No apology needed, GIGObuster. I take my tiny measures of notoriety wherever I can find them.
Yes, it is clear from **Jetblast’s **reliance on the single source/cite for all his information that his assertions are not reliable.
Three way split on the glider?
Yeah, but then you have to explain what a monocoque structure is and then some people ask, “If it was held together by stressing the skin, then what’s with the ribs, spars, longerons, and bulkheads?” and then you have define a semi-monocoque structure and then toss THOSE knowitalls from the discussion and go back to those who are left and say, “It’s uni-body, like your car,” and then there’s always someone who says, “My pick-'em-up truck has body on frame,” and maybe someone who says, “All the stresses on my 1929 Blower Bentley are carried by the frame, as the body is doped fabric on an ashwood frame, like a Sopwith Camel,” and you have to toss Larry the Cable Guy and John Steed from the group and go back to the rest and say, “Have you ever been driving on the interstate when the hood of a car near you pops open, the wind swings it back so it crushes the windshield, kills the driver, and the car crashes?” and you say, “It was something like that,” and watch them nod in recognition, even though it wasn’t exactly like that and they really don’t get it.
Why yes, I do fancy myself something of a technical writer. Why do you ask? 
Hey, I’ve actually done the hood opening on the highway thing. I had a shaker hood scoop so I was able to look through the hole and drive.
I would still like to know what a 20 psi diesel explosion is in relation to dynamite, or spud gun newtons. Something.
And what is stopping you? I had a job where the VP of sales was convinced his spud gun could hit the town’s water tower, several-hundred yards away. We wasted untold minutes of company time testing brands of hairspray, even after one of our engineers designed the perfect firing chamber and barrel. FTR, the cheapest hairspray, highest in methy alcohol, won, though his gun never succeeded in splatting a spud on the tank.
Mac, this is a topic on which we can both agree, but on which neither of us knows enough. While I am unemployed and have a large park across the street, when you get down too it I prefer to not have a record as an adult so I tend to accept the math of others. This leaves you to handle the heavy lifting.
“Shaker hood?” A Mustang of some sort?
(post deleted because nobody want to hear, AGAIN, the saga of dropmom’s Mustang, since nothing comes of it.)
Just keeping score here …
The conspiracy members are the FAA, the NTSB, the CIA, the FBI, the US Navy, Boeing, Caltech, the U. of Wisconsin, and Al Qaeda. Remarkably, every single person in all of those groups has kept mum for all these years, too.
Did I leave anyone out? Maybe the Cubans and the Mafia? How about the Illuminati, the Freemasons, and the Hare Club for Men?
You forgot all of us here at the SDMB
ETA: Fnord
It was a 1976 Rustang with a built-up 302 so it didn’t count as destroying a good car. It was fun to drive since it only weighed 2800 lbs. And I’m also doing the unemployed thing. I have a turbocoupe sitting in my garage in a pile of parts. It was suppose to be a turbocharged 5.0L with a 6 speed tranny.
You can often tell a genuine argument by its form. A genuine argument tends to respond to the established facts and points being made. A less than genuine argument tends to seek the first and cheapest cracks in order to attempt to defeat the still-remaining reasonable points that then go unanswered. I also think people can see persons who pose an unfamiliar level of knowledge when answering those points but then suddenly show a very precise level of knowledge when seeking the cracks.
We are focusing on radar data, but the truth is the black boxes were found in relatively shallow water of around 200 feet or so. They were not found for many days, or over week, if we research. The problem with this is the pingers were good and working when they were found. I doubt the pingers stopped working but then started again later on allowing them to be located. Let's put it directly, the black boxes were probably removed, altered, and then suddenly 'found' even though there was no reasonable excuse why they weren't found right away. We can look at an analysis of the data contained in those boxes and see expert analysis shows the final 4 seconds were removed.
Part of the reason those seconds were removed is because CVR tape is capable of imprinting blast shock detectable by oscilloscope.
Given that we know the tanks exploded, and that the force was calculated at (a minumum of) 20 psi which equates to 489,600 lbs of force in the center tank (17ft x10ft x 144 in/ft x 20 psi) there is a considerable amount force exerted inside the lower deck.
What would you expect to see in the way of imprinted blast shock beyond the above measured explosion and the immediate departure of 50,000 lbs of superstructure in a 400 knot wind? it would be like a giant balloon popping.
Some of us are trying to, but you refuse to supply it.
Ever dived at 200 feet yourself?
Are you going to refuse to supply any links about that, either?
Brumley is the Naval officer witness to the streaking object going left to right. He has nothing to do with the St Louis bomb test. We could look further into the bomb test agent and his statements to show it is unlikely he spilled such an amount of residue to create the numerous positive hits the investigation found on the outside of the plane. But since you show you can't give a credible answer to this point without exposing your confusion of basic issues I'm satisfied that most honest viewers will see this as the obfuscation it is.
I think most smart people will immediately detect a vast difference in your confusion over the bomb test in St Louis and your otherwise extensive references to links etc regarding the crash. The fact is the bomb test point stands unanswered. There is no excuse for a 747 being empty a half-hour before the flight. Most intelligent people know the more someone uses name-calling and lengthy links to make a point that then completely fails to answer the original question, the more they are trying to avoid something. Again, I think that bolsters my case.
This answer is bizarre and says nothing that answers anything I wrote. Anyone with any working knowledge of the case knows multiple positive hits were found by the cutting edge detection devices used on Flight 800's wreckage. They were found on the wings and outside of the body. Plus, I contend the rocket propellant PETN found in the reddish residue is what it tested positive for in the lab. Funny how you suggest an independent lab made such a profound mistake and mistook airline seat glue for rocket propellant. They must have been part of the bizarre conspiracy theorist mass psychological phenomenon Flight 800 created.
We could look into this separately. Again, upon seeing his name mentioned by FBI as having determined the reddish residue was seat glue, the NASA scientist wrote a letter protesting he did no such test. Again, your answer seems to create bizarre confusion over a simple matter and conspicuously avoids the basic point.
If read correctly this is a completely unscientific, offhand reference to matters that are more directly provable.
If you read the last part correctly it is a non-denial denial by a lab worker who doesn't want to be punished for telling the truth of the rocket propellant residue they found on the seat fabric samples. I've seen a chemical comparison of 3M seat glue with rocket propellant, they're nowhere close in composition. There's no reasonable way one could be mistaken for the other in any credible laboratory test.
Ask 'GiGo' why we couldn't simply take the same samples and re-test them in an independent credible lab?
Watch his answer folks...
I’m not making this point, you are showing confusion again. And once again you are not citing what Brumley said.
:rolleyes:
It bolsters the case that you are ignoring the quantity of fuel needed for the trip or that you are ignoring the fuel tanks of the wings, there was no need to fill up the central tank. As you had a chance to see how wrong you are we can safely dismiss you.
Yet another bit were you do not produce a cite, it is dismissed as just your say so as I read enough evidence showing the conspiracy theorist are wrong or mistaken on the conclusions.
You have to produce the cite here also, AFAINK the NASA test is a red herring, that is, the conspiracy theorists are making a big deal of a test that was not performed by NASA when other lab had done the test.
Once again just “because I say so” does not cut it.
If you want to, go ahead, but I have the feeling no one else will fund it as they will also see the evidence and tell the ones trying to set that up to take a hike.
And I will wait for your non answer with no cites as usual.
Discount by hand-wave all cites from others, give not a single one of your own.
The irony - it burns!!
National Geographic. And that Brumley guy.
Like you’re avoiding the radar data we’ve been repeatedly asking for?
Look, if you want to concede that you have no radar evidence, I’m willing to move on to something else, but I need you to be explicit. Are you conceding that you have no data that shows there was debris a half-mile from the flight path, eight seconds after the explosion?
Speaking of burning :), here are some numbers on the fuel:
Very tellingly, the cite that JetBlast missed on purpose was the one regarding the tank sizes and locations:
http://faalessons.workforceconnect.org/l2/TWA/des/
A 747 consumes about 5 gallons of jet fuel per mile flown
http://thetravelinsider.info/2003/0411.htm
From new New York to Paris there are 3628 miles.
There are:
16660 gallons in the small wing tanks + the big wing tanks
18140 gallons are needed for the trip, meaning that:
1480 gallons were only needed for the central tank. (slightly more to keep a safety margin to deal with delays)
I think even **less **was needed because the flight was not filled to capacity and I’m not including the reserve tanks, add to that that the plane had the wind on his side and therefore there were even more reasons why the central tank was not filled to capacity.
On edit: reading Jetblast’s previous reply it is clear that he still thinks we are saying that the whole plane had very little fuel. It seems that he has a problem with the concept that wings have also fuel tanks.
Actually you are abut 18,000 gallons light in fuel capacity for a B747. According to Boeing the fuel capacity for a 747-100 is 48,445 gallons. Boeing lists the max range for a 747-100 as 6100 miles. JFK to CDG is a bit over 1/2 that, but the plane was not fully loaded, so figure a little less than a 1/2 load of fuel was necessary and would include the mandatory fuel reserve. Since the CWT is less than 13,000 gallons it was not needed for this trip. Oh hell let’s be generous and say that 25,000 gallons was needed for the trip. 48,445 less an empty CWT of 13,000 gallons leaves 35,445 in fuel capacity.
That means with the CWT empty, there is still an excess capacity of roughly 10,000 gallons in the system.
or if you prefer think it this way. I have a pickup truck with 2 fuel tanks. Total fuel capacity is 45 gallons. My truck gets 10 MPG. That give me a range of 450 miles. If I am going to Santa Barbara and back (not quite 200 mile round trip does anyone find it surprising that I didn’t stop and fill both tanks up first?
OMFG, I think you’re right.
Jetblast, care to come back and defend your posts?
Something tells me that his response will involve several handwaves, without links, toward irrelevant online posts.
Like many others, I still await the most telling radar returns. Or ANY returns that support his position. Despite MANY requests that he put up or shut up, all he has shown are not radar returns but where stuff was recovered, after being blown by the prevailing winds and falling 15,000 feet. He has provided no support WHATSOEVER for his Mach 4 claims and has shown no likelihood that he can. He, I fear, is turning into an unintentional troll, full of arrogant, incendiary bluster, but unable to back it up when faced with an intelligent, learned, and not easily buffaloed opposition.
I was following also the most recent report by CNN that mentions also that the central tank had a capacity of 13000 gallons (rounding up here).
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/28/siu.02.html
Was the TWA 800 747 a model so old that some official fuel capacities were not applicable on that plane?
However, I would be glad to be wrong regarding the fuel capacity, your numbers actually make my case even better, the central tank was then definitely not filled for the final doomed flight.