New TWA Flight 800 Documentary -- Change Anyone's Mind?

Great Debates
81

As a person with minimal practical experience in aeronautics, I am far from an expert. But I have no trouble believing that if a nose broke off of a large, fast-moving plane, causing the rest of the plane, traveling at 300+ MPH, to pitch up, it will head in an upward direction for a short period of time until other forces take over.

Which is exactly what the NTSB said. If you will look at the official report, around page 100 you will see some charts illustrating some computer simulations. Although all the sims don’t produce identical figures, they all show the remainder of the fuselage with wings moving in a forward and upward direction at first.

Also, if you look at the debris patterns and match what was found with the part of the plane they came from, it supports the theory that the fuselage continued roughly on course for a while.

The plane’s breakup is divided into three parts: yellow, the nose section; red, the middle where the explosion occurred; and green, the wings and remainder of the fuselage including the tail.

It seems logical that the red (middle) section, which fragmented the most and consisted mostly of tiny pieces, would begin to fall soonest. The yellow, nose section, having forward motion and inertia but no wings, would fall next. The green section had intact wings, and although they weren’t under human control, would be able to glide more than any other severed sections of the plane.

And this is exactly what was found. If you draw a line showing the intended path of the plane, you will find that the red zone is first, the yellow, second, and the green, last. So the debris field supports the overall breakup scenario.

82

As a person who modifed a real airplane I can attest to what a slight change can do to aerodynamics. And I learned that the hardway when landing it the first time at night.

The nose of any aircraft is critical to airflow. Not “sorta important” but critical. W&B is critical. Putting aside aerodynamics you have to understand that airplanes are built with the absolute minimum amount of metal. In no way do they resemble a car in structural integrity. A 747 will not withstand the torsional loads put on it by high G forces. when you remove the structural integrity of the front of the plane and add it 400 mph winds, it is coming apart and it’s coming apart within seconds of the event. Seconds.

I understand your desire to believe the report is accurate but the idea that it rose in the air is complete meaningless to the investigation. There is no reason to insist it happened except as a pro-offered excuse that people saw something rise. If, as you insist, they didn’t see a missile then then just as easily could not have seen the plane rising. Is this making sense to you at all. There is nothing in the investigation that would lead to the conclusion that it rose up and there is nothing to be gained by saying it did. It doesn’t affect the idea that the center tank exploded.

The fact that great effort was put into:
A: the idea that the plane climbed for 42 seconds
B: Witnesses were deliberately kept out of the hearings
C: A 3rd government Agency (CIA) making an animation of something they know nothing about when the NTSB has this capability.
D: The data to back up the above has been withheld despite the Freedom of Information Act
You don’t have to believe me. I’m not declaring this a done deal by any stretch of the imagination. But I do know something about airplanes and I’ve talked to quite a few people in different fields. I could take you flying and show you a lot of what you don’t know but that shouldn’t be necessary to accept the premise that irregularities occurred, they do not jive with eyewitness accounts and there is no reason to withhold data that backs up what the investigation claims.

83

The NTSB report said it did. Computer simulations (several) said it did. (NTSB Report, page 96ff) The experts say it did, but you say it didn’t. You may be right, but you certainly are outnumbered.

I can’t find any such claim in the report. Where is it?

According to the report, 736 witnesses were consulted or their reports examined, even some of which didn’t agree with the final findings. Which ones were kept out of the hearings?

I can do animations in my home computer. You don’t think the CIA has the experts, the funds, and the ability to do computer animations? Have you seen the animations, and what is wrong with them? Where do you get this idea?

So if it is being withheld, how is it possible that you know about it? What data? Let’s have the evidence!

84

Lets cut to the chase. Do you or do you not support the Freedom of Information Act?

85

According to my post in #78, of course. Why would you think otherwise? Is anyone here trying to suppress evidence? Just what is it you claim is being withheld, and how do you know that?

And do you plan on answering any of my specific questions?

