Re: fl800

Ian Goddard (
Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:02:56 -0500

At 07:25 PM 2/22/99 -0800, spike wrote:

>> IAN: Before that became the leading theory
>> they canned the theory.
>so i really did hear this? they suggested an explosion originating
>inside the tank?

IAN: Yes.

>what i wonder is how they proposed sufficient oxygen got in there,
>assuming a spark.

IAN: Might be worth seeing what Cmdr. Donaldson says about that, see his
interim report:
If there's a case there, he'll
probably know.

>> IAN: For me, you can't break physical
>> law, and saying an object with negative
>> aerodynamic advantage could fall from zero...
>ya, ive followed your argument, but the way i would explain the
>report is a kind of one way tendency by the investigators
>to underreport the plunge time. their motives would not
>need to be evil. i would suppose many or most of the
>passengers survived the original blast, and no one wants
>to even imagine those poor folks living long under those
>horrifying conditions of being in a burning plane plunging
>toward the sea. i figured they just picked the most optimistic
>(shortest) estimate of descent time.

IAN: The video was not an explanation
of how or when victims died, but about what witnesses supposedly saw. Since
the video violates many physical laws, it cannot be what witnesses saw.