
> objective. Trust me on this.
Paul, thanks. Ray is one helluva nice guy. Fame is not his motive.
Not that any of this matters of course.
Vic
AbsolutelyCertain
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD4FD161.7B60%vic...@usread.com...
> in article cgdikg$kek$0...@pita.alt.net, AbsolutelyCertain at
> eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/23/04 4:04 PM:
I have no doubt that he is a nice guy. Hell, some people even think I am a
nice guy. Well, at least they lie to me and say so. But my point was,
objectivity is gold in your position. Don't give it away.
vic...@usread.com
eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/23/04 5:08 PM:
I appreciate you offering good advice. Really. I know Ray -- and he's a
nice guy. Remember, I'm the naïve idiot here. Naïve idiots think some
people are nice.
Keep being nice to me and I'll be calling you a nice guy pretty soon. Would
that be a paradox?
Vic
AbsolutelyCertain
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD4FDA9D.7B7D%vic...@usread.com...
> in article cgdmcb$t7r$0...@pita.alt.net, AbsolutelyCertain at
> eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/23/04 5:08 PM:
>
> >
> > <vic...@usread.com> wrote in message
news:BD4FD161.7B60%vic...@usread.com...
> >> in article cgdikg$kek$0...@pita.alt.net, AbsolutelyCertain at
> >> eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/23/04 4:04 PM:
> >> Paul, thanks. Ray is one helluva nice guy. Fame is not his motive.
> >
> > I have no doubt that he is a nice guy. Hell, some people even think I
am a
> > nice guy. Well, at least they lie to me and say so. But my point was,
> > objectivity is gold in your position. Don't give it away.
> >
> >
> I appreciate you offering good advice. Really. I know Ray -- and he's a
> people are nice.
>
> Keep being nice to me and I'll be calling you a nice guy pretty soon.
Would
> that be a paradox?
As long as you don't charge me more than ten bucks a pop, I really really
appreciate it.
John Mazor
> To John Mazor:
>
> I have a simpler exercise.
>
> I just have two questions/issues re FL800 -- and we can forget the
> witnesses. ok?
>
> 1. There was explosive residue that DID return positives after MORE
> than one test. These residue samples were ALL attributed to some dog
> training exercise, which has been shown was not the aircraft that was
> FL800. Even if it was the same craft, the places these multiple
> positive hits were returned were not part of the dog training
> exercise. Bottom line is -- we have significant residue, proven
> residue, in more than one part of the aircraft that has not been
> explained. This seems to me to qualify as "physical evidence".
Sheesh. The premise for my modest proposal was to get past exactly this
kind of stuff, the aviation equivalent of "I've got more angels dancing on
the head of my pin than you do on yours".
Let me know if and when you're ready to look through the other end of the
telescope.
> 2. Check out these comments from ALPA's James Speer. I reckon you'll
> tell me he has an axe to grind too?:
>
> (turn your volume up high -- the audio track is weak)
You're gonna have to buy me something better than my POTS dial-up service,
not gonna tie up my system for God knows how long that fat sucker will take
to download on my geriatric modem.
And please define "axe to grind" - I've already suggested that at least two
pilots I know who support a missile theory are acting out of sincere
motives.
John Mazor
> Dr. george's point was that they do this for financial gain. My point is,
> that is not true. Not that any of this matters of course.
For many it is true. And don't forget ego and political motives. Or for
many, some combination of the three. What's left over is the sincere ones,
but they do tend to get drowned out by those seeking fame, fortune, or the
overthrow of the evil libruls. George may have cast a slightly too wide net
against some of the former, but he wasn't too far off - you have not denied
that fame, fortune and politics has been a motive for many if not most in
the TWA800 cottage industry.
And even for some of the sincere ones, there's an element of "carpe dais" in
their behavior.
running with scissors
vic, may i interject following above post:
can you provide a link to this NTSB standpoint that it was the pilot
actions that caused the catastrophic airframe failure, as i would like
to review it as per the NTSB advisory dated the 9th of last month, the
determination is as follows:
"...The report-writing phase is well underway and a draft report was
provided to the Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses Pour la Securite de
l'Aviation Civile (BEA), the Safety Board's counterpart agency of the
government of France, on July 9, 2004, in accordance with provisions
of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
A Board meeting will be scheduled in Washington, probably in the fall,
at which the five Board Members will consider the final report, which
will contain conclusions, the probable cause, and any safety
recommendations pertinent to the findings. That meeting will be
webcast, and will be satellite uplinked to anyone wishing to purchase
a downlinked video feed.
