New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[bknight]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

<snip>

Thanks to FOIA-released internal CIA documents, we know that CIA analysts were aware that the radar data did not support their animation that showed the burning fuselage climbing 3,000 feet post-explosion. In one of the released documents, a CIA analyst stated that the maximum calculated post-explosion altitude was 14,500 feet. The radar data even refute that calculation.

<snip>

How can the radar both confirm and deny any ascent? Which radar are you describing and which radar do your fellow CTs describe in relation to this determination?
How many seconds after the explosion elapsed before the nose section hit the water? Additionally, how many seconds elapsed before the fuselage hit the water?

Your ace radar expert Stalcup should have listed the information in his presentation.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

...severe structural damage to the nose landing gear...

I should take this opportunity to point out that in your mad rush to "expose" me, you have repeatedly conflated the nose landing gear, the nose landing gear doors, and the nose landing gear door hinges. Maintaining the distinction among these is important, because you have misapplied your rebuttals to my arguments regarding one component to another component. For example, I argue that terminal velocity is irrelevant to the damage observed on the nose landing gear doors, but not irrelevant to the damage observed to the nose landing gear. I was clear; you were careless.

I brought this to your attention when you first raised this by way of the ARAP report, but you haven't seen fit to correct your presentation. In fact, you also misrepresent the ARAP report in these same distinctions. For example, the "inward" deformation was not to the nose landing gear, or the nost landing gear doors, but to the nose landing gear door hinges. The ARAP report got it right, but you misrepresented it and continue to do so. The apparent idiocy you attribute to my argument is not the fault of my argument, but of your ongoing carelessness in noting which assembly I and your sources are talking about.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

This kind of atrocious logic is another thing that causes me to question your level of education, and your sincerity. Let’s just back up a minute and compare the missile theory to the NTSB theory:

Precedents

There are ample precedents for the missile theory. A number of large planes have been shot down by missiles, two of them accidentally. The missile theory allows for either scenario: deliberate or accidental.

In contrast, there is no precedent for the NTSB theory that a Boeing 747 blew up in midair because a short circuit occurred outside the center wing tank and entered the tank through faulty FQIS wiring, ignited the vapors, and blew up the plane.

Replicable by Experiment

Needless to say, the missile theory could be easily replicated in an experiment. In fact, the essential elements of the missile theory have been duplicated in numerous military missile tests.

In contrast, the NTSB, despite spending millions of dollars on the most advanced tests money could buy, was unable to duplicate their mechanical malfunction theory in experiments.

Physical Evidence

The missile theory is supported by considerable physical evidence, some of which includes the following: inward penetrating holes in the fuselage, severe structural damage to the nose landing gear, the EGIS 3000’s 116 explosive-residue detections, the three explosive-residue detections acknowledged by the NTSB and the FBI, the original condition of the center wing tank’s floor in which a large section of the floor was bent upward/inward (established by photographic evidence), the damage pattern to the seats and passengers (markedly consistent with an external high-order explosion and wholly inconsistent with a low-order center wing tank explosion).

NOTE: The landing gear of Air France 447—an Airbus 433—suffered no visible structural damage, even though the plane fell from 38,000 feet and landed belly-first on the ocean. Air France 447 did not break up during its descent but hit the water intact, even though it fell from 38,000 feet, which obviously destroys the idea that TWA 800’s nose landing gear was “smashed” and “blasted” by “aerodynamic deformation” during its 13,800-foot fall.

In contrast, there is not one shred of physical evidence that supports the NTSB theory. The recovered wire and FQIS gauges showed no signs of pre-crash defects, and showed no signs of a short circuit. The Boeing and IAMAW experts pointed to this fact as one of their reasons for rejecting the NTSB theory for the cause of the center wing tank’s explosion. The NTSB was not even able to identify an ignition source for their alleged short circuit.

Eyewitnesses

Over 100 witnesses, from a wide range of locations and distances, reported seeing an object heading upward toward TWA 800 5-30 seconds before TWA 800 exploded. They described the object with such terms as “rocket,” “flare,” “firework,” and “missile.” The NTSB’s own missile visibility test established that the witnesses would have been able to see a missile heading upward toward TWA 800.

The NTSB, incredibly, rejected the 100-plus eyewitness accounts of a missile-like object flying upward toward TWA 800. Instead, the NTSB said all the witnesses were mistaken about the object originating at ground at sea level and that the witnesses actually merely saw the burning fuselage during its alleged 1,500-foot climb. Not a single witness who saw the airliner said the plane climbed after any of the explosions.

Even the NTSB’s favorite eyewitness, Eastwind Airlines pilot David McClaine, one of the few witnesses the NTSB bothered to interview, said nothing about seeing the plane climb but said, “I didn’t see it pitch up, no. Everything ended right there at the explosion. . . . And everything went down.” McClaine was flying about 3,000 feet above TWA 800 when the trouble began, so he was in an excellent position to know if the plane had climbed after it began to experience damage.

Thanks to FOIA-released internal CIA documents, we know that CIA analysts were aware that the radar data did not support their animation that showed the burning fuselage climbing 3,000 feet post-explosion. In one of the released documents, a CIA analyst stated that the maximum calculated post-explosion altitude was 14,500 feet. The radar data even refute that calculation.

Excuses

It is simply a fact that the government still refuses to release the information on the identity and locations of the Navy ships that were in the area at the time. It is also a fact that the day after a California newspaper published evidence that explosive residue was found in the foam of one of the plane’s seats, President Bill Clinton signed an extraordinary and unprecedented executive order that stripped whistleblower protection from all civilian and military personnel involved with Navy special operations.

It is vacuous and insincere to call these facts an “excuse” for the inability of skeptical researchers to identify all the Navy ships that were in the area that night. A few of those ships have been identified, but only because the FBI reluctantly revealed this information shortly before they closed their part of the investigation. The lack of the complete information on the Navy presence in the area that night is the reason, not the excuse, that researchers don’t know which ships were there and cannot even speculate about which ships might have been involved, if any were involved.

Finally, I find it strange and troubling that NTSB defenders have raised no concerns about the extraordinary, unprecedented stripping of whistleblower protection the day after evidence of a manmade explosion appeared in a California newspaper. Do any NTSB defenders find this order troubling? Do they think the timing of its issuance was just a coincidence?

A Wall of Fail!

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by MBDK

I thought about that, but then the implosion charges in nuclear weapons are synchronized within a nanosecond or two, so I wouldn't claim impossible, rather unnecessarily complicated and expensive for their general use

.

Yeah, but those are static, as in there is no relative motion to consider and no need to detect any proximity. You can set those things to go off a fixed timeline with no need to detect any influences in the outside world.

But to have a shaped charge go off and do the damage that mikegriffith1 is on about - specifically, a couple of holes that appear to be "sooted" and made by "jets of hot gas", the distance between that shaped charge located in the business end of a missile, and the aircraft skin has to be just a few inches, so the proximity has to be measured down to inches while the missile is still incoming at over 3,000 fps. Also, the charge has to be set off at a precise moment with enough lead time so that the "jets of hot gas" make the holes before the body of the missile impacts the aircraft.

I argue, why even design such a complex system, one that requires so much precision?

[MBDK]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I argue, why even design such a complex system, one that requires so much precision?

No argument with me. I concur, as they would be "unnecessarily complicated and expensive for their general use".

