It makes a circular path at X number of revolutions per minute and is capable of measuring angle and distance which shows up as a plotted object on a screen. If something moves from point A to point B during a measurable time frame than speed can be calculated.
that’s not entirely true. If little bits of shit are closely grouped together and moving in the same direction then it is seen as 1 large turd.
IANARadar expert, but it seems to me that if reflective object X is at point A on the first pass, then when the radar beam comes around again, it would be critically important to know if the reflective object at point B is the same object or not, or the speed calculated would be useless. AFAIK, no radar does that, so it’s open to human interpretation, i.e., wild guesses.
It’s open to the radar’s interpretation, absolutely. Radar couldn’t function without some type of electronic interpretation of reflected data.But if you have a reflection that consistently moves than either something appeared out of thin air in the exact same location or its a moving object.
I’m not jumping on any bandwagon here but I would like to see any requested data released under the FOIA.
Yes, that would be the “plume” jetblast describes. But the “plume” shown on Woo sites is the debris field found when the bits of shit were gathered from the ocean. I haven’t found a site where the actual pings reside, but aerodynamical “barn doors” travelling at high speed at fairly high altitude suddenly being subject to the vagaries of a sidewind argues strongly against any chance that their starting velocity can be calculated.
But bits of debris are not going to be traveling at Mach 4 for the time it takes the radar to sweep back around (four or five seconds?). Little bits of debris, in air, will slow down very quickly. That’s why I was wondering how that figure was calculated, because surely that can’t be it.
That’s the million dollar question isn’t it? Can parts of a plane shotgunned from a blast maintain a high rate of speed for the duration of a radar sweep? I couldn’t begin to guess. You hear about stuff blown a mile away from a blast site but what kind of energy is required and how fast would it travel?
Hey all,
Goodness, I thought this thread had disappeared. I generally stick to GQ and the Cafe areas of the board, but I popped in tonight.
To answer Boyo Jim: What initially got me thinking about TWA800 was a re-run of one of the Discovery-type shows that basically presented the NTSB and FBI findings. I’ve seen a bunch of shows like that–one that sticks out in my head was a recreation of the Oklahoma City bomb and how utterly massive that thing was–but this one just rubbed me the wrong way, I guess. All of it seemed plausible to me save the zoom climb. So I started looking into that as best I could, and I came to the Dope because there’s a LOT of smart people here with expertise in varied areas. The rest of the conspiracy stuff was what I encountered along the way.
After my last post in this thread, I read through all the witness documents provided by the NTSB and FBI on the NTSB’s official TWA800 website, and compared the black-and-white statements to the figures included in the NTSB summary and there is, indeed, discrepancy. The summary seriously downplays the number of “streak” accounts–many of which originated at the surface/horizon/ocean. This particular point can’t be debunked–it’s all there, in the PDF files from the NTSB’s own server.
However, I also understand that eyewitness testimony can be, well, a bunch of bull.
The bottom line is that the more I read (from the NTSB website) the more questions I had–for instance, one of the reports says that there was indeed visual satellite coverage of the explosion, but that data hasn’t ever been released or, to my knowledge, acknowledged by a verbal statement.
All of which could be completely meaningless. There could be legitimate national security issues there, though I wonder if it would truly weaken us if we released the capabilities of our eyes in the sky circa 1996. It could, though.
At any rate, I got caught up with grading essays–endless essays–and eventually deleted the PDFs from my computer. The conclusion I came to is that unless and until some smoking gun is released, I have to believe the official version of events–even that damned crazy-sounding zoom climb. The Navy missile theory simply can’t overcome what you guys were discussing upthread–there’s no way to hide a SAM launch on a ship, and so far nobody’s talking. As disliked as Clinton was by many members of the military (per “Black Hawk Down” anyway) I feel like somebody would have come forward–if only to somehow smear President Clinton.
Maybe one day the satellite imagery (if it exists) will be released. Maybe some fisherman will pull up his net and find the pump from the CWT with the ‘magic bullet’ deformity. Until then, the experts probably got it right–even if it seems hinky to outsiders.
At any rate, y’all feel free to continue discussing. I’ve figured out that I was out of my league.
Best,
Blake
Oh, you’re THAT Blake. I can’t imagine the other one admitting he’s out of his league, especially while arguing with me. ( 
for you both, for different reasons. 
)
ETA: You’re the NICE Blake. The other one? We generally agree, though we have had our differences.
