Not at all. I am simply choosing to point out a flaw in the heart of your argument. I, for the record, do not believe there is evidence of mach 4 debris. I am only pointing out that even if there was, it doesn’t prove anything.
The key to your argument is that a 300fpt air/fuel explosion can not propel debris faster than 300fps. Therefore there must have been high explosives present.
I do not agree.
bolding mine
If you overpressurize a sealed container, it will burst. The method of pressurizing the container is not relevant. The speed of the debris from a burst container is a factor of the pressure in the container and the materials that make it up. It has absolutely nothing to do with how that pressure got there.
Imagine a dry ice bomb. If you put water and dry ice in a plastic soda bottle, it will burst. Is the speed of the bottle’s debris limited to the speed that the carbon dioxide gas forms? Of course not.
If you attach a football to an air compessor and fill it until it explodes, is the speed of the debris limited to the speed that the air is entering the football? Of course not. How a container becomes pressurized has nothing to do with how it bursts.
The air in the fuel tank would have started around 1atmosphere. When the fuel burned, the pressure in the tank would have increased rapidly until the tank burst.
The fact that the fuel/air mixture in the tank would have burned at 300fps has nothing to do with the way the tank burst when it became overpressurized.
I am not the one claiming that there is debris travelling at mach 4. You are. I don’t believe there was any mach 4 debris.
The official report has a very detailed timeline of the order that different structures failed. If you disagree with anything there, you are the one that needs to explain.
I just tried to get my copy of X-Plane (a flight simulator that uses blade element analysis to work out an aircraft ought to fly in real time, rather than a pre programmed flight model) to test what would happen if the front of a 747 were suddenly removed, but all I could work out how to do without actually redesigning the aircraft, something I’m not capable of, was remove all the flying surfaces (i.e. wings and rudder).
Nevertheless I took a quicktime video of it, which I can upload at Monday at work if anyone is interested. You can probably guess what happens when you do this suddenly at 12 000 feet…
Aerodynamically, what happens is the cabin quickly fills with air compressed by the forward motion, but because the air cannot exhaust out the back and reaches a point where the force cannot compress it more, the open front becomes virtually blunt. Not swoopy, and not really flat (it is actually convex) and I read about a jet fighter in the Korean War that lost its aerodynamic nosecone and could barely stay above its stall speed, but a 747 loaded to 90% of its maximum takeoff weight can maintain altitude at 27,000’ on two engines, and can still climb with two engines at lower altitudes, so I think it has a bit more headroom between what its four engines can provide and what it needs than a single-engined F9F Panther, so a bit more drag (but less weight :()and four functioning engines shouldn’t be a problem.
I see the official story backers continue to insist on taking my already-elaborated and conditioned responses back out into over-generalities in order to force a context we are already well past in the arguments. To me this argument style is one that seeks to avoid obvious evidence in order to force the debate back into the over-general in order to make one man’s offhand opinion as good as another’s. But the evidence clearly says otherwise. I think people not interested in forcing the official version will see that. They see these people demand a much stricter level of evidence that even they themselves don’t observe, or NTSB for that matter. They know this type of tactic does not negate the residue, bomb test, NASA scientist denial, real zoom-climb science, or other numerous sloppy NTSB flaws that they coincidentally don’t happen to answer or apply the same standard to. In my opinion, these circumstantial cases are “convincing” by default since official story backers universally refuse to answer them. It can be reasonably said that this lends their arguments a quality of disingenuousness from the first step.
We’ll keep this simple. I’ll ask these people to answer a simple question. Why do all center fuel tank explosion animation videos show a fire blast emerge out the bottom of the 747? We know from the ATC radar that a large plume of ejecta blasted out the starboard side from what can only be a center wing tank explosion according to the official story. So why, if the NTSB case is correct, did they choose to ignore controlling forensic evidence as captured by the radar? If CIA/NTSB were following accurate re-creation procedures why would they choose to depict something that the evidence clearly doesn’t show?
Lurkers: Watch the “well, that isn’t proof” people and their answer to this single simple question if you want to determine sincerity and value of input and opinion here.
When a 747's entire nose section severs from the aircraft it snaps the control wires to the cockpit causing the engines to go to idle. Aircraft engines are designed to be difficult to get to shut-off in flight for obvious reasons. When the cockpit command input is no longer present they revert to their failsafe design mode which is idle. You are making speculations above that conflict with known aircraft behavior. Second, you are outright ignoring aviation PhD Ray Lahr's already-available zoom-climb science in favor of your own internet aviation science speculation. Third, a few posts back I think you already admitted the CIA zoom-climb theory isn't possible. Fourth, CIA/NTSB have actually already backed off this themselves. So while official story backers demand solid evidence they do so from a mushy swampland of invalid theories themselves.
