From: Ian Goddard (Ian@Goddard.net)
Date: Mon Feb 22 1999 - 02:01:35 MST
At 12:57 PM 2/21/99 -0800, Spike Jones wrote:
>but when the thing first happened, i thought i recall the investigators
>proposing an explosion that originated *inside* the fuel tank.
IAN: Before that became the leading theory
they canned the theory. As The New York Times
(8/14/96) reported less than a month after the
crash: "Investigators examining the wreckage
...concluded that the center fuel tank burned
as many as 24 seconds after the initial blast
that split apart the plane."
>this i found most improbable, even if an ignition source were to
>be found.
IAN: If the NTSB could explain how a spark
could get into the tank, they would close the
case. Jet fuel is also not explosive at normal
temps http://members.aol.com/bardonia/washtime.htm
>im not too concerned about the 29 second plunge tho.
>i figure they estimated here, guessed a little there.
IAN: For me, you can't break physical
law, and saying an object with negative
aerodynamic advantage could fall from zero
vertical and almost zero horizontal velocity
17,000 ft at a rate about 25% faster than the
rate of fall in a vacuum, is breaking the laws
of physics, and thus that which is accepted as
the truth cannot be the truth. That concerns me.
This is what happens to an aircraft with no nose:
http://home.earthlink.net/~neteagle/Modeltest/page3.html
Which is just what physics and mathematics says would
happen: http://home.earthlink.net/~neteagle/Stall747
http://www.copi.com/articles/Goddard/ZehrGut2.html
****************************************************************
Visit Ian Williams Goddard --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
________________________________________________________________
5 PILOTS 5 WITNESSES --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/1year.htm
________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:07 MST