The front of an aircraft is blown off. It’s center of gravity (CG) suddenly shifts rearwards, though only for a few seconds while the disintegrating aircraft tries to find its new level. Meanwhile, the engines that are powering it, though until they shut down, keep pushing it forward and upward, not caring that the aircraft’s new attitude is close to vertical. Maybe the software driving them tells them to shut down because the attitude is too steep, or there is a simple fuel starvation. Either way, the “zoom climb” ends after just a few seconds.
I’m embarassed to say that this is basic physics, the stuff I understand.
To exrapolate more simply isn’t in the numbers.
In an explosion, there are a lot of objects moving in many directions at different and rapidly changing velocities. It would be a big jump to assume that a blip in one image represents the same object as a blip in another just because you think it’s moving at mach whatever. You need continuous imaging to be sure; everything else is just guesswork, and insufficient proof of unusual speeds if that’s all you’ve got.
To properly analyze the radar data one has to involve all surrounding factors. Since the government is saying an explosion of the center wing tank caused the ejecta caught on radar we then have to trace its behavior to that cause. Since ATC radar caught a plume of ejecta shooting out the starboard side of Flight 800 out to a half mile we have to relate this event to a center fuel tank explosion. Since the center tank is encased in the wing box surrounded by a large wing connection to the fuselage on either side we have to ask ourselves what exactly caused a center tank to blast ejecta outward half a mile in one direction? The only possible explanation for that kind blast would be the tank explosion channeling out a narrow opening that caused the force to be directed to the starboard side. This event would be directly under the control of the physical limitations of the possible forces involved. The energy of the blast, strength of the airframe materials, and study of the wreckage, are all determinable. So having a reasonable understanding of what's involved for such an ejecting plume we can go to the wreckage itself and look for evidence of this blast.
Google 'Images' - TWA 800 Wreckage
This link shows the area to the right of the center wing tank was encased by a large wing joint. If the center tank explosion was the initiating cause it would require that this plume of ejecta blasted out the wing to its right or the fuselage section directly above it. Offhand I would say the resistive strength of a lengthwise wing section would not be conducive to any outward blast. Plus I'm not even sure if science would show us that a unidirectional blast is even possible with a center tank explosion. If you go to the Google image the starboard wreckage does not show any visible blow-out in the fuselage directly above the tank. The wing is gone, but even CIA/NTSB doesn't claim the wing was blasted off by the CWT explosion. And I believe NTSB records the separation of the right wing as the second main plume caught by radar which happened *after* the first ejecta plume.
As far as claiming you need to know the speed of individual pieces of debris, I don't think that is true because simple logic tells you that ATC radar caught pieces reaching out to a half mile. This is the relevant indicator because we know, according to the official story, that the pieces ejected are limited to parts of the 747. So the controlling science here is that some pieces of the 747 reached out to a half mile from a center tank blast in the given time recorded by radar. We can exclude light/low density/large surface area items (unless they got 'winged' out there like a frisbee). The determining science here reads: Strength of blast; known behavior of 747 parts when subjected to such a blast; conformity of recorded plume to such events. But the single most important factor is what would it take to get *some* of the pieces of the plume to shoot a half mile out from the plane? The rate of speed of these furthest-most pieces is what is relevant because we know they had to travel the distance between the 747 and where they ended up a half mile out. If you try to claim they were not identifiable as pieces from the plane then you are only helping establish NTSB's lack of accounting for them.
I assume the plume is happening in a downward parabolic arc that extended out to a half mile from the side of Flight 800. The question is then, what forces are involved to get pieces of a 747 to shoot out a half mile in the time indicated and is a 300 foot per second fuel explosion capable of doing that? If anyone needs interpreting here, what 'Dropzone' is saying is the "zoom-climb", that is, the event the official story depends on to explain what the witnesses saw, isn't plausible according to science.
Because of our silent media, I'm sure most Americans are not aware that retired United 747 Captain Ray Lahr sued CIA over its 'zoom-climb' data. So far nothing has come from the fact that Lahr has basically proven the CIA version of events is impossible. 'Dropzone' is also saying this, even if he fails to elaborate on its significance towards the government's claim. Before Lahr became a 747 pilot he was an aviation engineering graduate. So if you research his case you'll find all the 'foot pound', 'drag coefficient' boring science spelled out for you if you are seriously interested in the precise science you demand.
When a 747 loses its nose section its remaining section jacks up immediately and stalls. It would then do a classic roll over and dive. This was witnessed by the National Guard helicopter pilot who said after the blast it "dropped like a rock". This is hardly the description of a 3000 foot climb. I doubt the flight computers would have any involvement seeing how the wires leading to the cockpit controls were all severed.
