Re: Galileo Day

Ian Goddard (
Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:47:19 -0500

At 07:43 PM 2/15/99 -0800, wrote:

>> IAN: But your talking about (1) an aerodynamically-
>> stable airframe and (2) an aircraft slipping through
>> the atmosphere at high speed. The scenario to which I
>> refer is the opposite, for the plane at its apex is
>> demolished, wing(s) off, forward section gone...
>> a junk yard at 17,000 ft that is not subject to
>> the favorable aerodynamics you describe, and at
>> the peak of its apex where it stalled, it is
>> at rest, and thus has no velocity to trade.
>> Those facts exactly counter the counter,
>> which was very logical to have raised.
>The CIA video does not show this. The forward part of the fuselage falls
>off at 13,000 feet. The remainder of the plane, which includes the wings,
>rises to 17,000 feet, then falls. The video shows that it still has
>both wings. Then, as it falls through "about one mile", the left wing
>comes off. The video appears to show the right wing as still attached.

IAN: Yes, you are correct, the wing did not detach then in the CIA scenario. Nevertheless, even perfect aerodynamic advantage will not accelerate an object faster in a fall from rest than the fall rate in a vacuum, only increase it's ability to approach the rate of fall in a vacuum, like one of the wing's from PAN AM 103, which fell fastest, but still slower than the fall rate, and it did not supposedly shoot upward first so it had whatever forward velocity might give.

The noseless plane with wide-open fuselage was a parachute with wings. Wings won't help.

Someone mentioned the FDR data. It stopped in the instant of the initial event. The last second was first said to be 8:31:12, and it showed what retired Navy crash investigator Cmdr. Bill Donaldson has shown fits an external detonation of a proximityfused warhead. Then that data block was erased from the NTSB website(!), and said to have been from the former flight, which apparently must have survived a missile attack. This is true: