Various responses about TWA-800
Ralph Nesbitt
Jack Reed <jwr...@nmia.com> wrote in part in message
news:848jva$6sk$1...@hume.nmia.com...
> I decided to assemble my responses to various participants into one =
> message. It may interest all, covering a number of diverse parts of the =
> overall problem.
> Dr. George O. Bizzigotti wrote on 12/15/99:
> GB> Still, it would be interesting to see just how loud a sound the =
> center fuel
> GB> tank deflagration hypothesis should have generated; would it be =
> perceptible=20
> GB> at 8 to 10 miles distance?
> My conclusion about the central tank, covered in my web page,=20
> http://nmia.com/~jwreed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Your URL returns not found/404 Error. Please check and post acessible URL.
Ralph Nesbitt
Someone said: To those for whom the bell has rung, may it never ring again.
Ralph Nesbitt
> You have defined a class of phenomena that was bothering my =
> colleague, Dick
> Spalding, Sandia satellite detection systems specialist, for years =
> before
> the TWA Flight 800 accident. They have seen many flashes that could not =
> be
> attributed to known explosions, meteorites, missiles, lightning, or =
> suspected
> nuclear tests. Such mystery flashes, sometimes accompanied by booms or =
> bangs,=20
> were reported in New England by the Pilgrim Fathers and from every =
> continent=20
> right up to present days. Search continues for their cause, with =
> international=20
> support even from Russia. The methane burp hypothesis was being studied =
> since=20
> before 1994, mostly by the Russian Academy of Sciences (with U.S. DOE =
> funds to=20
> save starving Russian scientists). Their reports cover methane deposits, =
>
> structures, burp clouds and jets, bubble rise dynamics, cloud diffusion, =
>
> detonability, etc, etc, etc. My opinion, from these as well as recent =
> (1999)
> reports in Science magazine and American Geophysical Union EOS news, is =
> that
> a methane burp could be a POSSIBLE explanation for the demise of TWA =
> Flight 800.
> Following this lead will be a long and costly process of purely =
> scientific
> exploration. There is, however, general reluctance and opposition from =
> combined
> geological and geophysical communities (conspiracy?), dating back to the =
> energy=20
> crisis era (1970's), when speculations were aired that all "fossile =
> fuels" were
> actually results of methane emanations up from the planet core, where it =
> was
> deposited during Earth's formation.=20
> That said, I'll await responses and dribble out more specifics as =
> need arises.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Are you refering/making reference to the the phenomenon, which some call
"geophysical meteors" detailed with references at:
http://www.geocities.com/olkhov/gr1997.htm
Jack Reed
Spalding but he must be aware of it as he's cited as a reference. I had
heard of and seen tapes of some of the mentioned cases at his semi-annual
get-togethers. My favorite wasn't mentioned, however, where a "slow
meteorite" in Spain, 1994, left a bathtub-shaped excavated oval 30 m long,
10 m wide, and 1 m deep down to bedrock, with topsoil and trees blown and
scattered down the hill. Spanish geologists declared it a landslide - but it
had no exit channel, and was on a rather flat hill-top. Even with color
photos of the crater, Dick couldn't get support for an exploratory
expedition to check for chemical residues, radioactivity, methane, or
whatever. Core drilling and geophysical soundings seemed warranted, but they
cost money. Straight Ahead, Jack
Ralph Nesbitt wrote in message ...
>
>Jack Reed <jwr...@nmia.com> wrote in part in message
>news:848jva$6sk$1...@hume.nmia.com...> MD>flight 800:
>> You have defined a class of phenomena that was bothering my =
>> colleague, Dick
>> Spalding, Sandia satellite detection systems specialist, for years =
>> before
Stan Clark
Jack Reed <jwr...@nmia.com> wrote .
> So, I haven't joined any of the various camps, because this noise =
> problem
> tells me that they are all wrong. NONE OF THE ABOVE! And no one has=20
> substantially rebutted any of my arguments; they just listen and tell me =
> they=20
> will think about it. If I can get a thousand scientists/engineers to =
> think about
> it - to no avail - that should mean something.
Jack, I appreciate your efforts concerning the earwitnesses to FLT 00.
Until the government conducts a real investigation and obtains, analyzes and
makes public all info gleaned from the witnesses, no scientific enquiry by
private investigators/citizens is productive.