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

A Wall of Fail!

His posts seem to be settling into a pattern. (1) Call into question Jay's professional qualifications, honesty, intelligence, hairline, etc. (2) Pivot awkwardly to yet another dump of the same stuff from the same sources he's been posting for a week.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

His posts seem to be settling into a pattern. (1) Call into question Jay's professional qualifications, honesty, intelligence, hairline, etc. (2) Pivot awkwardly to yet another dump of the same stuff from the same sources he's been posting for a week.

I missed the hairline.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by bknight

I missed the hairline.

I'm kidding; he really didn't comment on that. But this debate really does seem to be a personal vendetta for him, don't you think?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

I'm kidding; he really didn't comment on that. But this debate really does seem to be a personal vendetta for him, don't you think?

When one's remaining tactic is browbeating, I guess the opponent's hairline is right in the target zone.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

I'm kidding; he really didn't comment on that. But this debate really does seem to be a personal vendetta for him, don't you think?

I knew that. Yes his style is poor, and he can't stop going back to the same ridiculous scenario no matter how outrageous it is.
This reminds me of rubygray and her no airplane hit the Pentagon. Eyewitnesses saw X when Y really happened.

[sts60]

I’d just like to know how many missiles he thinks fuzed on the plane, and what kinds. He doesn’t really have a claim until he answers that.

[mikegriffith1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah:

. . . the nose gear door hinges were found forced into the nose gear well, and W. Donaldson accurately reports this finding. You don't state it explicitly, but you insinuate that the doors themselves being forced into the gear well must necessarily be proof of an external explosion (rather than one from inside and aft), must have occurred at altitude, and thus evidence of an air-intercept missile with a fragmentation warhead. This is not in accordance with the facts or a defensible inference of when the nose gear doors must have incurred the damage we observed on them.

Second, it dismisses the mainstream narrative of an aerodynamic breakup as the explanation for the deformations observed on the recovered doors.

The idea that the three nose landing gear doors were bent inward from aerodynamic breakup, i.e., from descending through the air to the ocean, is patently ridiculous. The doors’ hinges were also bent inward.

Where in the NTSB report do you find the claim that the doors were damaged by aerodynamic deformation? Where? Where is it? Such a claim is not made in the Structures Group Chairman’s Factual Report of Investigation (see p. 40). Nor is this claim made in the NTSB report itself. The NTSB report says the three doors may have opened early in the breakup and then could have been “torn off by exposure to the air stream,” but it says nothing about the doors being damaged by air pressure after they were allegedly torn off by the air stream (NTSB report, p. 117).

The NTSB investigators who spoke with journalists about the landing gear doors suggested no such far-fetched theories. Several NTSB investigators spoke with journalists about this "baffling," "mystifying" damage. Obviously, these investigators recognized that this damage could not have been done merely by impact on water or by traveling through the air, or else they would not have been "baffled" and "mystified" by it. Let's read a CNN report on this matter, published on 9/5/1997:

Federal officials investigating the crash of TWA Flight 800 are baffled by the recent discovery of impact damage on the doors that close over the front landing gear.

According to several people involved in the investigation, for the last two weeks National Transportation Safety Board investigators have been trying to figure out what could have caused the nose gear doors to blow inward -- and whether whatever caused that damage happened before the plane's center fuel tank exploded.

The Boeing 747 crashed into the Atlantic shortly after takeoff from New York's Kennedy Airport en route to Paris, July 17, 1996, killing all 230 people aboard.

Examiners who have been looking at crash wreckage for the past 13 months are now said to be mystified about the significance of the damage on the doors, which are located below the flight deck and well forward of the plane's center fuel tank. ("Nose Gear Doors Baffle TWA Crash Investigators," 9/5/1997, http://www.cnn.com/US/9709/05/briefs...ors/index.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1:

These facts came to light [about the USS Vincennes’ accidental downing of an Iranian airliner] because Iranian and other neighboring nations’ platforms could prove…

Originally Posted by JayUtah:

Yes, the takeaway is that you can't just make a U.S. Navy warship disappear when it fires a missile off a heavily-populated seaboard, especially when there's monumental political pressure to come clean about shooting down a friendly. The difference between the Iranian airliner incident and your TWA 800 conspiracy theory is that there's credible evidence in one case, and a lot of overheated puffery in the other, promulgated by people who really want a certain story to sound more plausible than it is.

No, the takeaway is that you are once again ignoring key facts and dishing up more distortion and misleading polemic. There was no political pressure to come clean about TWA 800; on the contrary, there was enormous pressure to suppress the obvious cause of the crash and to impose a ludicrous theory devoid of any supporting physical evidence and contradicted by massive eyewitness testimony.

Also, obviously, the circumstances in the case of the Vincennes incident were very different from those of TWA 800, starting with the geographic location and the presence of foreign entities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1:

Now, I really don’t like mentioning these facts [about the efforts of certain Navy officers to conceal the truth about the shootdown of the Iranian airliner] because I have a great love for the U.S. Navy and for the other branches of our military. But, such facts must be considered when assessing the case for an accidental missile shootdown of TWA 800.

Originally Posted by JayUtah:

Oh, please. Every conspiracy theorist ever makes a big show of expressing the utmost respect for the people and organizations whose reputations he's ignorantly trashing.

Oh, wow. What a sleazy argument, and what a slimy display of demagoguery. Conservative critics such as Jack Cashill and James Sanders have more respect and love for the Navy in their pinky fingers than you have in your entire liberal body.

When patriots discuss the rare occurrences of misconduct in the military, such as the attempt to cover up the facts about the Vincennes incident, they do so to be constructive and in the hope of discouraging such actions in the future. Only a disreputable demagogue would call this “trashing” the military.

You liberals are the ones who are usually trashing the military, trying to gut the defense budget, accusing our soldiers of committing war crimes, and imposing ridiculous rules of engagement on our forces in combat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah:

Your argument is pretty obvious: The Navy tried to cover up the Iranian airliner incident, so they "must" also be trying to cover up the TWA 800 incident.

That’s a rather dishonest way to frame the issue. 99% of the people in the Navy, including 99% of the officers, have nothing to do with the Navy brass’s refusal to release the information on the Navy ships that were in the area that night. For that matter, the Navy brass may be acting under higher orders to withhold that information.

By the way, speaking of the Vincennes incident, how many sailors from that ship have come forward to admit that Captain Rogers plainly and clearly entered Iranian territorial waters without legal or operational justification? Hey? How many of Vincennes’ senior officers have done so? How many of them have come forward to admit that Admiral Crowe misled Congress when he claimed that Rogers was acting under the right of innocent passage?

Gee, I guess none of these things happened, since “surely some sailors would have come forward by now about this!” Right? Sound familiar?

Here's an instructive article on the Vincennes cover-up by Lt. Col. David Evans, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.), published in the U.S. Naval Institute’s U.S. Naval Proceedings Magazine:

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...nes-case-study

You're not going to accuse the U.S. Naval Institute of being a bunch of "conspiracy theorists," are you?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

The idea that the three nose landing gear doors were bent inward from aerodynamic breakup, i.e., from descending through the air to the ocean, is patently ridiculous. The doors’ hinges were also bent inward.

