From: hal@rain.org
Date: Mon Feb 15 1999 - 20:43:06 MST
Ian Goddard, <Ian@Goddard.net>, writes:
> IAN: But your talking about (1) an aerodynamically-
> stable airframe and (2) an aircraft slipping through
> the atmosphere at high speed. The scenario to which I
> refer is the opposite, for the plane at its apex is
> demolished, wing(s) off, forward section gone...
> a junk yard at 17,000 ft that is not subject to
> the favorable aerodynamics you describe, and at
> the peak of its apex where it stalled, it is
> at rest, and thus has no velocity to trade.
> Those facts exactly counter the counter,
> which was very logical to have raised.
The CIA video does not show this. The forward part of the fuselage falls
off at 13,000 feet. The remainder of the plane, which includes the wings,
rises to 17,000 feet, then falls. The video shows that it still has
both wings. Then, as it falls through "about one mile", the left wing
comes off. The video appears to show the right wing as still attached.
> IAN: I've provided the URL. The figures I've given
> are exact. I've been over the video a dozen times.
> Please look it up if you doubt me:
>
> CIA's anti-Galileo video:
> http://www.newsday.com/jet/year/video.htm
Your timeline seems correct, but the fuselage does have its wings.
Whether a plane falling straight down would hit 400 MPH seems questionable
to me, but I am not an expert on that type of aviation.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:03 MST