Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TWA Flight 800 "Cover Up" ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
    Gabriel, pieces of the airplane moving forward at 300+ knots could easily cover 5 miles as they fell. And what happened to the pieces once they impacted the water? Did currents cause them to drift as they sunk?
    Deadstick, open your eyes, please.

    The WHOLE debris field of all that was behind the nose and the fragmentation ring laded AHEAD of the forward fuselage that his the ocean intact.

    This is a very systematic behavior. We are NOT talking about pieces of plane randomly scattered by the explosion, the fall, and the water currents.

    If the above sketch is true, I have no doubt whatsoever that the fuselage and wings (minus the nose) was FLYING fast for quite some time after the initial fracture.

    How much altitude did the Afghanistan 747 gain before it fell out of the sky?
    It reached an altitude of some 1200ft. Admittedly, I don't know if the uncontrollable pitch-up that resulted from the weight shift happened immediately after rotation or some time into the initial climb, but the fact that they never retracted the gear, which is normally done immediately after lift-off, lead me to think that it happened more likely immediately after rotation.


    Granted it was moving more slowly but my guess would be "not much." I think TWA 800, as wounded as it was probably didn't gain more than a couple of hundred feet, not 3000.
    I've never said it climbed 3000ft. I was just against saying that the climb was not possible.

    But after looking at the sketch of the debris fields, I think that it was moving fast for several seconds after the fracture, and moving fast + wings available + CG shift certainly has the potential for a good climb.

    I hope they revisit the investigation and we get the facts of this crash, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't trust the FBI much less the CIA. They're in the business of hiding the truth.
    I share your sentiments on that.

    Do you trust the NTSB more?
    Because it's THEY who did the simulation of the flight after the fracture of the nose.
    The NTSB conducted a series of computer simulations to examine the flightpath of the main portion of the fuselage.[96] Hundreds of simulations were run using various combinations of possible times the nose of TWA 800 separated (the exact time was unknown), different models of the behavior of the crippled aircraft (the aerodynamic properties of the aircraft without its nose could only be estimated), and longitudinal radar data (the recorded radar tracks of the east/west position of TWA 800 from various sites differed).[97] These simulations indicated that after the loss of the forward fuselage the remainder of the aircraft continued on in crippled flight, then pitched up while rolling to the left (north),[94] climbing to a maximum altitude between 15,537 feet (4,736 m) and 16,678 feet (5,083 m)[98] from its last recorded altitude, 13,760 feet (4,190 m).
    As you see, the simulations show a climb of somewhere between 1800ft and 2900ft. 1800ft doesn't sound like so much more than the 1200 that National Air Cargo climbed.

    The above is from wikipedia, but you can read the original source too:

    1.16.2 Trajectory and Main Wreckage Flightpath Studies
    Pages 94 to 100.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #92
      This is the animation made by the NTSB
      Excerpts of CIA animation: NTSB Animation # 1 "Flight Path View"; see more at http://raylahr.entryhost.com/AppealsDocket.html

      Excerpts of CIA animation: NTSB Animation # 2 "Flight Path View From Ground"; see more at http://raylahr.entryhost.com/AppealsDocket.html

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
        I envision in my head that the resulting pitch up is so vertical that it can't climb because the wings are now big speed brakes.
        Maybe (probably), but given that it was stated the "climb" was about 16 seconds I still think it is PLAUSIBLE.

        With the speed, momentum and (likely) pitch up attitude (they were still climbing) I could see a wild pitch up for 16 or so seconds followed by a steep dive after the 2nd explosion.

        I realize this may be a totally weird comparison, and FAR from accurate, but I took a "back of the napkin" look at the Bagram crash. It looked like about 10 seconds from when the plane comes into view to when it peaks and dives. That plane was probably doing, what, 150kts or so? TWA 800 was at 280 kts IAS.

        "Plausible" is a long way from "impossible".

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
          Pan Am was already in cruise and probably had the power pulled back and was neatly trimmed for cruise.
          TWA800 went to Climb Power a little before the event.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
            ...There's going to be a radical pitch up, perhaps approaching 60-90 degrees...
            I tried to explain this to Headphone...