Side note: I forgot to add in my other post that we know the center tank blast didn't blast out through the right wing because that would have caused an immediate waterfall of burning fuel. According to CIA, this fiery waterfall of burning fuel happened well after the witnesses mistook the noseless plane climbing as a streaking missile. If you prove the plane could not have climbed, then you prove the government official story to be incorrect.If by “jack up” you mean “start to swing to a new attitude while continuing its forward motion” then yeah, you have pretty much described what occurred. Nothing happens instantly and a jetliner can cover quite a bit of ground before stalling.
Yes it is.
The 300fps number you keep using is irrelevant. The fuel may burn at 300fps, but the speed of the debris is dependent on the pressure the tank reached before it ruptured. You could blow up the tank using compressed air if you wanted to. No explosives needed.
Smokeless gunpowder is a low explosive yet it can propell a bullet to thousands of feet per second.
The problem here, is the explosive energy of the vaporized fuel at the time of the explosion. At ground level you wouldn’t get much of an explosion from the heated fuel but at altitude there would have been a higher vaporization level (fuel boils at a lower temperature at lower air pressures). Since the tanks are vented I’ve always wondered how much of the vaporized fuel escaped via the vents while in flight.
While I appreciate your technical guidance, realize this is all happening while aviation engineering grad Captain Ray Lahr has already detailed all scientific details of this in his case against CIA. If you are interested in the exact specifics of a nose-less 747's behavior you can simply reference his data.
Again, the National Guard helicopter pilot who was there and looking at it when it happened (Why involve his eyewitness account? Instead we'll use people who weren't there to speculate what happened) specifically said "it dropped like a rock" immediately after the explosion.
Nothing about this on our media.
I believe you are contradicting what you yourself wrote above that this would be a few seconds at most. And I think you are conflating what a normally aerodynamically configured jetliner would do with one that is fatally aerodynamically compromised. (As Lahr proves). I see the ignoring of all the other points I made in order to focus on one single technical possibility as a concession of the points. Yes, a fuel tank vapor explosion could cause a tightly-channeled explosion like a bullet shooting down a rifle barrel in order to create high speed ejecta, but you have to return to the actual scientific parameters involved in the explosion and the aircraft's structure to prove it. Forensic evidence is a double-edged sword. I myself see cases being made for mach 4 energy from a center fuel tank explosion as getting an elephant to hang over a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy. Yes, of course gunpowder propels a bullet at high velocity, but we know the physical properties used to induce such a thing. The center fuel tank, however, has to have such provable properties in order to produce such an event. As I said before, it is encased in the wing box and by the wings, so you are losing your rifle barrel with any objective analysis of the aircraft's structure, as well as the wreckage. The more you try to create a mach 4 starboard explosion from the center tank the less you are able to explain the right wing not having its fuel tank blown-up and creating an immediate fireball that then negates the CIA version. In short, any mach 4 directed blast from a center tank would show a forensic pattern for that. And let's note that not only is NTSB on record as having ignored this ejecta plume, but has also failed to show any forensic account for its starboard motion.
But Stalcup goes beyond that and shows the shape of the ejecta plume and its behavior compared to known scientific formulas and plugs them into a computer model. So your mach 4 contained explosion has to conform to the known scientific properties of the aircraft and explosions themselves. The sword cuts both ways and you have to show how a fuel tank explosion just so happened to 'shape' out the starboard side at mach 4? (A shape that just so happens to coincidentally conform to the ejecta direction of an object witnessed by hundreds as shooting towards the plane from that direction). Plus the temperature NTSB gives for Kennedy that evening was 72*. At around 13,800 feet, if we subtract the standard 3 degrees for every thousand feet, the outside temperature was around 32-34 degrees or so. That's pretty cold. I'd imagine its cooling/condensing affect on the tank can't be dismissed.
I don't trust the test that showed the tank to be at 60c when they tried it with another 747. I suspect the fuel directly over the air conditioning units might have been 60c but the vapor characteristics in the ullage had changed because of the outside temperature.No, it is not convincing at all, I have seen that radar can be misinterpreted in many ways, the deal breaker for accepting his analysis is that the closest witnesses did not report a missile coming up to the plane, and investigators did not find any pattern of a break up that matched a missile attack.
But that once again shows how I lose any confidence on your capacity of weighting evidence, because then we should add all the people that tested and reported the heat problems of the center tanks of the 747s to “the conspiracy”.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_46_13/ai_57598947/