Even the little info from the witnesses made public indicates contradictions
in what people saw/heard. You should join the camp that wants an open
honest investigation in order for your work to have meaning. It's like
Michael Davias' excellent study of meteorites and TWA 800.
> Stan Clark wrote on 12/22/99::
> SC> Would an inert SM-2 from the warship 2.9 miles away satisfy your =
> sound=20
> SC> requirements - or should I abandon my sillyassed theory?
> I'm not familiar with launch noise from an SM-2 but I'm pretty sure =
> it isn't
> in a class with 1-ton TNT. If your 2.9 miles is from East Moriches, =
> distance
> to extremes of ear-witness reports would be about 10 and 15 miles, where
> overpressures would be down by factors of 3 and 5, respectively. There =
> wasn't
> that much spread, in my opinion, in noise perception reports.
> From my review of old messages, I found that your 2.9 miles was NW =
> from the IE
> at the alleged boat blip on a radar. That position change would not much =
> affect
> my previous argument.
I believe SW rather than NW, but that shouldn't affect your work. I'm
unfamiliar with SM-2s also, that's why I think there should be an
investigation. The CWT and SM-2 theories are simple to verify by test.
> SC> Is the "no whistle-blowers present" your theory? Stan
> Do we have whistle-blowers from the postulated ships or fleets =
> carrying big
> missiles? Maybe I'm not monitoring the right news groups. In October =
> 1996,
> I talked with a woman here at ABQ's Int'l Balloon Fiesta, who said her =
> brother
> was on one of those Navy ships in the first recovery operations. When =
> they got
> back to port, the crew was dispersed to the winds, he to Korea, with=20
> instructions to keep quiet. I never bought that story but have watched =
> and
> waited for other similar allegations.
Why? Shouldn't it be checked out?
With my USAF bias that their =
> morale is
> the best, I doubt that even 300 airmen wouldn't contain at least one or =
> two
> malcontents.
Does wrongdoing only bother malcontents? :-) With 10,000 sailors under the
crash, wouldn't you expect one to say something about it, such as, the navy
did it or the navy didn't do it? Why are 10,000 sailors ALL afraid to say
the navy was not involved?
Scientific capability is counterproductive to such a blatant coverup. Just
read Dr. Biz. :-) You're both biased beyond hope and don't even realize it
yet. Or worse. Stan
Ralph Nesbitt
Stan Clark <st...@could.com> wrote in part in message
news:uGX94.7434$PZ3.4...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com...
>
>It's like Michael Davias' excellent study of meteorites and TWA 800.
-------------
Got a URL for this study. Not just partial, the complete study.
Jack Reed
Jack
Ralph Nesbitt wrote in message <43R94.902$Iw2....@news3.atl>...
>
>Jack Reed <jwr...@nmia.com> wrote in part in message
>news:848jva$6sk$1...@hume.nmia.com...
Jack Reed
To: <fre...@hotmail.com>,
"Flight 800 discussion list" <FLIGH...@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Cc: "Richard E. Spalding" <res...@sandia.gov>,
"Paul Schomer" <sch...@staff.uiuc.edu>,
"Hugh W Church" <chur...@aol.com>,
"George Alder" <g_a...@yahoo.com>,
"Geoff Leventhall" <h.g.lev...@dial.pipex.com>,
"Geoff Kerry" <g.k...@salford.ac.uk>
Subject: Various responses about TWA-800
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:37:00 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01BF506F.7416B3A0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BF506F.7416B3A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I decided to assemble my responses to various participants into one =
message. It may interest all, covering a number of diverse parts of the =
overall problem.
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti wrote on 12/15/99:
GB> Still, it would be interesting to see just how loud a sound the =
center fuel
GB> tank deflagration hypothesis should have generated; would it be =
perceptible=20
GB> at 8 to 10 miles distance?
My conclusion about the central tank, covered in my web page,=20
http://nmia.com/~jwreed
is that a DETONABLE mixing ratio (near 5%) in that volume of air would =
only=20
contain a gallon of fuel, and (with propane performance) give at most 60 =
lb TNT=20
explosion equivalent. NTSB has sponsored various tests to prove that a =
CWT
can be blown up with a loud blast striking experimenters. So what? At 10 =
miles
such an explosion would give *** Pa overpressure, or *** dB. This =
should,=20
I believe, be inaudible.
