# Re: Galileo Day

Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Tue, 16 Feb 1999 16:07:24 -0500

Ian Goddard wrote:

> At 09:30 AM 2/16/99 -0500, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> from the textbook "Elementary Classical Physics"
> (Allyn & Bacon, Inc. 1973, p.43), which says:
>
> "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..."
>
> They strike the surface at the same time because
> horizontal and vertical velocity are independent.
> It's elementary kinematics.

Kinematics is only part of the problem with an airliner in a trajectory. There is a HUGE difference between throwing a ball at 20 miles per hour and a 747 travelling at 400 mph. If what you claim is true then it should be physically impossible for a pitcher to throw a curve ball. "Yet It Moves"...... Likewise, if what you say were true, then it should be physically impossible for lifting body vehicles to fly through the air. They should drop like bricks.... but they don't. If what you say were true, then a car traveling down a rain soaked higway at 70 mph should not hydroplane. Yet it does. If what you say were true, then a kite should not fly. For gods sake it isn't even moving!!! Its majic, oh my gawd Ian you've made the discovery of a lifetime!! Kites work by magic!!!

> This issue pertained
> to dropping, not rising, you switched the focus:
>
> >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.

I can dispute those numbers. If the plane is moving at 400 mph and suddenly begins to climb, it will translate a large percentage of its velocity to lift, and the remaining forward velocity to drag (aerodynamic and gravitational), as it climbs. It will top out within 5 seconds it will have gone around 2000 feet at the very least. The fact that its engines were still running would also have added thrust to the vehicle, which would have added the remaining thousand feet to the climb, especially considering that the engines had just been releived of 10-15% of the load put on them by the nose previously (of course there is also the drag of having an open front on the fuselage which could potentially add more drag than is saved by the reduction in weight)....it would add altitude as the forward section reached the top of its zenith, with airspeed dropped below 100 knots...

I think you or someone is leaving out a zero from Zehr's analysis...

> >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.
> >
>
> 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.