# Re: Galileo Day

Ian Goddard (Ian@Goddard.net)
Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:08:58 -0500

>> IAN: Horizontal velocity is independent of
>> vertical velocity, what that means is that
>> you don't translate forward velocity into
>> downward velocity. Basic kinematics, but
>> again, not a factor in the CIA scenario.
>
>Absolutely wrong.

```     "If one throws an object horizontally and
simultaneously drops a second body from
rest, the two objects strike a horizontal
plane at the same instant. The thrown object
strikes the surface with a larger velocity..."

```

>What do you think a wing does? Any airfoil or hydrofoil shape is
>useful because it translates foward motion to upward accelleration when
oriented
>to the proper angle of attack to generate lift. This is why it shot upward
so fast
>when it lost its nose, and why the nose started dropping so quickly. The
angles of
>attack of the two parts generated lift (upward for the rear section, and
downward
>for the nose section) which caused added acceleration in their respective
>direactions, translating forward momentum into vertical acceleration.

IAN: Mike, there is no free energy! Just because the angle of attack is changed does not mean that the plane can shoot up like a rocket. A climb increases drag, which requires additional thrust to sustain. It's harder to go up than down.

Read the work of Edward Zehr and you'll see what even missile-theory critics do not dispute, that the plane would stall and fall in 5 seconds, and would not go higher than around 300 feet.

Edward Zehr's dynamic analysis:
http://www.copi.com/articles/Goddard/ZehrGut2.html Zehr's static analysis (scroll to A REALITY CHECK): http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a40058.htm

>The reason why the peices only had a 400 mph velocity when they hit the
ocean is
>because of what is called 'terminal velocity'. This is when the forces of
>acceleration (in this case gravity) are exactly counterbalanced by the
forces of
>aerodynamic drag, thus preventing any additional speed gains. The human
body has a
>terminal velocity when sky diving of around 125 mph in a prone position,
and over
>200 mph in a dive. Now, at 400 mph, assuming that aerodynamic forces cause
a pitch
>over and momentum translation in 5 seconds (not unheard of and similar to
a 6g
>turn in a fighter plane, which, considering the new angle of attack the nose
>seciton had to its forward velocity, is likely, then the nose section
would have
>dropped 6.6 miles in one minute traveling at a terminal velocity of 400
mph (which
>is about 3 miles in 24 seconds). The CIA simulation probably refers to the
nose
>section hitting the ocean, although it is not totally inconsistent if
dropped from
>17000 feet.
>
>Dropping from 17000 feet from a total stall you have:
>S=(32ft/s)*(29^2)/2=13,456 feet.
>This almost exactly matches the nose section trajectory. The additional
350 feet
>of altitude would have been bridged due to velocity translation by airfoil
effects
>being added to the acceleration profile. So the nose section hit the ocean
at 29
>seconds.
>
>I suggest that you seek out a written timeline from the CIA of this
analysis. I
>think you will find that what I say is true and that the rear section hit
a little
>later.

IAN: Totally wrong. Please view the video. It is the main fuselage that hits water then, not the nose. It's curious that my correct statements are routinely countered with wrong statements, but other people's wrong statements are never countered by anyone else with the right statements. It's pretty clear that nobody will even question the CIA. That's how we get to a country with its Army attacking it. So even as we talk about Galileo and new paradigms...