GB> You've published an interesting analysis, but given that "loud" =
seems to me
GB> to be quite subjective
Agreed, and that's why I've spent so much time worrying about how to =
quantify
"loud". My latest attempt is shown in the attachment. It is a PKZIP-ped =
Windows=20
WORD file, which I prepared for a hand-out 12/5-8/99 at Internoise-99 =
(Int'l=20
Inst. Noise Control Engr), Ft.Lauderdale. I was offered fast-track =
peer-review=20
for its submission to the U-K J. Low Freq. Sound & Vibration.
So, I haven't joined any of the various camps, because this noise =
problem
tells me that they are all wrong. NONE OF THE ABOVE! And no one has=20
substantially rebutted any of my arguments; they just listen and tell me =
they=20
will think about it. If I can get a thousand scientists/engineers to =
think about
it - to no avail - that should mean something.
GB> I'm not familiar with the physics of sound generation, so I'd be =
interested=20
GB> in seeing learning more about how you reached your conclusions.
The explosion overpressure versus distance function and yield =
scaling laws are
detailed in "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons," AEC & DOD, GPO, 1977. =
Also, see
Standard ANSI S2.20-1983 (last reaffirmed, 1993), or numerous books on =
explosion
effects. And visit my web site and read the attachment herewith.
GB> The specific hypothesis is that there was a fuel vapor air =
deflagration in=20
GB> the tank, causing a rapid increase in pressure until the tank =
ruptured; once
GB> the tank ruptured, the energy release would have been concentrated =
in the=20
GB> direction of the rupture would it not?=20
Asymmetries would likely be washed out by long distance propagation.
GB> Also, note that several thousand cubic feet of fuel vapor still =
represents a
GB> pretty fair amount of energy...but intuitively, I suspect that a =
rupture of
GB> a large aluminum tank at 1-2 atmosphere of overpressure would =
generate a=20
GB> pretty loud bang.
Not even in comparison to 60 lb TNT, addressed previously.
George Donaldson wrote on 12/22/99
GD> Would you prefer to write about cargo doors and methane gas burps?
I answered: I would indeed, Ho, Ho, Ho. So what else is left than =
methane burps=20
to make the blasts heard along 25 miles of Long Island shoreline?=20
Stan Clark wrote on 12/22/99::
SC> Would an inert SM-2 from the warship 2.9 miles away satisfy your =
sound=20
SC> requirements - or should I abandon my sillyassed theory?
I'm not familiar with launch noise from an SM-2 but I'm pretty sure =
it isn't
in a class with 1-ton TNT. If your 2.9 miles is from East Moriches, =
distance
to extremes of ear-witness reports would be about 10 and 15 miles, where
overpressures would be down by factors of 3 and 5, respectively. There =
wasn't
that much spread, in my opinion, in noise perception reports.
From my review of old messages, I found that your 2.9 miles was NW =
from the IE
at the alleged boat blip on a radar. That position change would not much =
affect
my previous argument. Any noise from a near-surface source, however, =
would be
refracted upward away from ground by the weather conditions, except for =
a
very shallow inversion sound duct along the water. At miles distances, =
airblast
would be greatly attenuated by comparison to the blast from an elevated =
source
near the IE.
SC> Is the "no whistle-blowers present" your theory? Stan
Do we have whistle-blowers from the postulated ships or fleets =
carrying big
missiles? Maybe I'm not monitoring the right news groups. In October =
1996,
I talked with a woman here at ABQ's Int'l Balloon Fiesta, who said her =
brother
was on one of those Navy ships in the first recovery operations. When =
they got
back to port, the crew was dispersed to the winds, he to Korea, with=20
instructions to keep quiet. I never bought that story but have watched =
and
waited for other similar allegations. With my USAF bias that their =
morale is
the best, I doubt that even 300 airmen wouldn't contain at least one or =
two
malcontents.
George Donaldson wrote on 12/22/99:
GD> ... we have to also assume that the indications in engines 2, 3 and =
4 maxed=20
GD> out the upper limits of their ranges.=20
TWA told me that if an EPR exceeded 1.99 a two would be entered in =
the units
place, but we didn't discuss the fate of the decimal digits. At that =
rate a 2.40
would be recorded correctly as 2.40, and a 3.40 would also be recorded =
as 2.40.