            I once took the metal ballast clip off the front of a balsa wood glider.

            The nose 'instantly' whipped up and then the plane fell with no forward speed.

            A 747 is a little bit bigger.

            The 'radical pitch up' isn't going to happen 'instantly'.

            Again, let's go back to the cargo 747 with the armoured vehicles all in the back...

            The pitch up and stall unveiled so gracefully and gently over several seconds. (Jezz, I hate using those adjectives in bold, but...)

            So- I agree that the loss of the nose leads to an eventual extreme attitude, stall, etc...

            But the big, long noseless fuselage is going to gracefully and gently point upwards, and the blunt-on-front-draggy nose is going to generate some drag but it's not going to instanly loose speed, nore instantly whip into an accelerated stall...it seems extremely plausible that the plane might climb some.
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #96
              That was my point along with being trimmed for climb.
              Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by phoneman View Post
                Everyone should have been suspicious when the CIA produced an animation of the alleged event that couldn't possibly be true! No way a plane could gain altitude with the nose blown off! What does the CIA have to do with aircraft accident investigations anyway?
                I thought it was good to bring this post back to the light, since it's the one that triggered the animation/climb discussion.

                Again:

                The CIA did not made an investigation.

                The FBI and the NTSB made parallel investigations.

                The simulation was made by the NTSB, using flight characteristics for the noseless plane estimated by Boeing. The CIA just made a fancy animation that played no role in the NTSB investigation and conclusions.

                Whether the plane climbs or not depends on lift-weight.
                And lift is a function of speed, angle of attack and area of the wing.
                There is nor reason why a climb would be impossible for an airplane that was flying fast, had its wings intact, was increasing its AoA (due to the CG shift), and had lost a good bunch of its weight.

                So could the NTSB, FBI and CIA all agree fabricate evidence and lie?
                Yes. Bring some clipped trees and fog machines, please.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  I thought it was good to bring this post back to the light, since it's the one that triggered the animation/climb discussion.

                  Again:

                  The CIA did not made an investigation.

                  The FBI and the NTSB made parallel investigations.

                  The simulation was made by the NTSB, using flight characteristics for the noseless plane estimated by Boeing. The CIA just made a fancy animation that played no role in the NTSB investigation and conclusions.

                  Whether the plane climbs or not depends on lift-weight.
                  And lift is a function of speed, angle of attack and area of the wing.
                  There is nor reason why a climb would be impossible for an airplane that was flying fast, had its wings intact, was increasing its AoA (due to the CG shift), and had lost a good bunch of its weight.

                  So could the NTSB, FBI and CIA all agree fabricate evidence and lie?
                  Yes. Bring some clipped trees and fog machines, please.
                  Gabriel, why do you refuse to believe the witness statements of the pilots that were at altitude? The Eastwind pilot was watching the TWA 800 flight before it exploded. He said just as he turned his landing lights on, the plane exploded and fell into sea. A British Airways pilot said the same thing and both reported their observations to ATC. There was also a military pilot who also observed the same thing. I would consider all three as expert witnesses. None of them saw the plane pitch up and increase altitude by 3000 feet. Your theory and figures are impressive, but many times there is a difference between theory and the real world. Now, can you tell us what you think happened when the nose fell off and the throttle cables snapped. Did the engine speed remain the same, speed up, or go back to idle? Not a trick question, just curious!

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by phoneman View Post
                    Gabriel, why do you refuse to believe the witness statements of the pilots that were at altitude?
                    I don't. It's just that I've not seen these statement out of this internet forum.

                    Anyway, I am open minded.
                    I've said it before: if qualified witnesses said that it didn't climb, maybe it didn't.

                    What I refuse is to believe that the plane could have never climbed after losing the nose, because it very well could have.

                    Can you understand the difference?

                    Your theory and figures are impressive, but many times there is a difference between theory and the real world.
                    If something happened, then there must be a rational explanation for it. It's just that some times we can't figure it out.

