Ian Goddard wrote:
> IAN: I guess you didn't know about the witnesses..
> There were over 150 witnesses of a streak of light.
> Out of 102 that said where it originated, 96 said
> it originated on from the surface of the Earth..
> That's from the still covered-up (but leaked
> through Aviation Week) NTSB witness report..
> Dozens of witness accounts are available..
> Those that I could place on a map are here:
> Witnesses say that the streak left a column of
> white smoke in its path. Solid-rocket fuel gives
> off white smoke, yet burning jet fuel, what the govt
> needs you to believe they saw, yields black smoke..
> Of course when it comes to government claims, most
> people seem are willing to believe black = white..
I see. I don't think I have an opinion about this. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, but so are government news stories. I do find it hard to believe that the FAA crash investigators (who are not answerable to either the CIA or the military) would ignore something like that.
> "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..."
> IAN: An object climbing upwards falls when it
> has reached zero velocity. What evidence does
> the physics-defying rocket-like rise fit? Have
> you found a flaw in Ed Zehr's analysis which
> proves that the noseless jet would stall in
> under 5 seconds? If not, based upon what do
> you make your claim? I guess faith in Govt.
Michael M. Butler covered the aerodynamics pretty well in his last post, so I won't repeat him here. I suggest you do some research on the topic - any book on aerodynamics or piloting should cover these topics.
> IAN: Aviation mechanics will tell you that jet-engine
> operation depends upon the proper angle of attack of
> the relative wind, thus, "when the engines pitch up
> the compressors stall and the engine flames out
> unless laminar airflow is restored rapidly."
There is some truth to this, but again you oversimplify. A very sharp climb might cause the engines to flame out, especially if the plane stalls at the top of the climb. A rapid descent will not - depending on the engine design, it is even possible for them to flame out in the climb and then re-light during the descent without human intervention.
> IAN: That's only because a fuel cloud covers
> more area before it explodes, distributing its
> max 60 psi force over a large area than the 1000
> or so psi of a centrally source stick of TNT.
No, it isn't. Fuel-air explosions are capable of destroying bunkers, tanks, and other armored targets that would be totally unaffected by a 60 psi overpressure. Besides, the whole notion of a 'maximum overpressure' betrays an ignorance of how explosive effects happen in the real world. Materials don't have any such property. Calculating the overpressure produced by any given reaction requires a detailed consideration of the environment the reaction takes place in.
> IAN: You've switched from the problem of knowing
> what DID happen from the critique the CIA scenario..
> Knowing what would have happened and knowing what
> the CIA said happened are two different things..
> We can know what the CIA said happened.
No, my point is simply that in a case this complex it is not possible to do a few back-of-the-envelope calculations and then claim "I know that thus-and-such could not have happened!" Such calculations ignore so many important variables that they end up being meaningless, even if they are performed correctly. If you want to argue with someone who has a detailed physical simulation of such an event, you need a detailed simulation of your own to back up your claims.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I