Where in the NTSB report do you find the claim that the doors were damaged by aerodynamic deformation? Where? Where is it? Such a claim is not made in the Structures Group Chairman’s Factual Report of Investigation (see p. 40). Nor is this claim made in the NTSB report itself. The NTSB report says the three doors may have opened early in the breakup and then could have been “torn off by exposure to the air stream,” but it says nothing about the doors being damaged by air pressure after they were allegedly torn off by the air stream (NTSB report, p. 117).

The NTSB investigators who spoke with journalists about the landing gear doors suggested no such far-fetched theories. Several NTSB investigators spoke with journalists about this "baffling," "mystifying" damage. Obviously, these investigators recognized that this damage could not have been done merely by impact on water or by traveling through the air, or else they would not have been "baffled" and "mystified" by it. Let's read a CNN report on this matter, published on 9/5/1997:

Federal officials investigating the crash of TWA Flight 800 are baffled by the recent discovery of impact damage on the doors that close over the front landing gear.

According to several people involved in the investigation, for the last two weeks National Transportation Safety Board investigators have been trying to figure out what could have caused the nose gear doors to blow inward -- and whether whatever caused that damage happened before the plane's center fuel tank exploded.

The Boeing 747 crashed into the Atlantic shortly after takeoff from New York's Kennedy Airport en route to Paris, July 17, 1996, killing all 230 people aboard.

Examiners who have been looking at crash wreckage for the past 13 months are now said to be mystified about the significance of the damage on the doors, which are located below the flight deck and well forward of the plane's center fuel tank. ("Nose Gear Doors Baffle TWA Crash Investigators," 9/5/1997, http://www.cnn.com/US/9709/05/briefs...ors/index.html)



No, the takeaway is that you are once again ignoring key facts and dishing up more distortion and misleading polemic. There was no political pressure to come clean about TWA 800; on the contrary, there was enormous pressure to suppress the obvious cause of the crash and to impose a ludicrous theory devoid of any supporting physical evidence and contradicted by massive eyewitness testimony.

Also, obviously, the circumstances in the case of the Vincennes incident were very different from those of TWA 800, starting with the geographic location and the presence of foreign entities.



Oh, wow. What a sleazy argument, and what a slimy display of demagoguery. Conservative critics such as Jack Cashill and James Sanders have more respect and love for the Navy in their pinky fingers than you have in your entire liberal body.

When patriots discuss the rare occurrences of misconduct in the military, such as the attempt to cover up the facts about the Vincennes incident, they do so to be constructive and in the hope of discouraging such actions in the future. Only a disreputable demagogue would call this “trashing” the military.

You liberals are the ones who are usually trashing the military, trying to gut the defense budget, accusing our soldiers of committing war crimes, and imposing ridiculous rules of engagement on our forces in combat.



That’s a rather dishonest way to frame the issue. 99% of the people in the Navy, including 99% of the officers, have nothing to do with the Navy brass’s refusal to release the information on the Navy ships that were in the area that night. For that matter, the Navy brass may be acting under higher orders to withhold that information.

By the way, speaking of the Vincennes incident, how many sailors from that ship have come forward to admit that Captain Rogers plainly and clearly entered Iranian territorial waters without legal or operational justification? Hey? How many of Vincennes’ senior officers have done so? How many of them have come forward to admit that Admiral Crowe misled Congress when he claimed that Rogers was acting under the right of innocent passage?

Gee, I guess none of these things happened, since “surely some sailors would have come forward by now about this!” Right? Sound familiar?

Here's an instructive article on the Vincennes cover-up by Lt. Col. David Evans, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.), published in the U.S. Naval Institute’s U.S. Naval Proceedings Magazine:

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...nes-case-study

You're not going to accuse the U.S. Naval Institute of being a bunch of "conspiracy theorists," are you?

Another wall of fail!

(And no, I have not read any of it, because nothing you have said in the last few pages is any different from the rest of the regurgitated lies, spurious half-truths, intentionally misrepresented and misunderstood facts, wilful ignorance, poorly sourced conspiracy-theorist claptrap and complete bull-**** you have been spouting all along.)

As for your constant attacks on Jay, you should know they are summarily dismissed by the considerable number of people here, including me, who know Jay outside of this forum, and who know that he is a qualified Aerospace Engineer with extensive experience who knows exactly what he is talking about in regard to the topic of this thread. I am an Aeronautical Engineer (retired) and while I am not not up to Jay's level of expertise and experience, I am nonetheless sufficiently qualified and experienced to recognize bull-**** when I read it, and you mikegriffith1 are full of it!

[sts60]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

The idea that the three nose landing gear doors…

So how many missiles actually affected the aircraft, and what kinds?

[bknight]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Another wall of fail!

(And no, I have not read any of it, because nothing you have said in the last few pages is any different from the rest of the regurgitated lies, spurious half-truths, intentionally misrepresented and misunderstood facts, wilful ignorance, poorly sourced conspiracy-theorist claptrap and complete bull-**** you have been spouting all along.)

As for your constant attacks on Jay, you should know they are summarily dismissed by the considerable number of people here, including me, who know Jay outside of this forum, and who know that he is a qualified Aerospace Engineer with extensive experience who knows exactly what he is talking about in regard to the topic of this thread. I am an Aeronautical Engineer (retired) and while I am not not up to Jay's level of expertise and experience, I am nonetheless sufficiently qualified and experienced to recognize bull-**** when I read it, and you mikegriffith1 are full of it!

Don't be so modest. I myself am an inner space engineer, not the Aeronautical or Aerospace engineer, but still a practicing engineer, retired also.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

The idea that the three nose landing gear doors were bent inward from aerodynamic breakup, i.e., from descending through the air to the ocean, is patently ridiculous. The doors’ hinges were also bent inward.

Where in the NTSB report do you find the claim ... [blah, blah, blah]

First off, there is not a body of historical engineering data to say what is and isn't unusual in the crash of TWA-800. The 747 proved to be a safe airframe, so there aren't a lot of crashes to compare this event to, and only KAL-007 remains the other 747 shot down in any way. The Soviets/Russians control access to the wreckage, and thus no investigation. Sure, investigators would be baffled, but in almost every plane crash you will find the NTSB's crew arguing and or mystified over some element of the crash evidence. If you're implying that the missile detonated under the nose you have a big problem: the wreckage shows no such thing.

The missile would have to detonate within a few feet of the fuselage, and that would leave scorching, pitting, and shredding. There was nothing like that.

This was a one-time event as far as scope of aircraft size and death. There were a lot of things which investigators had to figure out. And they looked for a bomb, they looked for missile damage. The found neither.

Quote:

No, the takeaway is that you are once again ignoring key facts and dishing up more distortion and misleading polemic. There was no political pressure to come clean about TWA 800; on the contrary, there was enormous pressure to suppress the obvious cause of the crash and to impose a ludicrous theory devoid of any supporting physical evidence and contradicted by massive eyewitness testimony.

Name one US Navy officer who'd risk the death penalty for Bill Clinton. Better yet, name one Defence Contractor and his company that would take a needle for the Clinton NSC.

Quote:

When patriots discuss the rare occurrences of misconduct in the military, such as the attempt to cover up the facts about the Vincennes incident, they do so to be constructive and in the hope of discouraging such actions in the future. Only a disreputable demagogue would call this “trashing” the military would do.

Oooh...patriots... Again, those advancing the TWA-800/Missile theory are trashing the military. Accusing the US Navy of a capital offence with no evidence is not something those who support the military.