We need to get that FDR tape datastream translated. My hang-up is that =
if EPRs
from #2, #3, & #4 were almost equally recorded off scale, this could not =
have
happened from a) a previous flight, b) a spurious bit in the stream, or =
c) a
shift in the beginning reference. Try it with any sequence of zeroes and =
ones.
GD> The EPR of #1 engine reduced indicating a reverse motion of that =
engine.
I took an algebraic approach, assuming an explosion DP overpressure =
in an
ambient pressure P, R=3DEPR, and that at 11 sec (before), Rb =3D Pb2/Pb1 =
=3D 1.30,
where 1 and 2 are front input and rear output, respectively. At 12 sec =
(after)
for #2-#4 Ra =3D Pa2/Pa1 =3D 2.42 =3D (Pb2+DP)/(Pb1+DP), resulting in DP =
=3D -0.79 Pb1.
At #1, however, Ra =3D 1.14, so that DP =3D 1.14 Pb1. This may be =
interpreted as
a shock positive phase at #1 and a negative phase enveloping #2, #3, and =
#4.
There are obvious problems with this simplistic approach, but until we =
get
the actual encoding algorithms and the taped bitstream it gives me a =
start.
Michael Donovan wrote on 12/22/99:
MD> I was making points about objects that fly in the sky that are not
MD>properly identified. They are listed as 'unidentified'. And, being in =
the
MD>air, they are listed as 'flying'. And being not known as to the =
specific
MD>thing, they are listed as 'objects'.
MD>These are the specific relevance I was trying to put forth in =
relation to
MD>flight 800:
You have defined a class of phenomena that was bothering my =
colleague, Dick
Spalding, Sandia satellite detection systems specialist, for years =
before
Keith Willshaw wrote on 12.20/99:
KW> Really Jack
KW> Perhaps you' like to enlighten us as to how a ton of TNT came to be =
aboard=20
KW> TWA800. ...
KW> and is a bit big to be carried on as hand luggage don't you think ?
That was exactly my problem when I first heard the blast noise =
report on
7/20/96, when they were searching for carry-on and checked baggage that =
was
suspect. They hadn't yet found the four cargo containers that had not =
been=20
subject to security checks, and which could have held the ton. But later
those were found and they had not held the explosives, so the source was =
again=20
an open question.=20
KW> Its 10 times the amount of explosive carried by any missile
My understanding is that a large, Scud-class missile could carry a =
big enough=20
payload, but that raises the size of the launch platform and the problem =
with its concealment.
In my defense, George Bizzicotti also wrote:
GB> I'm not certain that I agree entirely with Mr. Reed, however. =
Whether
GB> or not one can hear a sound depends on more than just the magnitude =
of
GB> pressure generated. The configuration of potential reflectors of =
sound
GB> has a marked effect,=20
I looked around East Moriches for reflectors that could have caused =
those
multiple bangs; there were none. I checked the weather radiosonde report
for atmospheric refractions and multi-paths; they didn't happen.
GB> Weather affects sound transmission ...
Amen. And that has been my occupation since 1951, described in my =
webpages
http:/www.nmia.com/~jwreed.
GB> I live several miles to the side of a major airport runway; on =
cloudy days=20
GB> I can hear the characteristic sound of aircraft using reverse thrust =
when=20
GB> landing, but if the ceiling is high enough or it's clear, I can't =
hear them.
And that is repeated by world-wide folklore. Cloud droplets, =
fractions to=20
microns in diameter can't reflect much sound energy with 300 cm =
wavelengths
(1 kHz). Air temperature and wind combine to cause atmospheric acoustic
refraction which changes propagations. Thus, in many places with =
occasional=20
noticeable sound patterns, they may correlate with cloudiness but their =
cause=20
is transparent to the eye and visible only to upper air weather sensors.
GB> Whether or not anisotropic sound radiation could account for the =
reported
GB> observations I do not know.=20
Ear-witness reports I have extend from west through north to =
northeast with
no clear directional variations. Also, the fact that my info only =
extends to
about 15 miles may be as far away as the FBI looked for noise =
statements, or
it may confirm my atmospheric refraction calculations which showed that=20
direct raypaths only reached ground out to that distance before curving =
up=20
into space.