The NTSB will announce the date of the final Board meeting when it is
scheduled."
thanks.
running with scissors
<snip>
Mazor, i can only say that i agree with you 100% (once again!)
John Mazor
message news:d0fe9d08.04082...@posting.google.com...
Thenk yew. It was either this, or take up knitting, to satisfy my yearning
for something more interesting than the same ol' same old.
vic...@usread.com
maz...@erols.com wrote on 8/23/04 7:31 PM:
> <vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD4FC5C6.7B4B%vic...@usread.com...
>> To John Mazor:
>>
>> I have a simpler exercise.
>>
>> I just have two questions/issues re FL800 -- and we can forget the
>> witnesses. ok?
>>
>> 1. There was explosive residue that DID return positives after MORE
>> than one test. These residue samples were ALL attributed to some dog
>> training exercise, which has been shown was not the aircraft that was
>> FL800. Even if it was the same craft, the places these multiple
>> positive hits were returned were not part of the dog training
>> exercise. Bottom line is -- we have significant residue, proven
>> residue, in more than one part of the aircraft that has not been
>> explained. This seems to me to qualify as "physical evidence".
>
> Sheesh. The premise for my modest proposal was to get past exactly this
> kind of stuff, the aviation equivalent of "I've got more angels dancing on
> the head of my pin than you do on yours".
>
> Let me know if and when you're ready to look through the other end of the
> telescope.
Well John -- I posted that question in ADA before you posted your very wordy
proposal. So, me first. And I think that by reducing all my FL800 concerns
to two simple questions -- I think that's not too much to ask.
>
>> 2. Check out these comments from ALPA's James Speer. I reckon you'll
>> tell me he has an axe to grind too?:
>>
>> (turn your volume up high -- the audio track is weak)
>
> You're gonna have to buy me something better than my POTS dial-up service,
> not gonna tie up my system for God knows how long that fat sucker will take
> to download on my geriatric modem.
You don't have broadband, and you expect to be taken seriously? JK.
ALPA's James Speer (you must know him) was suspended from the investigation,
along with Linda Kunz and Terrel Stacey of TWA (Kunz was suspended
permanently). Stacey was arrested for passing the so-called glue strips to
Sanders.
I stripped the audio from the 11MB Speers video file and reduced the audio
to a 1.4 MB file. I did this just for you so you'd better listen!! ;-)
You can listen to the mp3 at:
http://www.usread.com/flight800/james_Speer_Audio.mp3
>
> And please define "axe to grind" - I've already suggested that at least two
> pilots I know who support a missile theory are acting out of sincere
> motives.
>
>
Sorry. That was a cut and paste from a previous post to Dr. George. He has
said Lahr and Co. all had an axe to grind. Not you.
Victor
vic...@usread.com
maz...@erols.com wrote on 8/23/04 7:44 PM:
I prefer not to judge people's motives. I think people (evil libruls and
awesome conservatives -- ha ha) are easily misunderstood and too easily
condemned.
FIRO and TWA800 -- I believe they are all mostly sincere.
Sanders and Cashill -- don't know these gentlemen. But I will not condemn
them simply because they have sold books. They are reporters and writers,
that's what they do.
Victor
vic...@usread.com
scissors at aabbcc_running...@hotmail.com wrote on 8/23/04 8:28
PM:
http://ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/iic_stmt.htm
Victor
AbsolutelyCertain
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD501A1D.7BB5%vic...@usread.com...
> in article 412a81d5$0$21758$61fe...@news.rcn.com, John Mazor at
> I prefer not to judge people's motives. I think people (evil libruls and
> awesome conservatives -- ha ha) are easily misunderstood and too easily
> condemned.