Quote:

You liberals are the ones who are usually trashing the military, trying to gut the defense budget, accusing our soldiers of committing war crimes, and imposing ridiculous rules of engagement on our forces in combat.

You'd be surprised to learn we're not all liberals. We're just not bat-guano crazy.

And your statement is historically and factually incorrect (and a big fat lie).

SecDef Cheney, under Bush, oversaw the largest defense cuts since WWII. And he cut too deep.

In 2013, the GOP forced the government into budget sequestration because a black guy was in the White House, and this resulted in all kinds of DoD juggling to keep operations going. This also meant the military could not make long term plans as far as resupply, and new weapons/equipment.

And Diaper Donny took/stole money from the defense budget to pay for his stupid border wall.

The Bush NSC set the rules of engagement in OIF and OEF. They also embraced COIN. Nothing changed under Obama or Trump. The ROEs are still the same under Biden.

I voted for both Bush(es). I did not vote for Bill Clinton or Obama either time. I voted for Hillary and Biden because it was literally a binary choice.

But hey, thanks to revealing yourself as a partisan hack, it explains the root of your flaws.

Quote:

By the way, speaking of the Vincennes incident, how many sailors from that ship have come forward to admit that Captain Rogers plainly and clearly entered Iranian territorial waters without legal or operational justification? Hey? How many of Vincennes’ senior officers have done so? How many of them have come forward to admit that Admiral Crowe misled Congress when he claimed that Rogers was acting under the right of innocent passage?

Working backwards, Rogers had been acting aggressively during that deployment, but the Iranians had been attacking commercial shipping (which is why we were there, under a National Security policy from that republican, Jimmy Carter). On that day, the Vincennes was chasing three gunboats that had fired at one of their Seahawks. Technically, Rogers was doing his job.

Then, it was Admiral Crowe who admitted the ship was in Iranian waters at the time of the shooting, and that was three years later. But the ICAO had reported that fact in December, 1988. What we did know on July 4, 1988, is that a US Navy destroyer had shot down an Iranian jetliner. Hell, we even had bridge video of the incident within a few days:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4XfdJfynrQ

The video was released by *checks notes* the Department of Defense.

So I'm not sure why sailors would be lining up to tell the press what they mostly already knew. And to put it as conservatively patriotically cold-blooded as I can - It was an Iranian jetliner. In 1988 most Americans could care less.

Quote:

Gee, I guess none of these things happened, since “surely some sailors would have come forward by now about this!” Right? Sound familiar?

And who reached out to the Iranian government to negotiate a financial settlement, and offer a formal apology for the shootdown?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by bknight

Don't be so modest. I myself am an inner space engineer, not the Aeronautical or Aerospace engineer, but still a practicing engineer, retired also.

.... and I have zero doubt that you also recognize bull-**** when you see it!

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by sts60

So just how many missiles were there?

And what kind[s] were they?

Forty three.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

The idea that the three nose landing gear doors were bent inward from aerodynamic breakup, i.e., from descending through the air to the ocean, is patently ridiculous.

Yes, this straw man you keep trying to pin on me is indeed simplistic and implausible.

Quote:

The doors’ hinges were also bent inward.

Well, not exactly according to the NTSB. Here's the text of the NTSB's claim :—

Originally Posted by NTSB, p. 117

However, the right and left forward and the right aft nose landing gear doors exhibited relatively little damage and were recovered from the red zone with other airplane pieces that the sequencing report indicated had separated early in the breakup sequence. Further, the hinges from some of these doors appeared to have overtravel damage, indicating that the doors may have been forced inward. After careful examination of the nose landing gear doors and pieces of the surrounding structure, the Sequencing Group determined that the doors did not overtravel inward a significant amount and that the apparent overtravel damage to the hinges could have occurred after the doors opened or separated.

Their initial hypothesis was that the doors were forced inward. But their ultimate conclusion, based on a more careful and holistic study, was that there was no significant inward travel and that the observed hinge damage could be explained in other ways. No, if the doors remained closed and attached to the airframe, it is unlikely that aerodynamic pressure could have deformed them or the hinges. But if they're open, they become extremely drag sensitive and the hinges bear most of that stress. If, for example, one of the forward or aft specimens of the three hinges on the forward nose gear doors fails, and the airflow is not longitudinal, there is ample opportunity for aerodynamic deformation in the partially attached door.

Terminal velocity of the doors themselves is irrelevant. Terminal velocity of the entire nose section—with the open doors still attached—is marginally relevant. The governing factor is the velocity at initial breakup; objects slow to terminal velocity from that initial powered-flight velocity.

ARAP proposes to dismiss this scenario by noting that gear doors may be extended in flight without damage. I already explained why this is a straw man. In a midair breakup scenario there is no reason to assume the airflow over the nose section will stay longitudinal in the way that makes it safe to extend the gear doors. ARAP also seems to insinuate that the NTSB would need to attribute the damage in this area to the direct effects of a center wing tank deflagration, which they assert (defensibly) to be implausible. But this too is a straw man; the NTSB makes no such claim.

These are some of the many reasons we cannot consider Donaldson et al.'s activity an investigation. They do not test their own hypotheses (see below). They do not accurately represent alternative hypotheses. They offer criticism that would seem plausible to a lay audience, but which an expert can easily see are dishonest. It's clearly an exercise designed to erode public faith in an unfavored conclusion by any means.

Quote:

Where in the NTSB report do you find the claim that the doors were damaged by aerodynamic deformation?

Nowhere. That's my hypothesis, because this is part of what I do for a living. I gave the details in a previous post, and a summary above. Our ability to formulate and test such hypotheses has vastly improved since the 1990s. No, I haven't tested this hypothesis, but I do consider it plausible based on analysis I've done for similar situations (i.e., midair breakups).

Despite your suggestion that we're just dumbly defending the NTSB, some of us actually know how to reason through these problems on our own and don't need to be spoon-fed our beliefs from either side, or by sensationalist media reports from early in the investigation. I'm actually interested in what may have happened to TWA 800. You seem to view this exercise as categorically trashing selected people and organizations.

Where are the engineering details and computations supporting the hypothesis that the door hinges were blown inward, and the gear strut assembly itself damaged, by an air-intercept missile detonation? That's clearly the conclusion that your conspiracy theorists expect the reader to draw, but there's no computation or empirical test to demonstrate this. Your authors correctly note that landing gear struts are some of the more robust structures in an airframe. But then they hand-wavingly insinuate that an air-intercept bursting charge can severely damage them. Not even a back-of-envelope computation for how close the detonation would have to be in order to inflict that exact kind of damage? It's not an investigation if your own conclusion is held only implicitly.

Further, you can either have "jets of hot gas" that cut metal skin and structure, or a wavefront that bends and deforms them, but not both. Since you can't seem to understand from the sources you cited how explosions work, I'm not sure you grasp how your conspiracy theorists must rely on contradictory theories to explain different bits of evidence. I think the reason you and your authors can't settle on what actual weapon must have been used is that for it to explain all the damage you speculatively attribute to it, it would have to be a magic warhead.

Quote:

No, the takeaway is that you are once again ignoring key facts and dishing up more distortion and misleading polemic. There was no political pressure to come clean about TWA 800; on the contrary, there was enormous pressure to suppress the obvious cause of the crash...

...according to all those people who've tried so very hard to make names for themselves by arguing there was a coverup.