Gord Beaman wrote on 12/22/99:
GB2> I've experienced this phenomena as well. And, like you, I only hear =
it on=20
GB2> cloudy days.
See my previous response. I too live close to ABQ, one mile north of =
the
E-W runway centerline, and can reasonably guess upper winds from the =
sounds
of jet run-ups.
Craig Shields wrote:
>Same with Meigs Field and racing sailboats on Lake Michigan. You =
*really*=20
>notice the sound thing (even people talking) when you're on a quiet =
boat.
Take a hot-air balloon ride at the annual ABQ Int'l Balloon Fiesta. =
At hundreds
of feet aloft, you will hear people speaking, particularly barking dogs, =
on the=20
ground. There is none of the atmospheric refraction that distorts =
horizontal=20
propagation along and near the ground.
John Mazor wrote on 12/22/99:
JM> So you think that the anomalous values in the last frame of the FDR
JM> tape reflect reality?
I don't KNOW. If it indeed was left over from a previous flight that =
was
as very rough ride. If there was a reference shift error in that NTSB=20
translation then how did the altitude group come up with the correct =
value for a
a terminated (zeroed) altitude sensor? If everything was scrambled by =
one=20
or more bits randomly added or subtracted by the recorder stop or the IE =
disturbance, then how come the #2, #3, and #4 EPRs were so nearly =
uniformly
distracted while most everything else came up wildly changed? Someone,=20
prefereably TWA engineers who programed the recorder, should be allowed
access to the original (or exact copy) bitstream to explain these =
questions.
I hope I have answered all these questions and comments, so I can =
now
spend the rest of this Christmas Day with the gloom of a drizzle that
is barely warm enough not to be snow. A rare day for ABQ. But skiers
should be happy since there has been a pretty good snowfall in the
mountains. And I'll get this posted on Monday from my office.=20
Happy New Year - only one more year before starting a new and, =
hopefully,
brighter millenium. Straight Ahead, Jack
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BF506F.7416B3A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 =
HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> I decided to =
assemble my=20
responses to various participants into one message. It may interest all, =
covering a number of diverse parts of the overall problem.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> Dr. George O. =
Bizzigotti=20
wrote on 12/15/99:<BR>GB> Still, it would be interesting to see just =
how loud=20
a sound the center fuel<BR>GB> tank deflagration hypothesis should =
have=20
generated; would it be perceptible <BR>GB> at 8 to 10 miles=20
distance?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> My conclusion =
about the=20
central tank, covered in my web page, <BR><A=20
href=3D"http://nmia.com/~jwreed">http://nmia.com/~jwreed</A><BR>is that =
a=20
DETONABLE mixing ratio (near 5%) in that volume of air would only =
<BR>contain a=20
gallon of fuel, and (with propane performance) give at most 60 lb TNT=20
<BR>explosion equivalent. NTSB has sponsored various tests to prove that =
a=20
CWT<BR>can be blown up with a loud blast striking experimenters. So =
what? At 10=20
miles<BR>such an explosion would give *** Pa overpressure, or *** dB. =
This=20
should, <BR>I believe, be inaudible.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>GB> You've published an =
interesting analysis,=20
but given that "loud" seems to me<BR>GB> to be quite=20
subjective</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> Agreed, and =
that's why I've=20
spent so much time worrying about how to quantify<BR>"loud". =
My latest=20
attempt is shown in the attachment. It is a PKZIP-ped Windows <BR>WORD =
file,=20
which I prepared for a hand-out 12/5-8/99 at Internoise-99 (Int'l =
<BR>Inst.=20
Noise Control Engr), Ft.Lauderdale. I was offered fast-track peer-review =
<BR>for=20
its submission to the U-K J. Low Freq. Sound & =
Vibration.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> So, I haven't =
joined any of=20
the various camps, because this noise problem<BR>tells me that they are =
all=20
wrong. NONE OF THE ABOVE! And no one has <BR>substantially rebutted any =
of my=20
arguments; they just listen and tell me they <BR>will think about it. If =
I can=20
get a thousand scientists/engineers to think about<BR>it - to no avail - =
that=20
should mean something.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>GB> I'm not familiar with the =
physics of=20
sound generation, so I'd be interested <BR>GB> in seeing learning =
more about=20
how you reached your conclusions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> The explosion =
overpressure=20
versus distance function and yield scaling laws are<BR>detailed in =
"The=20
Effects of Nuclear Weapons," AEC & DOD, GPO, 1977. Also,=20
