[QUOTE=DanBlather]
Decided to do the math again. This is scary!
I assumed that the area of a 727 is 300 sq meters (twice the wing area) and that an average of 1,000 727 equivalents are in the air at any given time. Taking the mid-point of the figures above, each year 100 meteors > 10 gm land in a million sq kilometers. That means that 30 planes a year should be hit by meteorites. Is my math correct?
[/QUOTE]
The math is right (I think), so that means one of the assumptions is probably wrong. Perhaps some significant percentage of those meteorites that reach the ground have slowed down to terminal velocity. Is that possible? I wouldn’t think the terminal velocity of a pebble would be all that damaging. Check out this story, for example: hit in the foot, no problem.
That’s false. Cars and people have both been hit by meteorites. Cite .
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
Decided to do the math again. This is scary!
I assumed that the area of a 727 is 300 sq meters (twice the wing area) and that an average of 1,000 727 equivalents are in the air at any given time. Taking the mid-point of the figures above, each year 100 meteors > 10 gm land in a million sq kilometers. That means that 30 planes a year should be hit by meteorites. Is my math correct?
[/QUOTE]
Nope, your math(s) is incorrect by a factor of 1,000,000. Each year, 0.00003 planes should be hit by meteorites.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
Decided to do the math again. This is scary!
I assumed that the area of a 727 is 300 sq meters (twice the wing area) and that an average of 1,000 727 equivalents are in the air at any given time. Taking the mid-point of the figures above, each year 100 meteors > 10 gm land in a million sq kilometers. That means that 30 planes a year should be hit by meteorites. Is my math correct?
[/QUOTE]
Haven’t you mixed up metres and kilometres? If we do everything in sq metres: 100 meteorites land per million sq km per year, that is 100 meterorites per trillion (10[sup]12[/sup]) sq metres or one per 10[sup]10[/sup] sq metres per year. If the planes in the sky at any time take up 300,000 sq metres, that is 3 x 10[sup]5[/sup] sq metres , it means that 0.00003 (3 x 10[sup]-5[/sup]) meteorites hit planes per year, doesn’t it?
I feel I should add an “if my maths is correct” clause, too
IAMNACN either but on 9/11/2001, Senator John Kerry said the following on the Larry King Show (talking aboiut 9/11):
We have always known this could happen. We’ve warned about it. We’ve talked about it. I regret to say, as I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year. I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it, but not really doing [sic] hard work of responding.
On The Chris Matthews show - September 24th:
*You know, we’ve had terrorism for a long time now. We’ve had the Achille Lauro, the Munich Olympics, the pipe bomb at the Olympics in Atlanta, the TWA 800, the bombing of embassies, and it’s not going to disappear overnight. *
Here is what Wiki says about the Alabama woman struck back in 1954. If Richard Parker’s cite about an Irish lass and her foot is correct, that would make two.
Of course, I wonder if something similar happened a thousand years ago, it might have been hushed up – a rock from the sky striking someone sounds like a smiting to me.
[QUOTE=DesertDog] Here is what Wiki says about the Alabama woman struck back in 1954. If Richard Parker’s cite about an Irish lass and her foot is correct, that would make two.
Of course, I wonder if something similar happened a thousand years ago, it might have been hushed up – a rock from the sky striking someone sounds like a smiting to me.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Hail Ants]
They used a real jetliner fuel tank (though not from a 747), filled it with the same proportion of fuel/air, heated the tank as per the real plane (TWA 800 sat on a hot runway for quite some time), and then used a spark plug device inside it to simulate a short circuit.
[/quote]
There’ve been a number of other fuel-tank vapor explosions on other aircraft as well, with no real question as to what was the cause. It’s just crazy how many people think it had to be something else.
The photos of the recovered TWA 800 wreckage also make it pretty clear that’s where it started. The metal is bent *outward * from the tank, in all directions - the explosion therefore had to have occurred inside. How’d the bomb or the meteorite get there?
Amazing how the government can’t do anything else right, but is nevertheless ruthlessly efficient at coverups, innit?
It’s even a standard joke by now that, any time an airplane crashes for whatever reason, there’ll be somebody on the evening news saying “Ah seen a big ol’ fireball in the sky…”
The planes are also not randomly distributed - they spend a higher proportion of their time in certain areas - i.e. over airports, and are less likely to be found over the oceans (most flights are over land).
[QUOTE=MrFloppy]
IAMNACN either but on 9/11/2001, Senator John Kerry said the following on the Larry King Show (talking aboiut 9/11):
We have always known this could happen. We’ve warned about it. We’ve talked about it. I regret to say, as I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year. I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it, but not really doing [sic] hard work of responding.
On The Chris Matthews show - September 24th:
*You know, we’ve had terrorism for a long time now. We’ve had the Achille Lauro, the Munich Olympics, the pipe bomb at the Olympics in Atlanta, the TWA 800, the bombing of embassies, and it’s not going to disappear overnight. *
[/QUOTE]
Huh. Maybe he meant TWA 800 was looked at as a possible terrorist incident. I dunno. He wouldn’t be the first politico to buy into conspiracy talk. JFK’s old press secretary, Pierre Salinger, was convinced there was something sinister about the crash of 800.