86

Not to be rude, but it would take a lengthy, on-going conversation to get you to understand a lot of my points (starting with a flight at dusk). I’m not hugely interested in defending a conspiracy theory as much as I am in seeing that information be made public. I referred to Capt. Ray Lahr’s ongoing lawsuit. I can’t find the link but he had another court date about a week ago.

What Lahr is claiming is being withheld is the data to back up the climb of the aircraft. I’ve pointed out that the scenario was pointless to promote in the first place as it serves no purpose in the investigation except to quell eyewitness accounts. I linked an FBI letter to the NTSB requesting that those accounts not be discussed in a public forum.

87

Yes, critical. I read an account of an early jet fighter (an F9F Panther, IIRC) losing its nosecone over Korea and barely being able to maintain flight speed. Losing its front end blew Flight 800’s aerodynamics to hell, but it’s not like it stopped instantly. It needed time, apparently about 40 seconds, to scrub off enough speed to begin to fall. During that time large parts began to break off.

Let’s try a little experiment. The classic non-flying object is the brick, which lacks lifting and control surfaces and a power source and has the aerodynamics of a, well, a brick. Take a brick and throw it at an angle above horizontal. Watch its path as it continues rising until air resistance slows it and gravity pulls it toward the ground. Viewing it from the side you would see that the brick’s path would describe a parabola, with it rising at first then gradually beginning to fall.

Flight 800’s path would be somewhat more complex because it had wings, stabilizing fins, and a sudden loss of 80,000 lbs in front of the wing. (It turns out that the NTSB study demonstrated that continued thrust from the engines had little effect and that the path it followed would be the same with full power or none, so I was wrong to consider that a factor.) As I said before, when the forward section fell off the tail began to swing down, changing the attitude of the airplane. The operable word is “began;” every action takes time and in that time momentum pushed the airplane forward and, because it was already climbing, up. As the tail swung down the angle of attack increased and, until the stall angle was reached and the wings stopped lifting, the airplane entered a steeper climb that took it up another 1800 to 3000 feet. Those climbs were based on radar reports from JFK and Islip but are nothing surprising, unexpected, or indicative of a coverup. You could figure it out yourself if you gave it any thought.

I really don’t understand this fatal fascination with “eyewitnesses.” First, eyewitnesses are notoriously poor at accurately remembering, understanding,and explaining what they saw. Second, nobody was following 800’s flight before the initial event, which is why I am placing “eyewitnesses” in quotes. Third, there was time and lots of news reports so the “eyewitnesses” could unconciously “get their stories straight” before they were interviewed. Fourth, by basing its questioning on the assumption that a missile downed the plane, the FBI totally tainted its questions and rendered the “eyewitness” reports worthless.

And now, if the missile idea is true, who fired it? Where did they fire it from? Why is the government covering it up?

88

Well the theory is that is was from a U.S. Navy vessel conducting naval warfare exercises, and that they’re covering it up because of the embarrassment of accidentally shooting down a big civilian aircraft. Although the U.S. never tried to cover up shooting down that civilian Iranian aircraft some years ago.

Here’s a fairly objective (and ultimately skeptical) analysis of the various naval training gone wrong scenarios. The journalists uncover a fair number of discrepancies or changes in the gov’t’s official story regarding what ships were where when, but ultimately, find nothing like affirmative evidence for the CT.

http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/1998/07/18/900745447.html

89

Okay, that’s the second time you have misrepresented my words.

Go back, right now, and defend your statement that I was arguing about the report.

i was not arguing about the report. I never mentioned the report.

I only referred to specific arguments of yours, which I find weak and disingenuous.

Your implication that the seven quotes descriptions are different is absurd.

I also note that you do not respond to any of my statements, other than to mischaracterize them.

And that one of the quotes you posted actually supported one of my arguments.

90

Then maybe it’s time you read it, refer to it, and tell us what about there is about it you find objectionable.

Otherwise, if you are not discussing the report, and have no arguments with it, I will assume you agree with it and this thread is done.

91

No.

I challenge your argument, and continue to do so.

It is fallacious.

92

What part of my argument is fallacious? Can you be specific?