Quote:

Oh, wow. What a sleazy argument, and what a slimy display of demagoguery. Conservative critics such as Jack Cashill and James Sanders have more respect and love for the Navy in their pinky fingers than you have in your entire liberal body.

When patriots discuss the rare occurrences of misconduct in the military, such as the attempt to cover up the facts about the Vincennes incident, they do so to be constructive and in the hope of discouraging such actions in the future. Only a disreputable demagogue would call this “trashing” the military.

You liberals are the ones who are usually trashing the military, trying to gut the defense budget, accusing our soldiers of committing war crimes, and imposing ridiculous rules of engagement on our forces in combat.

Yet somehow I'm the one politicizing this issue!

Regarding the U.S. Navy, I spent a rewarding portion of my early career contracting for the U.S. Navy, including duty at sea. Two members of my family are Navy officers—one is a lieutenant commander. Right now both are at sea on active duty in a hazardous area. In contrast, you and the authors you mention accuse the Navy of manslaughter and coverup with the flimsiest of evidence. I don't feel like being lectured by you right now about disrespect for the Navy.

Quote:

By the way, speaking of the Vincennes incident, how many sailors from that ship have come forward to admit that Captain Rogers plainly and clearly entered Iranian territorial waters...

Most sailors on a ship don't know where they are with any great precision. Nevertheless even with so few sailors aware of it, the secret could not be kept.

I don't have the time or the inclination today to explain everything you're getting wrong about the Vincennes incident.

[mikegriffith1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1:

. . . you know that the terminal velocity of the landing gear falling from 14,000 feet would have been no more than 140 mph.

Originally Posted by JayUtah:

Terminal velocity is irrelevant. I explained several posts ago what the likely cause of the damage was [aerodynamic deformation]. . . . .

Aerodynamic breakup or deformation of airframe components in abnormal angles of attack is well substantiated in the literature and borne out in my own testing and simulations.

This comical nonsense is further proof that your self-proclaimed expertise is dubious. No genuine/competent engineer in his right mind would float the ludicrous theory that merely descending through the air could have caused severe structural damage to something as tough and strong as TWA 800’s nose landing gear. That is preposterous.

When Air France 447, an Airbus A330, stalled and dropped from 37,000 feet, not only did the airplane not break up on the way down, but the oxygen masks did not even deploy because the passenger cabin maintained air pressure until the plane hit the water (Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis for Civil Aviation Safety (BEA), Final Report: Air France Flight 447, July 2012, p. 70, https://bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090...p090601.en.pdf)

“Terminal velocity is irrelevant”??!!! You bet! And high-order explosions don’t produce jets of hot gas, right? And ARAP’s theory is that that Stinger missiles were involved, right? And Commander Donaldson was the only author of the ARAP report, right? Etc., etc., etc.

Terminal velocity most certainly is relevant because it proves that the nose landing gear would not have hit the water hard enough to cause severe structural damage. The NTSB Structures Group report says nothing about your absurd aerodynamic deformation theory—it advances only one explanation for the damage done to the nose landing gear: impact damage, i.e., impact on water (Structures Group Chairman's Factual Report of Investigation, NTSB Exhibit 7a, 2/20/1997, p. 38).

When Birky floated the impact-damage theory to explain the damage that he and James Speer both saw on a wing leading edge rib, Speer correctly pointed out that the phenomenon of terminal velocity would have prevented the edge rib from hitting the water hard enough to cause such damage.

The case of Air France 447 is a good example of this fact. When the plane had descended to 35,000 feet, it was falling at a speed of about 10,000 feet per minute, or 113 mph (BEA, Final Report: Air France Flight 447, p. 23). When the plane hit the water 2 minutes and 46 seconds later, it was descending at a speed of 10,912 feet per minute, or 124 mph (BEA, Final Report: Air France Flight 447, p. 24).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah:

Also the distribution of debris as a determiner of the altitude at which structural breakup occurs is also well documented. Donaldson's baffling and unsupported claim to the contrary casts serious doubt on either his competence or his impartiality.

When high-drag, low-mass components separate at altitude, they fall more vertically and therefore appear early along the flight path in the debris field compared to debris that has a higher mass-to-drag ratio.

First off, you’re in no position to be judging Donaldson’s competence or impartiality. You have already provided clear indications that you are not what you say you are. After claiming that you had experience in “missile and weaponry design,” you committed the egregious gaffe of saying that high-order explosions do not produce jets of hot gas, and you accused crash investigator James Speer of spouting a “howler” for noting the fact that they do. You are no engineer, or else you’re a really, really bad one.

You are misrepresenting Commander Donaldson’s analysis of the debris fields and of where the items fell in them, or else you do not understand what he’s saying. Donaldson was using standard principles of debris field analysis. Everything he said is valid. Anyone who has any background in aircraft crash investigation knows that the main value and function of debris field analysis is (1) that it helps investigators determine which parts of the aircraft failed first, and (2) that it may enable investigators to determine the cause of the crash.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah:

Moving on to the gear itself, the report asserts that cracking of the actuator cylinder is deemed anomalous because, according to Donaldson, "hydraulic cylinders are very tough, routinely handling 3,000 PSI hydraulic fluid." This conflates pressure-bearing strength with yield strength from bending moments. The two are not related, and if Donaldson had been a properly-qualified engineer he would have known this.

This is sophistic nonsense. For starters, if you were a properly qualified engineer with experience in “missile and weaponry design,” you would not have blunderingly accused Speer of spouting a “howler” when he noted that high-order explosions generate jets of hot gas that can cause severe damage.

Moreover, Donaldson’s point about 3,000 PSI was a general reference to the documented ability of hydraulic cylinders in landing gear to handle 3,000 PSI of hydraulic fluid (see, for example, https://blog.brennaninc.com/hydrauli...t-of-our-lives). He addressed the issue of yield strength two paragraphs later when he noted that the nose landing gear can be extended even when the plane is flying at a speed of 320 knots, or 368 mph:

The landing gear on a B747 are extremely tough. They can be extended at speeds up to 320 knots Indicated Air Speed (IAS), or .82 mach, and can be raised at speeds up to 270 knots IAS, or .82 mach. Flight 800’s airspeed was 298 IAS and .6 mach! This means that even if the Captain had intentionally lowered the landing gear in flight at 13,800 feet, nothing in the landing gear or gear door assemblies would have failed. (ARAP report, p. 18)

The validity of this point is self-evident. If the nose landing gear can withstand being opened at speeds up to 368 mph (320 knots), it surely would not have suffered severe structural damage merely from impact on water or from descending through the air, no matter how many “abnormal angles” it assumed during its descent. I truly cannot believe that you are peddling this hilarious theory in a public forum while pretending to be any kind of an expert in engineering and crash investigation.

The nose landing gear was about 12 feet tall and weighed about 3,000 pounds. It was made of tough steel and titanium. Second only to certain parts of the engines, it was the toughest, strongest part of the plane. Yet, this gear was severely disfigured, and several investigators reported this to journalists. One investigator described the damage to the nose landing gear as follows:

“This was a huge piece of thick steel, and it had been blasted, is the only way to describe it." ("Landing Gear Damage Points to Bomb on TWA Flight: Retracted Nose Wheel Took Strong Blast, Probers Say," Baltimore Sun, 7/31/1996, https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs...067-story.html) Another investigator said the landing gear suffered "serious concussive damage" and that it had been “smashed” (Ibid.). The photo of the nose landing gear proves these descriptions were entirely justified.