A few years ago a military jet broke up in flight. Its break-up was caught on video by another jet along side it. Its nose section broke off in a nearly identical way to Flight 800. Video shows it immediately flipped over and dropped like a rock. The official story backers will, of course, say a jet fighter isn't comparable to a 747, but I think you can generally weigh their material to this event.
At 400mph the "filling of the noseless cabin with air pressure" would be almost instantaneous.
I think we should be referring to Lahr from now on at this point.
Animations only show the most likely chain of events based on the breakup lines observed in the physical evidence.
No we don’t, that is still based on the interpretation of very few persons that are actively ignoring the limitations of radar and the contradictory physical evidence.
because it is not reliable or convincing.
You forget the FBI, they also arrived to the same conclusion even after they did go in with the erroneous assumption that foul play was involved.
Meh, lurkers can see that how “effective” you are in qualifying evidence that the center tank heat was an issue, that is, you only dismissed it for no good reason and lurkers can see that you then avoided dealing the posted reports from Boeing and others confirming the heat issue.
And how long do you reckon that takes? It ain’t instant.
And you understand that in some configurations engines powering down could cause a pitch up, right [take moments]? Especially in a plane that wasn’t in its original design any more…
I don’t have a horse in this race, but I would like to point out one small thing. I believe that the correct term for what happened in the CWT was not burning of the fuel, but rather a detonation. The fuel may have started out burning, but the increase in temperature and pressure in the tank caused it to detonate. While I didn’t see a cite, some of my training materials automobile engine controls cite gasoline as burning at about 300fps, but gasoline that detonates is about 10X as fast. Detonation can melt pistons and destroy automotive cylinder heads both of which are built way heavier than the CWT on a 747.
I did what you suggested upthread and did a Google image search. I find the alternative recreations muchmore believable. NOT!
Sigh, it really is taking longer than we thought.
You're free to your opinion, but I don't think you've shown anything to back it. I'll trust Dr Thomas Stalcup PhD, his scientific theories and computer models. I'll leave up to others to decide if they take 'RedSwingLineOne's' offhand opinion over his.
I believe I qualified that enough above to say that the explosive energy created by the limitations of a 300 foot per second fuel explosion limit the potential of it creating mach 4 ejecta. I think 'MaGiver' also hinted at this. Your argument depends on special compression and resistance forces within the known scientific restraints of a 747 and its structure. I don't believe you've shown anything that would create the funneling or resistive forces you suggest. But if I understand your argument you are saying that conditions *could* cause more than a 300fps explosion from jet fuel but you also don't believe mach 4 conditions existed (even though you don't present anything to show that). To answer your point there's a basic question that has to be asked, that is, could a 747 Center Wing Tank possess the characteristics that would cause an above 300fps explosion up to mach 4? The formula here is: force of fuel blast vs resistive strength of Center Wing Tank. Could a CWT cause enough pressure when jet fuel explodes inside it to create a mach 4 blast when it gives? This could easily be shown by science.
So if you want to counter my arguments please do so in the context and way they in which were made.
False. If Jet-A fuel was used to blast a tank it would have entirely different characteristics than if 2000fps high explosive was used to blast it. The resistive force of the tank and its reaction to varying types of explosions could easily be charted on a graph. It is obvious an air pressure blast would vary from a fuel blast as well as a high explosives blast. This digresses from the main points.
I think it's foolish to ignore how a 2000fps blast is different from a 300fps blast for obvious reasons. Can you see the difference?
I'm waiting for you to get to the part where you explain what features in the 747 caused a channeling of blast and materials out to the starboard side at mach 4? If you disagree that ejecta reached mach 4 you are doing so against Dr Stalcup's data and methods. NTSB also passed on explaining this directed blast.
Perhaps we should focus on what Stalcup says?
Another thing I'd like answered is how an explosion that appears to be focused in the opposite direction from Mike Wire's bridge managed to shake the bridge?