see<BR>Standard ANSI S2.20-1983 (last reaffirmed, 1993), or numerous =
books on=20
explosion<BR>effects. And visit my web site and read the attachment=20
herewith.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>GB> The specific hypothesis is =
that there was=20
a fuel vapor air deflagration in <BR>GB> the tank, causing a rapid =
increase=20
in pressure until the tank ruptured; once<BR>GB> the tank ruptured, =
the=20
energy release would have been concentrated in the <BR>GB> direction =
of the=20
rupture would it not? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> Asymmetries would =
likely be=20
washed out by long distance propagation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>GB> Also, note that several =
thousand cubic=20
feet of fuel vapor still represents a<BR>GB> pretty fair amount of=20
energy...but intuitively, I suspect that a rupture of<BR>GB> a large =
aluminum=20
tank at 1-2 atmosphere of overpressure would generate a <BR>GB> =
pretty loud=20
bang.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> Not even in =
comparison to 60=20
lb TNT, addressed previously.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> George Donaldson =
wrote on=20
12/22/99</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>GD> Would you prefer to write =
about cargo=20
doors and methane gas burps?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> I answered: I =
would indeed,=20
Ho, Ho, Ho. So what else is left than methane burps <BR>to make the =
blasts heard=20
along 25 miles of Long Island shoreline? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> Stan Clark wrote =
on=20
12/22/99::</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>SC> Would an inert SM-2 from the =
warship 2.9=20
miles away satisfy your sound <BR>SC> requirements - or should I =
abandon my=20
sillyassed theory?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> I'm not familiar =
with launch=20
noise from an SM-2 but I'm pretty sure it isn't<BR>in a class with 1-ton =
TNT. If=20
your 2.9 miles is from East Moriches, distance<BR>to extremes of =
ear-witness=20
reports would be about 10 and 15 miles, where<BR>overpressures would be =
down by=20
factors of 3 and 5, respectively. There wasn't<BR>that much spread, in =
my=20
opinion, in noise perception reports.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> From my review of =
old=20
messages, I found that your 2.9 miles was NW from the IE<BR>at the =
alleged boat=20
blip on a radar. That position change would not much affect<BR>my =
previous=20
argument. Any noise from a near-surface source, however, would =
be<BR>refracted=20
upward away from ground by the weather conditions, except for a<BR>very =
shallow=20
inversion sound duct along the water. At miles distances, =
airblast<BR>would be=20
greatly attenuated by comparison to the blast from an elevated =
source<BR>near=20
the IE.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>SC> Is the "no =
whistle-blowers=20
present" your theory? Stan</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> Do we have =
whistle-blowers=20
from the postulated ships or fleets carrying big<BR>missiles? Maybe I'm =
not=20
monitoring the right news groups. In October 1996,<BR>I talked with a =
woman here=20
at ABQ's Int'l Balloon Fiesta, who said her brother<BR>was on one of =
those Navy=20
ships in the first recovery operations. When they got<BR>back to port, =
the crew=20
was dispersed to the winds, he to Korea, with <BR>instructions to keep =
quiet. I=20
never bought that story but have watched and<BR>waited for other similar =
allegations. With my USAF bias that their morale is<BR>the best, I doubt =
that=20
even 300 airmen wouldn't contain at least one or=20
two<BR>malcontents.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> George Donaldson =
wrote on=20
12/22/99:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>GD> ... we have to also assume =
that the=20
indications in engines 2, 3 and 4 maxed <BR>GD> out the upper limits =
of their=20
ranges. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> TWA told me that =
if an EPR=20
exceeded 1.99 a two would be entered in the units<BR>place, but we =
didn't=20
discuss the fate of the decimal digits. At that rate a 2.40<BR>would be =
recorded=20
correctly as 2.40, and a 3.40 would also be recorded as 2.40.<BR>We need =
to get=20
that FDR tape datastream translated. My hang-up is that if EPRs<BR>from =
#2, #3,=20
& #4 were almost equally recorded off scale, this could not =
have<BR>happened=20
from a) a previous flight, b) a spurious bit in the stream, or c) =
a<BR>shift in=20
the beginning reference. Try it with any sequence of zeroes and=20
ones.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>GD> The EPR of #1 engine reduced =
indicating a=20
reverse motion of that engine.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> I took an =