They have to keep those two mythical groups at each other's throats,
otherwise people would pay attention to things that actually affect their
interests. I heard these items from some "middle class voter group" person
today on the boob tube:
- Immigration reform
- Housing costs rise near urban areas
- Healthcare costs for both insured and uninsuread
- Price/wage squeeze on the lower end of the middle class (especially,
$25-50k wage earners) (rent, food, gas, medical)
- Lack of bipartisan cooperation
- National debt and dollar devaluation
- Balance between security and liberty in light of terror concerns
- Energy policy
Just an off-the cuff list. Add or subtract as desired. Which three of
these, or any list of issues will be central in the upcoming campaign? Who
wants us to "worry" over things like gay marriage and flag burning
amendments and Vietnam war protests and Texas Air National Guard records
.... to distract from things that are going to affect you and your kids?
Does anyone out there feel manipulated yet? Anyone for faith-based
government?
John Mazor
Thank you for inadvertently undercutting your own argument.
> are easily misunderstood and too easily condemned.
>
> FIRO and TWA800 -- I believe they are all mostly sincere.
>
> Sanders and Cashill -- don't know these gentlemen. But I will not condemn
> them simply because they have sold books. They are reporters and writers,
> that's what they do.
Theoretically true so far as your statement goes, but as even Nixon admits,
motive and agenda do count. Especially when you cannot get simple things
right, such as translating universal time to local, or ordering a simple
elemental analysis of a chunk of seat foam when any first-year chemistry
student could tell you that it's a meaningless exercise.
Yes, conspirowackos need to eat like the rest of us, but do you know the
story of Pierre Salinger, JFK's speech writer who spent the waning years of
his career in obscurity as a "journalist" in Paris? He jumped on local
recycled reports of Dick Russell's purported "proof" through radar tracks
that there was a missile. Seeing what was probably his last chance ever to
grab a brass ring, he tried to peddle it to CNN and others as an exclusive
for $100,000. No one bought and he got shot out of the saddle in interviews
by his own media compatriots. It happens, Victor, and it colors our view of
people who have something to sell us besides a theory.
vic...@usread.com
maz...@erols.com wrote on 8/23/04 11:31 PM:
Not quite. Being an evil librul is not a "motive" -- it's a disease. ;-)
Education is the cure John -- so keep reading.
>
>> are easily misunderstood and too easily condemned.
>>
>> FIRO and TWA800 -- I believe they are all mostly sincere.
>>
>> Sanders and Cashill -- don't know these gentlemen. But I will not condemn
>> them simply because they have sold books. They are reporters and writers,
>> that's what they do.
>
> Theoretically true so far as your statement goes, but as even Nixon admits,
> motive and agenda do count. Especially when you cannot get simple things
> right, such as translating universal time to local, or ordering a simple
> elemental analysis of a chunk of seat foam when any first-year chemistry
> student could tell you that it's a meaningless exercise.
>
> Yes, conspirowackos need to eat like the rest of us, but do you know the
> story of Pierre Salinger, JFK's speech writer who spent the waning years of
> his career in obscurity as a "journalist" in Paris? He jumped on local
> recycled reports of Dick Russell's purported "proof" through radar tracks
> that there was a missile. Seeing what was probably his last chance ever to
> grab a brass ring, he tried to peddle it to CNN and others as an exclusive
> for $100,000. No one bought and he got shot out of the saddle in interviews
> by his own media compatriots. It happens, Victor, and it colors our view of
> people who have something to sell us besides a theory.
>
>
>
Didn't know Pierre tried to sell it.
So what's the deal with those strips? Why didn't the NTSB say what you
(Nixon) said? Why did they say the elements were consistent with "glue"?
Didn't Sander's lab test just the residue and not the whole cushion??
Vic
AbsolutelyCertain
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD5033E8.7C0F%vic...@usread.com...
Bwaaaaaaaaaahahaha! You might want to let George Bush in on your little
secret!
Ralph Nesbitt
"AllKnow909" <allkn...@aol.common-man> wrote in message
news:20040822214438...@mb-m19.aol.com...
> >Control inputs being filtered through/controlled by the FAS again raises
the
> >computer sequencing/staging Issue. Could a fault in the FAS Computer/s
have
> >disengaged/caused some flight control surfaces to not function properly?
>
> Ralph, excellent question. I wondered the same thing early and even had a
> proposal to AAL to investigate it under contract. They weren't
interested,
> even though other A300's in their fleet had similar yaw upset problems
> reported. The A300 Pilot Report (downloadable from the usread.com web
site)
> also mentioned yaw damper and rudder upset problems.