                    But my "impressive theory and figures" just explain that it is was not impossible for the plane to climb, NOT that it DID climb (that's the claim of the NTSB, not mine). There could be other factors that could very well have prevented the plane from climbing: a quick roll inverted, damage in the tail wor wing, etc...

                    Now, can you tell us what you think happened when the nose fell off and the throttle cables snapped. Did the engine speed remain the same, speed up, or go back to idle? Not a trick question, just curious!
                    I have no idea.

                    For what it's worth (and for me it's worth quite a bit because I trust the NTSB), the simulations made by the NTSB showed that TOGA thrust or no thrust would have made little difference in the performance of the plane. And if you think of it, it makes sense. The climb rate was way beyond (several times) what's sustainable with full power, so even full power would have just delayed the outcome for a few seconds. It was a matter of momentum: i.e, trading speed for altitude.

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • To all those who are continuing to argue for a missile. I'm still waiting for a reply on the medical evidence, but in the mean time, the article I'm linking to below has a long list of questions that need to be answered to prove conspiracy.

                      Comment


                      • Graham2001, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting. And here (3WE ), I will resort to Wiki.

                        One of the criticisms regarding the peripheral activities, one being the autopsy results, was that the medical examiners conducting them were being pressured into identification ahead of the longer and more appropriate forensic autopsies.

                        Part of a cover up? Nah! The aircraft is still there and open to any additional advanced forensic techniques. I would think in a cover up the bones of the aircraft would have been sent off to the smelter or like Putin and crew, still maintain custody of the Polish plane.
                        Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Graham2001 View Post
                          To all those who are continuing to argue for a missile. I'm still waiting for a reply on the medical evidence, but in the mean time, the article I'm linking to below has a long list of questions that need to be answered to prove conspiracy.

                          http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/07/01/...ing-questions/
                          Look, the official report is pretty clear that there's an extreme lack of medical and metalurgical evidence of a missle.

                          You can ask your question all day long, but if you don't believe the official report, your question doesn't help. (Not saying that your question is invalid- just that as long as there are doubters, it won't solve the dilemma).

                          So, when is this documentary running and what evidence has been suppressed?
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • I’ve watched “TWA Flight 800” — the much-hyped Epix original documentary that purports to present “new” evidence proving that a missile attack brought down the Paris-bound Boeing 747 over the Atlantic 17 years ago this month. Yesterday I interviewed Hank Hughes, a former NTSB investigator who was involved in the TWA 800 investigation. Here is … Continued


                            The NTSB is pushing back — hard — to refute claims by a group of documentary filmmakers and former crash investigators who say a missile attack and not a fuel tank explosion brought down TWA Flight 800 in July 1996. At a rare media briefing in Virginia yesterday in front of the reconstructed Boeing 747, … Continued

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by phoneman View Post
                              Now, can you tell us what you think happened when the nose fell off and the throttle cables snapped. Did the engine speed remain the same, speed up, or go back to idle? Not a trick question, just curious!
                              In the case of the Etihad A340-600 that crashed during a systems check on the ground, the engine FADEC entered something called "thrust lock". When the connection to the cockpit is severed, the FADEC makes use of its Full Authority and keeps the engine in the last selected thrust setting until it is quenched or the fuel runs out.
                              In the case of the Etihad A340, one of the engines ran on full thrust until late at night, until finally the fuel ran out.

                              If the engines on the TWA 800 747 had a FADEC with the same level of authority, I can't say. But in modern engines, "thrust lock" is what happens.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Taliesin View Post
                                In the case of the Etihad A340-600 that crashed during a systems check on the ground, the engine FADEC entered something called "thrust lock". When the connection to the cockpit is severed, the FADEC makes use of its Full Authority and keeps the engine in the last selected thrust setting until it is quenched or the fuel runs out.
                                In the case of the Etihad A340, one of the engines ran on full thrust until late at night, until finally the fuel ran out.

                                If the engines on the TWA 800 747 had a FADEC with the same level of authority, I can't say. But in modern engines, "thrust lock" is what happens.

                                747/200 NO FADEC, cables to the fuel controllers

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X