algebraic approach,=20
assuming an explosion DP overpressure in an<BR>ambient pressure P, =
R=3DEPR, and=20
that at 11 sec (before), Rb =3D Pb2/Pb1 =3D 1.30,<BR>where 1 and 2 are =
front input=20
and rear output, respectively. At 12 sec (after)<BR>for #2-#4 Ra =3D =
Pa2/Pa1 =3D=20
2.42 =3D (Pb2+DP)/(Pb1+DP), resulting in DP =3D -0.79 Pb1.<BR>At #1, =
however, Ra =3D=20
1.14, so that DP =3D 1.14 Pb1. This may be interpreted as<BR>a shock =
positive=20
phase at #1 and a negative phase enveloping #2, #3, and #4.<BR>There are =
obvious=20
problems with this simplistic approach, but until we get<BR>the actual =
encoding=20
algorithms and the taped bitstream it gives me a start.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> Michael Donovan =
wrote on=20
12/22/99:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>MD> I was making points about =
objects that=20
fly in the sky that are not<BR>MD>properly identified. They are =
listed as=20
'unidentified'. And, being in the<BR>MD>air, they are listed as =
'flying'. And=20
being not known as to the specific<BR>MD>thing, they are listed as=20
'objects'.<BR>MD>These are the specific relevance I was trying to put =
forth=20
in relation to<BR>MD>flight 800:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> You have defined =
a class of=20
phenomena that was bothering my colleague, Dick<BR>Spalding, Sandia =
satellite=20
detection systems specialist, for years before<BR>the TWA Flight 800 =
accident.=20
They have seen many flashes that could not be<BR>attributed to known =
explosions,=20
meteorites, missiles, lightning, or suspected<BR>nuclear tests. Such =
mystery=20
flashes, sometimes accompanied by booms or bangs, <BR>were reported in =
New=20
England by the Pilgrim Fathers and from every continent <BR>right up to =
present=20
days. Search continues for their cause, with international <BR>support =
even from=20
Russia. The methane burp hypothesis was being studied since <BR>before =
1994,=20
mostly by the Russian Academy of Sciences (with U.S. DOE funds to =
<BR>save=20
starving Russian scientists). Their reports cover methane deposits,=20
<BR>structures, burp clouds and jets, bubble rise dynamics, cloud =
diffusion,=20
<BR>detonability, etc, etc, etc. My opinion, from these as well as =
recent=20
(1999)<BR>reports in Science magazine and American Geophysical Union EOS =
news,=20
is that<BR>a methane burp could be a POSSIBLE explanation for the demise =
of TWA=20
Flight 800.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> Following this =
lead will be a=20
long and costly process of purely scientific<BR>exploration. There is, =
however,=20
general reluctance and opposition from combined<BR>geological and =
geophysical=20
communities (conspiracy?), dating back to the energy <BR>crisis era =
(1970's),=20
when speculations were aired that all "fossile fuels" =
were<BR>actually=20
results of methane emanations up from the planet core, where it =
was<BR>deposited=20
during Earth's formation. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> That said, I'll =
await=20
responses and dribble out more specifics as need arises.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> Keith Willshaw =
wrote on=20
12.20/99:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>KW> Really Jack<BR>KW> Perhaps =
you' like=20
to enlighten us as to how a ton of TNT came to be aboard <BR>KW> =
TWA800.=20
...<BR>KW> and is a bit big to be carried on as hand luggage don't =
you think=20
?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> That was exactly =
my problem=20
when I first heard the blast noise report on<BR>7/20/96, when they were=20
searching for carry-on and checked baggage that was<BR>suspect. They =
hadn't yet=20
found the four cargo containers that had not been <BR>subject to =
security=20
checks, and which could have held the ton. But later<BR>those were found =
and=20
they had not held the explosives, so the source was again <BR>an open =
question.=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>KW> Its 10 times the amount of =
explosive=20
carried by any missile</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> My understanding =
is that a=20
large, Scud-class missile could carry a big enough <BR>payload, but that =
raises=20
the size of the launch platform and the problem <BR>with its=20
concealment.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> In my defense, =
George=20
Bizzicotti also wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>GB> I'm not certain that I agree =
entirely=20
with Mr. Reed, however. Whether<BR>GB> or not one can hear a sound =
depends on=20
more than just the magnitude of<BR>GB> pressure generated. The =
configuration=20
of potential reflectors of sound<BR>GB> has a marked effect, =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> I looked around =
