Having a hard time visualizing what 20 pounds per square inch of over pressure means?
Let’s do a bit of math. The CWT is 13,000 gallons.
The volume of 1 gallon is 0.133680556 cubic feet Multiplying the two we get roughly 1738 cubic feet of fuel tank.
A tank 17 feet X 10 feet X 10 feet is 1700 cubic feet. Close enough.
A tank this size has a surface area of 880 square feet.
There are 144 square inches in a square foot. So this tank has a surface area of 126,720 square inches.
Multiply that by 20 pounds per square inch and we have a total force of 2,534,400 pounds pushing outward on that tank.
For 60 lbs multiply by 3.
Or to put it another way a pressure of 20 PSI is equal to a pressure of 2,880 lbs per square foot.
I’m not following your math. A 17x10 tank would have a footprint surface area of 170 sf or 24,480 si. as a box it would have an outer surface area of 7,000 sf or 1,008,000 si.
I may have screwed up the math, let’s me find the envelope that I scribbled on the back of. Assume a rectangular tank 17X10X10
1 17X10 tank side =170 Sq feet There are 4 of these for a total of 680 square feet.
1 10X10 tank side =100 Sq feet. There are 2 of these for a total of 200 square feet.
680+200 = 880 Sq. feet.
Now maybe it is late, but I can’t see how you are going from 170 square feet to 7,000 Sq ft.
Let’s see you are assuming a 17X10 footprint. That will be the top and bottom of our tank. 7000 -340 = 6660 square feet left over.
So now we need to solve for the height of the tank. For any one side the width X the height = the square feet of that side. For all 4 sides the 4 widths (17+10+17+10) X the height = 6660
so H = 6660/54 =123 foot high tank.
17X10X123 = 20910 cubic feet which at 7.48 gallons /cubic foot = 156,406 gallon tank.
It’s late and I have been drinking, but I think you slipped a decimal point or two somewhere.
I only did it wrong about 10 times. I kept multiplying 170 x 10 x 4 + 10x10x2. Forgot to drink first.
Is a rise in pressure of psi multiplied out in cubic form? It makes sense when you say it produces 2880 lbs per square foot and I think of this in terms of lifting force which would be 489,600 lbs for a 17x10 tank.
I think Jetblast is a government disinformation agent. He searches the internet for discussions of their various coverups, and if he finds any attempts to consider real evidence, he derails said discussion with endless sidetracks about supposed evidence which he refuses to actually provide.
People claim they couldn’t get vaporized Jet A to explode? Cripes, you can get air full of flour dust to explode!
While I can understand why CalTech made the changes they made, my objections are based on a mildly-obsessive personality that thinks an experiment like this should duplicate all of the factors it can. And I like to blow things up.
Oh no, - The onus is now squarely on your side.
If you researched this crash NTSB itself has already used the ATC radar to track and locate wreckage that it recovered. So therefore we know, contrary to what some incorrectly said (and then disappeared), ATC radar has already proven its ability to identify and track pieces of debris. It is your side that needs to show why the first ejecta plume Stalcup circles in red *isn't* an ejecta plume originating from Flight 800. I think people will see that arguing that it isn't an ejecta plume goes against the obvious. And I don't think many people would buy the argument that it is a mirage when all other radar hits have already proven to be matched to already-acknowledged wreckage locations.
Since NTSB (allegedly) found nothing other than 747 debris, we can reasonably assume the plume came from the stricken aircraft. Though it is possible it is the ejecta of an Al Qaeda suicide aircraft combined with missile parts continuing along after their explosion.
Any specific technical analysis of the ATC radar data itself would have to come from experts familiar with the equipment and its science. But since government avoids this kind of investigation it can be said they conform to a pattern of evasion and avoidance of review of their data - which is the pattern of a cover-up. Their total avoidance of any recognition at all of the mach 4 ejecta plume is all you need to know. THEY are the ones who need to be answering the questions and, so far, they haven't.
Also, moving the discussion into fringe analysis of radar esoterica is also the sign of seeking to create excuses for not recognizing reasonable evidence. There's already enough evidence to discuss what we already have.
Beyond this, no one seriously seeking the truth has the right to deny or ignore the other cases of circumstantial evidence and how they relate to this.
The 2 hour CNN propaganda piece on the 10th Anniversary made this argument, but it's a shamelessly deceptive strawman being used to deceive the American public. Yes the target is moving too slowly to be a missile, but it isn't moving too slowly to be an Al Qaeda suicide aircraft diving towards Flight 800 hoping it would be an El Al 747 rising out of Kennedy.
Navy officer Dwight Brumley saw an aircraft come right at his USAir flight and veer away at the last moment. It then dove towards the fated TWA 747 looming 6000 feet below. This strange near-miss wasn't investigated.
Brumley was one of the few people to see the second missile from the south. The streaking object he witnessed was going from right to left. TWA 800 was going left to right from Brumley's perspective. Brumley, a witness of high credibility, said he is absolutely sure he did not confuse a climbing noseless aircraft with what he saw. Some would like to refer to him as a "conspiracy theorist".
