At 04:07 PM 2/16/99 -0500, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
>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.
IAN: Let's recall again that the plane was at REST at the peak of a climb before it fell. Not only is that consistent with basic physics, but review the video to see the peaked jet sit on the peak, attain a negative AoA, and then fall. Trying to get around that is futile. Your 400-mph jet just does not exist!
>Ian you've made the discovery of a lifetime!! Kites work by magic!!!
IAN: Mike, what I said is what I quoted from a physics book, how could that be my discovery? Every basic physics book covers the same fact. Your examples show you need to do more research. The object with initial horizontal velocity strikes HARDER than the one dropped from rest, even as they both strike at THE SAME TIME. The horizontal velocity is translated into the harder strike, NOT into a faster fall.
>> 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
>
>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.
IAN: Don't dispute math with words.
>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,
IAN: That's wild speculation. Jet-engine operation depends upon the proper angle of attack of the relative wind, and thus, to quote an aviation mechanic, "when the engines pitch up the compressors stall and the engine flames out unless laminar airflow is restored rapidly."
>Listen buddy, the math doesn't lie. I'll reveiw the video again tonite,
but as I
>recall, they did not specify what part of the plane hit first, just that the
>first parts did hit at 29 seconds...
IAN: That must be about the fifth errant claim you've used to support the CIA case.
Watch the video again.