Earlier you mentioned that a pilot saw the plane “go straight down”. It is, of course possible that he saw just the descent of the fuselage and nothing of what happened in the few minutes before.
What kind of a missile would be required to hit an airliner flying above 13,000 feet? The Stinger shoulder fired missile has a range up to altitudes of only 12,500 feet, so it is unlikely that could have been used. What other missiles might have been available to any supposed terrorists? I doubt it could have been a truck-mounted radar guided missile, so let’s limit speculation to light weight shoulder fired missiles.
[QUOTE=Hail Ants]
I’ve never given the missile idea any credence. I simply don’t believe the military could ever cover up an accident that huge, plus eyewitness accounts of anything can be notoriously wrong. But this made me consider it at least a little.
[/QUOTE]
I wasn’t a Gunner’s Mate, but I did qualify Surface Warfare specialist while I was in the Navy. AIUI USN SAMs have a warhead that is designed to produce a variety of spreading metal bits that the target plane will move into/through to produce the damage to bring the plane down. The warhead of such missiles has very little by way of a concussive effect, and I can’t believe that a concussive effect could be enough to affect an aircraft without leaving those metal pieces I’d mentioned all through the fuselage of the aircraft.
But that’s not the reason why I think that the missile theory for TWA 800 is bunk. It’s just this: In order for the cover-up to work at least 200 men (and more likely 400) who would have been aboard the ship that allegedly fired said missile would still have to be keeping quiet about it. I’m not claiming that every man aboard would know what target a missile was shot at. Most of them wouldn’t. But everyone aboard a Spruance, Ticonderoga, or one of the other class of ships that carries the SM1 SAM would know that there had been a launch - it really does make the ship move in an unmistakable manner.
Now, can you really imagine 200 men keeping quiet about a launch that the Navy’s been saying never happened for 15 years? I can’t.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
The planes are also not randomly distributed - they spend a higher proportion of their time in certain areas - i.e. over airports, and are less likely to be found over the oceans (most flights are over land).
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
That doesn’t make a difference in the odds. (but being off by a factor of 1M does :smack: )
[QUOTE=BJMoose]
Huh. Maybe he meant TWA 800 was looked at as a possible terrorist incident. I dunno. He wouldn’t be the first politico to buy into conspiracy talk. JFK’s old press secretary, Pierre Salinger, was convinced there was something sinister about the crash of 800.
Earlier you mentioned that a pilot saw the plane “go straight down”. It is, of course possible that he saw just the descent of the fuselage and nothing of what happened in the few minutes before.
So, do those other threads do anything for you?
[/QUOTE]
Not really. The NTSB report is clearly the culmination of a lot of research and investigation and I’ll go with it although it ultimately doesn’t state the definite cause of the CFT explosion and it actually concludes that a bomb, missile or other explosion could have been the cause.
Let’s face it, they’re not going to say “We know with metaphysical certitude that the plane was not brought down by a bomb or a missile. We know this because the Mighty Gods of Aviation have revealed this unto us in a prophecy.” “The in-flight breakup of TWA flight 800 was not initiated by a bomb or a missile strike…It is very unlikely that the flammable fuel/air vapor in the center wing fuel tank (CWT) on TWA flight 800 was ignited by a lightning or meteor strike; a missile fragment; a small explosive charge placed on the CWT” is probably about as definitive as any human being is going to get about this.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
That doesn’t make a difference in the odds.
[/QUOTE]
Wouldn’t it? (I’m asking, not disputing.)
I was thinking about it sort of like this - suppose there is a hundred square meters of surface, and a meteorite is going to hit somewhere in that area. The odds of a given square meter being hit are thus one in a hundred.
If there is, on average, one plane in every square meter, then the odds of a plane being hit are one in one. If all one hundred planes are in one square meter, then the odds of a plane being hit are one in a hundred.
Of course, I still don’t understand the Monty Hall thing or where the missing two dollars went, so maybe I am way off here.
[QUOTE=AudreyK]
A good portion of the passengers, IIRC, died from the impact of hitting the water, rather than the tank explosion itself.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=fisha]
::shudder::
[/QUOTE]
Fisha, my thought exactly. I pray that hypoxia or flying debris knocked out all those passengers soon after the explosion. My brain just overloads trying to imagine what they went through. Very sobering, very scary for frequent fliers.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Wouldn’t it? (I’m asking, not disputing.)
I was thinking about it sort of like this - suppose there is a hundred square meters of surface, and a meteorite is going to hit somewhere in that area. The odds of a given square meter being hit are thus one in a hundred.
If there is, on average, one plane in every square meter, then the odds of a plane being hit are one in one. If all one hundred planes are in one square meter, then the odds of a plane being hit are one in a hundred.
Of course, I still don’t understand the Monty Hall thing or where the missing two dollars went, so maybe I am way off here.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
It would only matter if the planes were overlapping vertically.
Conspiracy nuts just have to be contrarian, don’t they?
I mean, when the authorities say an aviation explosion WAS caused by terrorists, they leap in to insist that it wasn’t. And when the authorities say there WASN’T a terrorist incident, the conspiracy buffs are sure that there was.
Sigh… so, why didn’t the Trilateral Commission or the Illuminati or whoever use TWA flight 800 as an excuse to start a war?