East Moriches=20
for reflectors that could have caused those<BR>multiple bangs; there =
were none.=20
I checked the weather radiosonde report<BR>for atmospheric refractions =
and=20
multi-paths; they didn't happen.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>GB> Weather affects sound =
transmission=20
...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> Amen. And that =
has been my=20
occupation since 1951, described in my=20
webpages<BR>http:/www.nmia.com/~jwreed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>GB> I live several miles to the =
side of a=20
major airport runway; on cloudy days <BR>GB> I can hear the =
characteristic=20
sound of aircraft using reverse thrust when <BR>GB> landing, but if =
the=20
ceiling is high enough or it's clear, I can't hear them.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> And that is =
repeated by=20
world-wide folklore. Cloud droplets, fractions to <BR>microns in =
diameter can't=20
reflect much sound energy with 300 cm wavelengths<BR>(1 kHz). Air =
temperature=20
and wind combine to cause atmospheric acoustic<BR>refraction which =
changes=20
propagations. Thus, in many places with occasional <BR>noticeable sound=20
patterns, they may correlate with cloudiness but their cause <BR>is =
transparent=20
to the eye and visible only to upper air weather sensors.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>GB> Whether or not anisotropic =
sound=20
radiation could account for the reported<BR>GB> observations I do not =
know.=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> Ear-witness =
reports I have=20
extend from west through north to northeast with<BR>no clear directional =
variations. Also, the fact that my info only extends to<BR>about 15 =
miles may be=20
as far away as the FBI looked for noise statements, or<BR>it may confirm =
my=20
atmospheric refraction calculations which showed that <BR>direct =
raypaths only=20
reached ground out to that distance before curving up <BR>into=20
space.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> Gord Beaman wrote =
on=20
12/22/99:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>GB2> I've experienced this =
phenomena as well.=20
And, like you, I only hear it on <BR>GB2> cloudy days.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> See my previous =
response. I=20
too live close to ABQ, one mile north of the<BR>E-W runway centerline, =
and can=20
reasonably guess upper winds from the sounds<BR>of jet =
run-ups.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> Craig Shields=20
wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>>Same with Meigs Field and racing =
sailboats=20
on Lake Michigan. You *really* <BR>>notice the sound thing (even =
people=20
talking) when you're on a quiet boat.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> Take a hot-air =
balloon ride=20
at the annual ABQ Int'l Balloon Fiesta. At hundreds<BR>of feet aloft, =
you will=20
hear people speaking, particularly barking dogs, on the <BR>ground. =
There is=20
none of the atmospheric refraction that distorts horizontal =
<BR>propagation=20
along and near the ground.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> John Mazor wrote =
on=20
12/22/99:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>JM> So you think that the =
anomalous values in=20
the last frame of the FDR<BR>JM> tape reflect reality?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> I don't KNOW. If =
it indeed=20
was left over from a previous flight that was<BR>as very rough ride. If =
there=20
was a reference shift error in that NTSB <BR>translation then how did =
the=20
altitude group come up with the correct value for a<BR>a terminated =
(zeroed)=20
altitude sensor? If everything was scrambled by one <BR>or more bits =
randomly=20
added or subtracted by the recorder stop or the IE <BR>disturbance, then =
how=20
come the #2, #3, and #4 EPRs were so nearly uniformly<BR>distracted =
while most=20
everything else came up wildly changed? Someone, <BR>prefereably TWA =
engineers=20
who programed the recorder, should be allowed<BR>access to the original =
(or=20
exact copy) bitstream to explain these questions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> I hope I have =
answered all=20
these questions and comments, so I can now<BR>spend the rest of this =
Christmas=20
Day with the gloom of a drizzle that<BR>is barely warm enough not to be =
snow. A=20
rare day for ABQ. But skiers<BR>should be happy since there has been a =
pretty=20
good snowfall in the<BR>mountains. And I'll get this posted on Monday =
from my=20
office. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> Happy New Year - =
only one=20
more year before starting a new and, hopefully,<BR>brighter millenium. =
Straight=20
Ahead, Jack<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BF506F.7416B3A0--