>
Considering yaw up upset problems are common to the A300 fleet, intestinal
intuition tells a computer programming issue is the basic problem. Whatever
this problem, it was exaggerated by attempting to deal with aggressive
multiple inputs in the AAL587 incident.
There is bound to be a common denominator to these fleet wide yaw upset
problems. Whether this common denominator can be identified from reviewing
incidents or will require a "Flight Test Regime" to "Identify/Isolate" will
require further inquiry.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
John Mazor
> in article 412ab896$0$21747$61fe...@news.rcn.com, John Mazor at
> maz...@erols.com wrote on 8/23/04 11:31 PM:
> >> I prefer not to judge people's motives. I think people (evil libruls
and
> >> awesome conservatives -- ha ha)
> >
> > Thank you for inadvertently undercutting your own argument.
>
> Not quite. Being an evil librul is not a "motive" -- it's a disease. ;-)
> Education is the cure John -- so keep reading.
Jesus. Not only did you shoot yourself in the foot once, you aimed at the
other one and did it again.
We did. Hence the animus.
> So what's the deal with those strips? Why didn't the NTSB say what you
> (Nixon) said? Why did they say the elements were consistent with "glue"?
Because the samples they tested were. Or in the alternative, as has been
noted here many times, the bootleg analysis of the stolen sample was
consistent with what you might find with any similar material that has been
sitting on the ocean floor for some time.
> Didn't Sander's lab test just the residue and not the whole cushion??
They did a destructive test of the whole sample. It gave them a simple
compositional breakdown of elementary particles. So much aluminum, so much
oxygen, etc. Other tests might have given more useful results, but our
amateur conspiracy detective/budding author was too ignorant to understand
that. It was as stupid as trying to match the DNA at a crime scene by
grabbing a blood sample and ordering a test on the blood type.
Ralph Nesbitt
"AbsolutelyCertain" <eas...@entertained.net> wrote in message
news:cgboqh$l8b$0...@pita.alt.net...
>
> <vic...@usread.com> wrote in message
news:BD4EDA32.7ADA%vic...@usread.com...
> > in article cgbm69$g27$0...@pita.alt.net, AbsolutelyCertain at
> > eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/22/04 10:52 PM:
> >
> > >
> news:BD4ED118.7AC9%vic...@usread.com...
> > >> in article cgbflo$1g6$0...@pita.alt.net, AbsolutelyCertain at
> > >> eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/22/04 9:01 PM:
> > >>
> > >>>
> making an assertion based on that?
> Has anyone actually taken this structure and stressed it with an
aerodynamic
> load up to the breaking point?
>
NTSB details/states there was pre existing damage to the vertical stabilizer
in the Structural Group Factual Report Document 168195 @
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/exhibits/default.htm This pre
existing damage is detailed/discussed from Pg. 15 to Pg. 22 of NTSB Document
168195.
Modern A/C are either computer modeled to determine fatigue life or a
fatigue test is run on a full size A/C in a "Stress Tank". In most instances
structural failure points are a matter of engineering design criterion that
is then validated by computer modeling or actual test in a stress tank. In
instances where the validation is based on stress tank tests, the A/C is run
through it's design life, then specified tests are run to determine actual
break point. The purpose of doing "Actual Failure Tests" this way is to
validate a "Built in Design Safety Factor".
Structures 7 - Airbus A300-600R Vetical Tail Loads Calculation (Exhibit 7-N)
Document 168829 @ http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/exhibits/default.htm
should answer questions as to how load factors were calculated/determined.
>
> >
> > from their standpoint, it's all about understanding WHY the pilot moved
> the
> > rudder as he did. They have no doubt his 5th rudder movement broke the
> tail
> > off.
> >
Another question is were the rudder movements solely as the pilots directed,
as the FAS directed, or some combination?
> > Vic
Ralph Nesbitt
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD4EEE19.7AEC%vic...@usread.com...
> in article cgboqh$l8b$0...@pita.alt.net, AbsolutelyCertain at
> eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/22/04 11:37 PM:
> derived -- it's not in the DFDR), and (2) the rudder deflection which was
> filtered. The DFDR showed a 6 degree rudder deflection. The deferred
> rudder deflection (from the inverse filter) was 10 to 11.5 degrees.
