From: Ian Goddard (Ian@Goddard.net)
Date: Thu Feb 18 1999 - 01:33:28 MST
At 12:15 AM 2/18/99 -0500, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
>Ian Goddard wrote:
>
>> Pan Am 103 lost its forward section (like FL800)
>> and immediately curved downward (unlike CIA video)
>> with all its initial horizontal velocity of 434 kn.
>> The official investigation gives us these numbers:
>>
>> Initial velocity: 434 knots (at 31,000 feet)
>> Nose hits ground: 120 knots -314 kn (slower)
>> Engines hit at: 260 knots -174 kn (slower)
>> Wing hits at: 440 knots +6 kn (faster)
>>
>> Most of the jet slowed down during the fall. The
>> most aerodynamic debris fell fastest, with the wing
>> actually falling faster upon impact. NO part fell
>> faster than an object dropped from total rest. The
>> fastest falling part, the wing, fell 3,750 feet
>> shorter and 443 knots slower than an object
>> dropped from complete rest in a vacuum!
>
>comparing any of these to objects dropped in a complete vacuum is about
the most
>useless comparison you can make.
IAN: You appear not to have comprehended what's
being said. The CIA says Flying Pig Flight 800
fell about 25% Faster than an object dropped
from rest in vacuum. In reality, PanAm 103 fell
not only much Slower than the vacuum fall rate,
but even slower than its initial cruise velocity,
with the exception of the wing, which had no
attached airframe slowing it down, and yet it
fell much slower than the vacuum fall rate. That
wing is our best candidate for forward-velocity-
preservation during fall in any scenario, but it
proved that your claim about horizontal velocity
being able to overcome the vacuum fall rate is
not true, yet you now have forgotten what the
meaning of the vacuum fall rate is anyway.
>Since we are dealing with four or more peices with PanAm 103 rather than just
>two peices with TWA 800, you are obviously trying to compare apples to
oranges.
IAN: It's an ideal experiment and thus analogy
that perfectly canceled your only counterargument.
Your new counter is only as good as (1) the case
that a noseless aircraft is an aerodynamically
efficient object, and (2) that the CIA video
makes the case for an "intact" and wide-open
fuselage with two wings (the flying pig).
Number (1) is proven false by Edward Zehr's
math models and Richard Hircsh's real model),
Number (2) is proven false by this fact:
I was correct when I recently said that the
right wing came off at the apex... technically
speaking. See, the video shows the explosion at
the apex coming FROM the right wing! See it here:
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/cia-clip.jpg . The
funny thing is, as you will see, that the right
wing just stays there - it's explosion proof!!
I remember playing games as a kid and someone
would be explosion proof - but this is the real
world, not childhood fantasy. Real wings that
explode are not undamaged. This is fantasy:
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/cia-clip.jpg . The
video basically says the right wing was demolished
at the apex and they just didn't bother to change
the 3D computer graphic model. That explosion is
a key part of the CIA case. There's even another
explosion from within the plane after the one you
see from the right wing, but I didn't snap a shot
of it; suffice it is to say, the CIA video says
that the plane was annihilated at the apex, and
thus it says that it DOES resemble Pan Am 103.
Edward Zehr's static analysis:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a40058.htm
(scroll down to "A REALITY CHECK")
Edward Zehr's dynamic flight simulation:
http://www.copi.com/articles/Goddard/ZehrGut2.html
EXACTLY what Zehr shows being manifested in reality:
http://home.earthlink.net/~neteagle/Modeltest/page3.html
>The fact that TWA 800 was so few pieces while PanAm103 blew into so many with
>less than a pound of plastique on board indicates that there likely was not a
>warhead involved at all with the TWA 800 flight.
IAN: First, find out how many piece FL800 was
blown into, and this isn't close to all known:
http://members.aol.com/robertd202/debris9.gif
Second, I just showed that the CIA video
invariably indicates that the flying pig
was decimated at the apex, so even the
scenario critiqued was like Pan Am 103.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:05 MST