Now, if you want to tell yourself that these investigators were legally blind, that they were just seeing things, that they were "mistaken" about the severity of the damage to the nose landing gear, no one can stop you. But the photo of the nose landing gear shows just how severely it was damaged, and the only two theories your side can offer for that damage are ludicrous on their face and physically impossible.

[JayUtah]

[deleted, accidental submission]

[sts60]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

This comical nonsense …

So how many missiles were there? What kind(s)?

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

This comical nonsense is further proof that your self-proclaimed expertise is dubious.

Wow, this is an intensely personal deal for you, isn't it? You don't care about the details of the missile theory, but you're doggedly obsessed with whether I'm an imposter. Are you well?

Because we have wildly whiplashed among discussions of the landing gear, the landing gear doors, and the landing gear door hinges, I clarified a few posts above exactly which structures I argue need to include terminal velocity in their analysis. You seem to have missed it, so I'll repeat it. No, terminal velocity is not relevant to the analysis of the landing gear doors, but it is relevant to the analysis of the landing gear itself. I apologize for my part of that confusion.

Quote:

The NTSB Structures Group report says nothing about your absurd aerodynamic deformation theory...

That hypothesis applies to the doors, not to the gear itself.

Quote:

When Air France 447, an Airbus A330, stalled and dropped from 37,000 feet, not only did the airplane not break up on the way down...

Why should it have?

Quote:

...the passenger cabin maintained air pressure until the plane hit the water...

Why shouldn't it have?

Quote:

The case of Air France 447 is a good example of this fact.

No. These are applies and oranges. If the airframe maintains structural integrity, it can be expected to maintain a semblance of aerodynamic integrity, even in a stall. The terminal velocity of a wing structure or of an intact airframe in a stall is not even remotely related to the terminal velocity of the landing gear if separated from the rest of the airframe.

For a contravening example, consider AA Flight 587 in 2001. In that accident, the vertical stabilizer detached from the airframe due merely to overly aggressive control inputs from the pilot.

Quote:

Second only to certain parts of the engines, it was the toughest, strongest part of the plane.

No, this is misleading. Yes, the engine shaft assemblies are generally considered the most mechanically robust components of the completed airframe. Next come the main landing gear, which are approximately an order of magnitude more robust than the nose gear assembly, because they must bear the dynamic landing loads.

Further, the nose gear assembly is actually made up of several struts. The central strut is the strongest of this assembly, of course. But the upper portion of that telescoping assembly is merely a hollow tube filled with oil acting as a shock absorber. All the components of the nose gear assembly are mean to be loaded axially, in which mode even relatively gracile structural members can bear a tremendous load. How surprised would you be to learn that some of the secondary struts are actually hollow tubes?

Quote:

"...blasted, is the only way to describe it." ... "serious concussive damage" ...“smashed"

This doesn't describe the damage. This is a sensational news report that tells us absolutely nothing about the actual damage.

Quote:

The photo of the nose landing gear proves these descriptions were entirely justified.

The photo shows the strut assembly to be almost completely intact, including the shimmy damper. The damper is among the least robust parts of the assembly. There is apparently a wheel missing, but no visible damage to the truck. The wheel seems to have detached at its attach point, which is the weakest part of the shaft-bearing-truck-wheel assembly.

Quote:

And high-order explosions don’t produce jets of hot gas, right?

No, they don't unless a shaped charge is used, as your source made plain. I've explained at length how the charges and wavefronts differ. You haven't addressed any of that.

Quote:

Speer correctly...

No. Speer is incompetent for the reasons I've explained. You keep relying on these obviously unreliable sources.

Quote:

First off, you’re in no position to be judging Donaldson’s competence or impartiality.

I absolutely am.

I'm a licensed engineer. He was not. I have large-airframe experience. He did not. He was funded by a media personality who had a right-wing bias. I work only for myself. He did not submit his findings for any kind of peer review. My work, even when done for private clients, is usually subjected to adverse review by peer engineers and occasionally also lawyers.

You have no expertise that would let you judge whether Donaldson, Stalcup, or any other of your other sources have made sound engineering judgment. You simply declare them to be experts beyond all criticism. Nor are you qualified in any way to determine whether I'm professionally competent in my field.

Quote:

You have already provided clear indications that you are not what you say you are.

Obsessed much?

Quote:

After claiming that you had experience in “missile and weaponry design,” you committed the egregious gaffe of saying that high-order explosions do not produce jets of hot gas...

Did you pay the slightest attention too the part where everyone who read your source correctly determined that the jet is produced only when a shaped charge is used?

Quote:

Donaldson was using standard principles of debris field analysis.

How do you know that? Because he told you he was?

Quote:

Everything he said is valid. Anyone who has any background in aircraft crash investigation knows that the main value and function of debris field analysis is (1) that it helps investigators determine which parts of the aircraft failed first, and (2) that it may enable investigators to determine the cause of the crash.

No, that's not a very accurate description. It doesn't tell you which components "failed" first, merely which structures detached or were ejected first. Even that is mitigated by drag-to-weight ratios.

Quote:

First of all, if you were a properly qualified engineer with experience in “missile and weaponry design,” you would not have blunderingly accused Speer of spouting a “howler” when he noted that high-order explosions generate jets of hot gas and can cause severe structural damage.

I have covered this point thoroughly. You don't know what you're talking about. You misinterpreted a discussion that clearly spelled out it was for shaped charges, and tried to generalize that to all explosions. Wavefront dynamics are the bread-and-butter of explosives and ordnance design. Many people are familiar with them who aren't even considered experts and who claim no expertise. Are you certain this is the hill you want to die on?

Quote:

Moreover, Donaldson’s point about 3,000 PSI was a general reference to the documented ability of hydraulic cylinders in landing gear to handle 3,000 PSI of hydraulic fluid...

"Handle" is imprecise. They have a pressure-bearing capacity to that extent. That does not create an equivalent resistance to bending moments.

An aluminum beverage can has a pressure-bearing capacity of well over 50 psi. But it can be deformed according to a bending moment by only a couple of foot-pounds. Naturally hydraulic cylinders are proportionally thicker, but it demonstrates the difference between the two stress modes. Pressure bearing is tensile strength, not yield strength in the bending mode. They are not comparable forces.

Quote:

He addressed the issue of yield strength two paragraphs later when he noted that the nose landing gear can be extended even when the plane is flying at a speed of 320 knots, or 368 mph

No, that is not the same kind of loading. Not even remotely.

Quote:

The validity of this point is self-evident.

No, it's actually apples and oranges. It's the kind of pseudo-technical argument that someone would make to try to convince a lay audience that there's something scientifically wrong with a particular narrative. It's a completely incorrect structural analysis.

Quote:

But the photo of the nose landing gear shows just how severely it was damaged, and the only two theories your side can offer for that damage are ludicrous on their face and physically impossible.

According to non-engineers with dubious backgrounds and no peer review.

Again, your report does not test the viability of the theory that an air-intercept bursting charge could have caused the damage to the landing gear assemblies that you attribute to one. Why didn't Donaldson perform that critical test before drawing his conclusion? You note correctly that it would be absurd to argue that aerodynamic forces would damage the landing gear itself. Don't you understand that blast damage from a detonation is just a special case of aerodynamic loading?