Whether the radar blip was the Al Qaeda aircraft or not, no government submission of radar evidence can be taken as valid because it has been shown that data was removed from the tapes when was in their possession.
The government scorecard is a perfect score of satellites all being down, the military's most sensitive spy plane (only a mile or so away) being turned off at the moment, and radar ghosts - all perfectly normal.
A suicide aircraft (flying at 30 knots, or boat speed, completing an interception on a plane going over 10 times as fast), and now two missiles? None of which left any fragments?
It sure seems to me like your side is the one trying to convince everyone. That comes with a burden of proof.
See, that’s what we were asking for. Where is this plume that he circles in red, and why do you think it is evidence of something other than a CWT explosion?
We’ve been asking for the evidence, so far you’re merely referring to Stalcup’s work as a done deal, without any discussion of what it says, then making coverup claims that aren’t warranted.
My recommendation for you is to start with the evidence, discuss it, what it says, why you think it’s credible, then if you make a good case, then we can talk about coverups.
I haven’t seen it! Where is it? And why do you think it’s obvious?
And how do you come up with a Mach 4 figure? You’re getting way ahead of yourself - let’s not talk conspiracy until you support your case that it was something other than a CWT explosion.
I think honest people can see flaming vs genuine interest.
You are conflating the 30 knot track of a naval vessel caught on radar with the bogey that intercepted Flight 800. Government first lied about this vessel until it was forced to admit it later on because it realized it was caught. It was a large naval vessel because the bridge tower was high enough to be caught on aircraft radar. Also, some witnesses further west on Long Island that day told of a naval vessel close to shore along the beach that made them take notice. This is hardly what you would call "No vessels in the area".
What is the playing field here? Government is allowed to lie without consequence and still has full credibility as a source and people who cite facts of evidence are flamed and ridiculed? Is this being argued honestly?
You don't know if any missile fragments were found because the source in charge of finding those fragments has already violated its own definition of credibility. Since when are groups guilty of investigation violations used as credible sources? When you cite proven cases of investigation violations like removing or altering evidence it gets ignored. A credible discussion can't ignore these things and remain credible.
I'd like to see you call Brumley a liar and laugh in his face. Or Donaldson for that matter (a Navy pilot). I'll ask people whose opinion they would take? An internet poster or a Navy officer eyewitness (how's that for Navy people coming forward)?
I've just spent several days explaining my reasoning in the preceding posts. You'll understand why, then, I'm less than happy that someone who pretends to be debating me comes back and asks me to explain reasoning that has already been explained at length. If you are really interested I advise you to go back and read what I wrote. Unstudied offhand comebacks (that I suspect are designed to frustrate me away from the debate) are something I'm not interested in.
I gave a link to a source that shows the radar data did not record any "zoom-climb". It is simple aviation science to determine that a 747 takes X amount of time to do such a climb. Since the ATC radar data did not show the 16 seconds it would have taken for such a climb, but instead showed the time pattern of a ballistic drop, I'll assume no answer to this is an indirect admission to the falseness of the government investigation. And since efforts are being made to avoid the topic of the thread (radar data) I'll assume the 'debate' is a sophomoric exercise in filibuster and sophist misrendering of evidence for the purpose of debate.
Also: The Cal Tech study doesn't prove Flight 800 was destroyed by a center tank blast, it only shows it was technically possible. But so far I haven't seen anyone attempt any real refutation or valid technical explanation for the mach 4 ejecta plume (including the government).
If you are contending that the Long Island police did not record FBI removing evidence from the Calverton hangar you are simply denying reality. That destroys any credibility you might assume.
Myself, I think people will see the difference between people who debate by mocking and people who discuss evidence that gets answered by mocking. What kind of "elephant" is that?
I wish you would refrain from this so we could discuss technical evidence. And I appreciate your apology for your misreference to the naval vessel radar track.
No, you have made assertions that people who tell you what you want to hear are credible and that those who don’t are not. You haven’t provided reasoning or data at all, despite repeated requests.
Tell us again what your professional experience in that area is. Or at least the grade you got in high-school physics.
But not that it’s considered a waste of time to try?
Most notably your own, in refusing to provide the data you have incessantly cited.
First there would have to be a demonstration that it even existed. When were you going to get around to that?
As for the other post, about your reasoning process, you still don’t get the problem with its circularity, do you?
Since you won’t provide any links, I did a quick search myself for “Dwight Brumley”. This is the random first result I opened. From it I have to say that your characterization of Brumley as a supporter of the missile theory is distinctly in error. Or at least, that was the case when this interview was conducted in 1999. Scroll about 3/4 down the page:
“…The only way I could see it would
be possible for this to be a naval accident, and
have it continued to be contained would be if
you had, say, a half dozen SEALs out there,
testing something new and it all went wrong.
The SEALs live, eat and breath security. They
wouldn’t talk. But other than that, I can’t see it.”
When come back, please bring some actual evidence to support your theory. Note that pointing out minor inconsistencies in the “official” version is not evidence of anything except minor inconsistency.
