Re: Galileo Rules!

Ian Goddard (
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 03:33:28 -0500

At 12:15 AM 2/18/99 -0500, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:

>Ian Goddard wrote:
>> Pan Am 103 lost its forward section (like FL800)
>> and immediately curved downward (unlike CIA video)
>> with all its initial horizontal velocity of 434 kn.
>> The official investigation gives us these numbers:
>> Initial velocity: 434 knots (at 31,000 feet)
>> Nose hits ground: 120 knots -314 kn (slower)
>> Engines hit at: 260 knots -174 kn (slower)
>> Wing hits at: 440 knots +6 kn (faster)
>> Most of the jet slowed down during the fall. The
>> most aerodynamic debris fell fastest, with the wing
>> actually falling faster upon impact. NO part fell
>> faster than an object dropped from total rest. The
>> fastest falling part, the wing, fell 3,750 feet
>> shorter and 443 knots slower than an object
>> dropped from complete rest in a vacuum!
>comparing any of these to objects dropped in a complete vacuum is about
the most
>useless comparison you can make.

IAN: You appear not to have comprehended what's being said. The CIA says Flying Pig Flight 800 fell about 25% Faster than an object dropped from rest in vacuum. In reality, PanAm 103 fell not only much Slower than the vacuum fall rate, but even slower than its initial cruise velocity, with the exception of the wing, which had no attached airframe slowing it down, and yet it fell much slower than the vacuum fall rate. That wing is our best candidate for forward-velocity- preservation during fall in any scenario, but it proved that your claim about horizontal velocity being able to overcome the vacuum fall rate is not true, yet you now have forgotten what the meaning of the vacuum fall rate is anyway.

>Since we are dealing with four or more peices with PanAm 103 rather than just
>two peices with TWA 800, you are obviously trying to compare apples to

IAN: It's an ideal experiment and thus analogy that perfectly canceled your only counterargument. Your new counter is only as good as (1) the case that a noseless aircraft is an aerodynamically efficient object, and (2) that the CIA video makes the case for an "intact" and wide-open fuselage with two wings (the flying pig).

Number (1) is proven false by Edward Zehr's math models and Richard Hircsh's real model), Number (2) is proven false by this fact:

I was correct when I recently said that the right wing came off at the apex... technically speaking. See, the video shows the explosion at the apex coming FROM the right wing! See it here: . The funny thing is, as you will see, that the right wing just stays there - it's explosion proof!!

I remember playing games as a kid and someone would be explosion proof - but this is the real world, not childhood fantasy. Real wings that explode are not undamaged. This is fantasy: . The video basically says the right wing was demolished at the apex and they just didn't bother to change the 3D computer graphic model. That explosion is a key part of the CIA case. There's even another explosion from within the plane after the one you see from the right wing, but I didn't snap a shot of it; suffice it is to say, the CIA video says that the plane was annihilated at the apex, and thus it says that it DOES resemble Pan Am 103.

Edward Zehr's static analysis: (scroll down to "A REALITY CHECK")
Edward Zehr's dynamic flight simulation: EXACTLY what Zehr shows being manifested in reality:

>The fact that TWA 800 was so few pieces while PanAm103 blew into so many with
>less than a pound of plastique on board indicates that there likely was not a
>warhead involved at all with the TWA 800 flight.

IAN: First, find out how many piece FL800 was blown into, and this isn't close to all known:

Second, I just showed that the CIA video invariably indicates that the flying pig was decimated at the apex, so even the scenario critiqued was like Pan Am 103.