>
> > Has anyone actually taken this structure and stressed it with an
aerodynamic
> > load up to the breaking point?
>
> lugs since the accident -- to the breaking point.
>
Has NTSB posted/released/made their vrtical stabilizer test data publically
availiable?
Ralph Nesbitt
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD4FD161.7B60%vic...@usread.com...
the manner/way you have approached the AAL587 Incident Investigation. Is
there any chance this group of "Nice Guys" talked you into "fronting" their
"Opinions/Concerns" re NTSB & AAL587.
Ralph Nesbitt
<vic...@usread.com> wrote in message news:BD4FDA9D.7B7D%vic...@usread.com...
> in article cgdmcb$t7r$0...@pita.alt.net, AbsolutelyCertain at
> eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/23/04 5:08 PM:
>
> >
> > <vic...@usread.com> wrote in message
news:BD4FD161.7B60%vic...@usread.com...
> >> in article cgdikg$kek$0...@pita.alt.net, AbsolutelyCertain at
> >> eas...@entertained.net wrote on 8/23/04 4:04 PM:
> >> Paul, thanks. Ray is one helluva nice guy. Fame is not his motive.
> >
> > I have no doubt that he is a nice guy. Hell, some people even think I
am a
> > nice guy. Well, at least they lie to me and say so. But my point was,
> > objectivity is gold in your position. Don't give it away.
> >
> >
> I appreciate you offering good advice. Really. I know Ray -- and he's a
> people are nice.
>
> Keep being nice to me and I'll be calling you a nice guy pretty soon.
Would
> that be a paradox?
>
> Vic
>
applicable.
running with scissors
well one thread can become as tiresome as another, at least you could
get a scarf out of one ?
Victor T.
Nesbitt at ralph-...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 8/24/04 1:26 AM:
> Has NTSB posted/released/made their vrtical stabilizer test data publically
> availiable?
Hi Ralph:
I know I've read it somewhere, in press releases or some docket
report. Don't recall where.
Vic
Victor T.
Nesbitt at ralph-...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 8/24/04 2:21 AM:
> Perhaps your knowing the "Group of Nice Guys" above has something to do with
> the manner/way you have approached the AAL587 Incident Investigation. Is
> there any chance this group of "Nice Guys" talked you into "fronting" their
> "Opinions/Concerns" re NTSB & AAL587.
> Ralph Nesbitt
Ralph:
I'm also getting know Paul G -- and am starting to think he's not as
bad as I initially thought -- he may even be a nice guy too. I'm not
his front man either, or Mr. Nixon's.
No Sir -- the "Group of (FL800) Nice Guys" have not put me out there
as their FL587 front man. I met them only AFTER I got started -- they
found usread.com because Bob Donaldson had posted a link to my stuff
on his web site. Bob Donaldson heard about me from a FL587
eyewitness.
Hope you're convinced. No conspiracy there.
John Mazor
Who cares if you were first. I was wa-a-a-y first (WRT you) with all kinds
of arguments against missile conspiracy theories. So what?
> And I think that by reducing all my FL800 concerns
> to two simple questions -- I think that's not too much to ask.
Oh, gimme a break. That's like asking if it's not too much to ask to reduce
the JFK assassination conundrum to two questions, were there people other
than Oswald who might have wanted JFK dead, and did they have the means to
do so?
> You don't have broadband, and you expect to be taken seriously? JK.
Counterargument: Broadband just gives global village idiots the means to
spew more idiocy per hour farther than they could, and to connect with other
village idiots so they can agree with themselves, than when they were
isolated in the village square and pretty much limited to talking to random
passers-by. Just Only Slightly Kidding.
> ALPA's James Speer (you must know him) was suspended from the
investigation,
> along with Linda Kunz and Terrel Stacey of TWA (Kunz was suspended
> permanently). Stacey was arrested for passing the so-called glue strips
to Sanders.
They weren't glue strips, they were chunks of seat foam with glue residue on
the surface.
> I stripped the audio from the 11MB Speers video file and reduced the audio
> to a 1.4 MB file. I did this just for you so you'd better listen!! ;-)
>
> You can listen to the mp3 at:
> http://www.usread.com/flight800/james_Speer_Audio.mp3
I'll try to remember to dial it up some time when I'm not nodding off.