From: Ian Goddard (Ian@Goddard.net)
Date: Mon Feb 15 1999 - 23:08:18 MST
At 02:59 PM 2/16/99 +1100, Tim Bates wrote:
>It is also clear that the figures given are aproximations (about a mile
>...). The whole scenario makes sense to me.
>
>Ian , what is even your hypothesised point of a conspiring to change the
>crash timings by a few seconds?
IAN: That's a false claim! How have
I changed the numbers in any way? True,
they do say "approximate" and that
should be noted, but they give exact
altitudes, exactly the same as I gave.
What other numbers should/could I have given?
>That makes the whole thing pretty clear, with synchronisation to eye
>witness accounts. I had no idea the explosion was so dramatic.
IAN: The maximum psi for a fuel-
air explosion is around 60 psi.
Many engineers believe it will
not even rip open a fuel tank.
>I mean, the plane was decapititated,
>powered up with the changed in centre of gravity,
IAN: Can you please explain how a center
of gravity shift "powers up" an airframe?
If lift is on your mind, there's more
to it than that. Lift causes climb and
climb increases drag, which requires
greater thrust, particularly to have
achieved the approx 50 mps climb rate,
5 times greater than the book-value rate.
exploded again,
>propelling itself downward violently, then proceeded to dismember itself
>in an horrific fire ball. What the hell is there to cover up in this
>sequence?
IAN: What exploded at the apex? I was in
error when I said the wing came of at the
top. The CIA says, as I recall, that the
engines died nearing the apex, which they
would have done shortly after a pitch up;
as aviation mechanics will tell you,
engines flame out after sharp pitch up.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:03 MST