[sts60]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

"Handle" is imprecise. They have a pressure-bearing capacity to that extent. That does not create an equivalent resistance to bending moments.

The hydraulic cutters, spreaders, and rams I’ve used are powered by up to 10,000 psi of hydraulic pressure. The hoses transmitting that pressure are plenty flexible.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

After claiming that you had experience in “missile and weaponry design,” you committed the egregious gaffe of saying that high-order explosions do not produce jets of hot gas, and you accused crash investigator James Speer of spouting a “howler” for noting the fact that they do. You are no engineer, or else you’re a really, really bad one.

This, right here tells me that you do not have the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

Let me state this right now, categorically, and for the record.

High Order Explosives (for example, nitroglycerine, dynamite and C-4) do not, in or of themselves, produce jets of hot gas UNLESS a shaped charge is used. YOUR OWN SOURCE EXPLAINS THIS!!!! If Speer is claiming this THEN HE IS WRONG... PERIOD!!!!

And has already been explained to you along with the reasons, by Jay and myself, anti-aircraft missiles DO NOT USE SHAPED CHARGES!

[MBDK]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

And has already been explained to you along with the reasons, by Jay and myself, anti-aircraft missiles DO NOT USE SHAPED CHARGES!

This absolute fact, paired with mikegriffith1's cold-shouldered failure to acknowledge it, is fairly conclusive evidence that he is merely a troll, and not a very bright one, either. This is the childish annoyance game of merely repeating the same thing over and over, despite any and all counter-evidence, as their only way to claim victory is to hope their opponent(s) retire out of boredom, frustration, or old age.

[JayUtah]

Since we've doubled down on the "explosions produce jets of gas" claim. Let's visit this past post in greater detail :—

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

All high explosions produce gas, very hot and high-pressure gas. When a high-order explosion begins, the explosive material becomes high-pressure gas. In fact, it is this high-pressure gas that creates the shock wave that breaks the warhead’s case and causes the case to fragment into shrapnel traveling at supersonic speeds. So James Speer is correct, and you are woefully wrong.

No, Speer argues for a jet of gas. A jet operates in a single direction along a linear path, to concentrate its effect on the material in a single place. Speer is pointing to a single place on the airframe—holes he says were formed by "jets of hot gas," necessarily concentrated at that spot to produce the effect there, and not on the surrounding structure.

A bursting charge operates in all directions, not as a jet but as the omnidirectional shock wave your sources discuss. It is initially at high pressure, so that it bursts the frag assembly. As the shock wave expands, the pressure drops according to the inverse square law. This is basic physics, from when you first learned the kinetic theory of gases, the ideal gas law, etc.

Quote:

From an ATF manual on explosives:

A high order detonation is a complete detonation of the explosive at its highest possible velocity. A low order detonation is either incomplete detonation or complete detonation at lower than maximum velocity. . . .
When an explosive is detonated, the block or stick of chemical explosive material is instantaneously converted from a solid into a rapidly expanding mass of gases. The detonation of the explosive will produce three primary effects and several associated secondary effects which create great damage in the area surrounding the explosion. . . .

When an explosive charge is detonated, very hot, expanding gases are formed in a period of approximately 1/10,000th of a second. These gases exert pressures of about 700 tons per square inch on the atmosphere surrounding the point of detonation and rush away from the point of detonation at velocities of up to 7,00,0 miles per hour, compressing the surrounding air. This mass of expanding gas rolls outward in a circular pattern from the point of detonation like a giant wave, weighing tons, smashing and shattering any object in its path. . . .

The entire blast pressure wave, because of its two distinct phases, actually delivers a one-two punch to any object in its path. The blast pressure effect is the most powerful and destructive of the explosive effects produced by the detonation of high explosives. . . .

First, note the highlights, which clearly describe the shape of the shock wave: expanding outward in all directions, not focused on a single spot.

Second, you give us the ellipsis, but you dishonestly try to sew together the previous quote describing the omnidirectional shock wave with the following one describing a focused effect, which you seem to want to consider a single thought.

Quote:

This improved effectiveness is caused by the focusing of the hot gases released by the detonating explosive. The extremely hot, swiftly moving spit of concentrated power is called the "jet" and performs in much the same manner as the white-hot flame of a cutting torch. (Modular Explosives Training Program, The National Bomb Data Center, pp. 5-6, 9, 17, https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digiti...60137NCJRS.pdf, emphasis added)

Let's look at the paragraph you cut out. It reads :—

Originally Posted by ATF

Another characteristic of explosives related to work performance is the fact that the forces created by a detonating explosive will be given off directionally at a 90° angle from the surface of the explosive as illustrated in figure 11. Consequently, if the explosive is cut or shaped to provide 90° surfaces along a predetermined plane, the explosive forces can be focused directionally, and will produce a greater effect, ounce for ounce, than the same explosive employed as a mass. This relationship is illustrated in figure 12.(op. cit., p. 17)

Interesting that you excised the paragraph that explained the exact distinction I described in the preparation of the charge to produce the very different effect of a cutting jet. Figure 12 in your source illustrates the difference between a charge that cuts and one that doesn't. One is a shaped charge; the other isn't.

Was this omission an error? An oversight? I and several others drew your attention to the notion that you had possibly misread or misrepresented your source. Did you go back to see whether you had omitted something important (which, in fact, you did)? No. Instead you doubled down no fewer than three times in a subsequent post to propound a lie. Your source does not establish that a charge meant to throw frags in all directions will also be able to create a cutting jet. In fact it belabors the distinction for a full page of discussion that includes two illustrations.

Once might be a mistake. Three times is a deliberate lie.

In contrast, when I tried to follow you on your merry jaunt through the Boeing 747's undercarriage, I belatedly noticed you had switched from talking about the doors and hinges to the gear structure itself. I therefore took the initiative to start over at a certain point to clarify what I believed to be the aerodynamic and structural effects in each case. This is because it's important to me to get the science right, even if it means having to retrace my steps. But to you it seems more important to merely appear right at all costs, regardless of facts.

Now your other sources.

Quote:

An explosive is a material that is capable of producing an explosion by releasing the potential energy contained within it. All high explosives produce heat and gas. The rapid expansion of gas is the primary medium for measuring the power of an explosion (Cullis, 2001). When a high explosive charge detonates, it produces a blast wave (overpressure) that consists of two parts: a shock wave and a blast wind. The blast wave pushes outwards from the core of the detonation at supersonic speed. The outer edge of the blast wave is made up of the compressed gases contained in the surrounding air. This layer of compressed air is more properly described as a shock wave or shock front. (Explosive Weapon Effects: Final Report, February 2017, p. 44, emphasis added)

This confirms my claim that ordinarily the shock wave, or wave front, expands. It does not remain concentrated in a jet.

Quote:

A blast warhead is one that is designed to achieve target damage primarily from blast effect. When a high explosive detonates, it is converted almost instantly into a gas at very high pressure and temperature. Under the pressure of the gases thus generated, the weapon case expands and breaks into fragments. The air surrounding the casing is compressed and a shock (blast) wave is transmitted into it. (Fundamentals of Naval Weapons Systems, U.S. Naval Academy, section 13.4.1, https://man.fas.org/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part13.htm, emphasis added)

You quote from section 13.4.1 of this online manual. Section 13.4.2 gives considerable technical detail about the physics of fragmentation warheads, describing the omnidirectional wave front and the physics of entrainment. Section 13.4.3 goes into considerable detail to describe shaped charges, how they go about producing the jet of gas that can cut material, and how they differ in their design, effect, and application than the fragmentation warheads described in the previous section.