But one thing that should be noted is you've allowed yourself to ignore my forensic case for this mach 4 starboard blast. There's a basic question here of what the wreckage would look like if such a blast occurred. If we go to 'Google Images' of the wreckage we see that the Center Wing Tank is encased within the wing structure. To do any valid analysis one has to ask what kind of damage would a blast exiting a 747 at mach 4 do? We know the structural strength and properties of the aircraft. We also know what such channeled force would do if it acted on that structure and its materials. When we look at the wreckage photos there doesn't appear to be any spot in the CWT area where a mach 4 force created the blast damage the NTSB itself said needed to be present for any missile evidence. The sections are fairly large and fractured in pieces, the size of which, point against any mach 4 blast. The right wing is gone, but we know the right wing wasn't blasted off according to the official story.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://tc.engr.wisc.edu/uer/uer00/author2/images/crash_seq.jpg&imgrefurl=http://tc.engr.wisc.edu/uer/uer00/author2/content.html&usg=__LNNtJcQk4FC5HoXoUTvVk62Vr1Y=&h=596&w=672&sz=367&hl=en&start=5&tbnid=enP2fOoPRYsiiM:&tbnh=122&tbnw=138&prev=/images%3Fq%3DTWA%2B800%2BWreckage%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26ie%3DUTF-8
I think if you can get people to deny radar evidence caught on several different ATC radars you've pretty much won your case. It's obvious NTSB needs to question otherwise normal radar proof in order to make its theory work. There's no one here who entered anything to show why the debris caught on ATC radar *isn't* valid.
You commit the fatal violation of ignoring that the radar images match the debris field documented by NTSB itself. Since this establishes the veracity of the radar images you have no right to deny the validity of the starboard ejecta plume.
What you are really saying here is there is no physical evidence on the aircraft of any Center Wing Tank starboard ejecta plume and that's why CIA depicted it that way (and why they were forced to ignore the starboard plume in their investigation).
The direction of the blast was not sideways but going forward and most likely going also in a downward direction.
Funny, I actually found the main site where the image is posted before, I was getting ready to point out that the College of engineering at the University of Wisconsin took a look at the evidence and said that both the missile and bomb theories have no solid evidence.
Who said anything about the end location of the debris? I was mentioning that the speed does not match the physical evidence at the source of the explosion, the fact that the debris field in the radar matches the physical evidence does not mean at all that there were items going at mach 4. Air resistance can not be ignored and air resistance also explains why some pieces would linger around and fall at distances that would match the debris field. The debris can be made to match the alleged speed, but only by ignoring the physical evidence at the source and air resistance. I do not think that is reasonable.
It is not just me or the CIA who is saying it, as time goes by if evidence is strong it eventually does attract the attention of even more experts, in this case even more people like the National Geographic and Universities confirmed the original research and they have even added more evidence in favor of the middle tank exploding due to heat and an electrical malfunction.
My experience with conspiracy theorists is that their experts predictably fail to convince more experts in their field and as time goes by, they get even less respect.
And before we forget, lurkers have to notice that **Jetblast **still has not properly explained why he so casually disregarded the evidence that showed the heat in the center tanks of the 747 was an issue in light of the evidence presented.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but there’s a lot more energy involved in the explosion of a full fuel tank on an airliner than in the explosion of any bomb or missile that might realistically be used to bring down the plane. Why, then, is the former considered *less *likely to propel debris at very high speeds?
Jetblast, and I mean this in the kindest possible way, I have a feeling you just don’t understand Newtonian mechanics.
Might I suggest a quick course before you make yourself look rather silly? Well, probably a bit late, but perhaps you should consider the course anyway
About that debris that was measured on radar at Mach 4.
Here is the radar image about 1 second after the the explosion.
can somebody point out the debris from the airplane on this radar trace?
I’m not making a case for the Mach 4 image but your site shows images that have been altered. The lettering looks bloated and the contrast is backed way off. any small reflections would be wiped out the way it was saved.
Oh, sweet Jesus! Now they’re doctoring the radar? Okay, yeah, in order to pull off the BIGGEST conspiracy since JFK, yeah, they’d have to.
I am as big a fan of conspiracy theories as one can be without living in a padded cell (pre-Reagan) or in a box on the street (post-Reagan ), but it is people who dismiss EVERYTHING as a conspiracy that give the people who are suspicious but open to scientific evidence a bad name. The ATC system has LONG been accused of using antique equipment, and classic computer fans like me long ago learned to ignore minor crap like you describe, and know that a photo of a monochrome composite video screen (5.5mhz) (and NOT a VGA “Print Screen and paste into Paintbrush” shot) is subject to all sorts of distortions. Claiming tampering is grasping at straws that aren’t there.
I wouldn’t call it doctored but it’s not well displayed. I don’t know if it was dithered down to save space or poorly scanned from another source but it has all the appearance of multiple copy degradation. It looks like it was run through a copier about 100 times. I do a lot of scanning for personal use (historical) and these images were of poor quality. I didn’t even read what the site was about.
I’m just pointing out I couldn’t make heads or tails out of the images. They were not in a form I could manipulate into a useful picture.