Did you read the entire source? Did you think it might have been important to note that this source entirely confirms the distinctions I previously drew between shaped-charge warheads and fragmentation warheads?

Quote:

When a high order explosion is initiated, a very rapid exothermic chemical reaction occurs. As the reaction progresses, the solid or liquid explosive material is converted to very hot, dense, high-pressure gas. The explosion products initially expand at very high velocities in an attempt to reach equilibrium with the surrounding air, causing a shock wave. A shock wave consists of highly compressed air, traveling radially outward from the source at supersonic velocities. (Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks, FEMA, 2003, p. 4-1, https://www.fema.gov/pdf/plan/preven...ma426_ch4.pdf; https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/f...08/fema426.txt, emphasis added)

Confirms the radial expansion of the shock wave that I described, not a focused jet. The pressure and thermal effects of this wave decrease according to the square of the radius.

Quote:

The loss of life caused by an explosion is often due to fragmentation rather than the overpressure or the following wind of the shock wave itself. Shrapnel behaves like a hail of supersonic bullets, being accelerated along radial lines in all directions from the explosion center by the aerodynamic drag force exerted by the rapidly expanding gas. (Gary Settles, “High-speed Imaging of Shock Waves, Explosions and Gunshots,” American Scientist, January 2006, https://www.americanscientist.org/ar...s-and-gunshots, emphasis added)

Confirms the radial expansion of the shock wave that I described.

You're simply lying. There's really no more apt explanation. You've deliberately cherry-picked from these sources—in one case egregiously. You claim to be an expert here, but you seem to lack basic understanding of elementary physical principles such as the inverse square law. This principle is typically introduced in high school physics. It's the law that governs shock waves, and everyone here except for you seems to have remembered this, regardless of their nominal occupation and experience.

Up until now I have given you the benefit of the doubt, granting you that despite all the counterarguments and contrary evidence, you still sincerely believed in the claims made by Donaldson et al., by Stalcup, and by Cashill. That's really no longer tenable. You've now exhibited dishonest behavior entirely on your own. It's not about being fooled by conspiracy theorists. It's not about giving people the benefit of the doubt on a controversial subject. No—you're straight-up lying now.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Wow, this is an intensely personal deal for you, isn't it? You don't care about the details of the missile theory, but you're doggedly obsessed with whether I'm an imposter. Are you well?

Shades of a certain poster in the 911 days.

Also I note that whatever "source" mikegriffith1 is C&Ping from doesn't have a great grasp of Mach numbers.
0.82 Mach is ~545 knots not 270 or 320.
0.6 Mach is ~400 knots
At sea level.

[sts60]

mikegrifith1, is it asking for too much for you to say what kind(s) of missiles were involved? And how many?

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by sts60

The hydraulic cutters, spreaders, and rams I’ve used are powered by up to 10,000 psi of hydraulic pressure. The hoses transmitting that pressure are plenty flexible.

Agreed, but to be fair those are materials chosen to have that effect. Hydraulic hoses are composed of an elastomer meant to provide a flexible conduit and a woven metal restraint layer intended to limit the elastic expansion of the container to a desired profile. I should point out that the brake lines in a large airliner contain segments of this same design and can operate at commensurate hydraulic pressures.

Rigid hydraulic actuators are not meant to be flexible in the bending mode, but will naturally have measurable strength—great or small—to resist bending moments: because they're objects and all objects can be measured in this way regardless of shape, composition, or intent. They're design to contain pressure, and that's a factor solely of tensile strength. Conversely I can design a part meant to withstand a substantial bending moment, but it may have poor tensile performance. If the design requirements do not need substantial tensile performance, that "deficiency" is not important. If, later, the part fails in tension due to some exceptional condition, you can't argue that it was unacceptably weak or that the tensile forces must have been suspiciously large because the part performed especially well in bending mode.

Specifically, hydraulic actuator cylinders must contain pressure without expanding radially to the point where the fluid leakage around the actuator piston is unacceptable. So their walls will necessarily be thicker than the proverbial soda can. A soda can is allowed to expand elastically as it is pressurized. We simply don't care about its diameter. Similarly the designer of the hydraulic actuators for airliner landing gear isn't worried about anything besides axial loading and cylinder expansion. Loading the cylinder for bending isn't part of the design problem nor of the design margin for other effects.

As to the claim that the cylinders withstand a 300+ kt slipstream; that is at best arguably true. Most of the actuators actually don't protrude below the nominal edges of the wheel wells and so are subject only to turbulence inside the well. And I don't have to belabor the difference between aerodynamic forces and hydrodynamic forces upon impact.

On the Boeing 747 only two kinds of hydraulic actuator are (arguably) in full slipstream: the steering actuator on the nose gear, and the ankles actuator on the main gear. Necessarily the steering actuator is axial to the airflow, otherwise it couldn't push properly against the tiller. The ankle actuator is what pitches the main gear truck up to fit properly into the gear well, and down again on runway contact to plant all the wheels. The ankles-up configuration of the -74 on landing is one of its most iconic images. But the ankles actuator is comparatively tiny. In a hard crosswind landing, when the rear tires of the truck hit first and impose a rotation on the truck, a robust spline prevents yaw over-rotation. The actuator—which would be bending-loaded by such an over-rotation—is protected. This is the structural assembly working together to provide the emergent effect of design strength. When this assembly is compromised by, say, an onboard explosion, all bets are off. The "robust" hydraulic actuators are then possibly subjected to loads they were not designed or expected to withstand.

[sts60]

A very good explanation. I agree the hoses are different from the rigid actuators, but just wanted to poke at the implication that the ability to withstand internal hydraulic pressure equated to the ability to resist bending moments.

Also, Robust Splines Will be the name of my garage band if I ever start one.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by sts60

A very good explanation. I agree the hoses are different from the rigid actuators, but just wanted to poke at the implication that the ability to withstand internal hydraulic pressure equated to the ability to resist bending moments.

Indeed, all forces are not created equal.

[beachnut]

Spreading woo all over the internet. A legacy of woo.

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...#post-31528314

Quote:

mikegriffith1 step back, realize you're bumping up and going beyond the limits of your understanding and ignoring your own intellectual or experiential shortcomings, the results being your susceptibility for buying into ... conspiracies.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Spreading woo all over the internet. A legacy of woo.

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...#post-31528314

He has posted on other threads in this forum, but then he is a "critical thinker".

[JayUtah]

This is my favorite part.

Quote:

Uh, yes, an ICBM is a type of SAM. You must be kidding. Adamantly stating erroneous arguments does not make them any less erroneous. I guess you missed, or ignored, the distinction I drew between anti-air SAMs and ICBMs. You know, when you get on a public board and declare that an ICBM is not a SAM, you show you have no business talking about this subject.

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...#post-31443222

The person who wrote that is clearly not playing with a full deck of marbles.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

This is my favorite part.


https://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...#post-31443222

The person who wrote that is clearly not playing with a full deck of marbles.

I was a bit amused. I then read the nest post and it all became clear, again.

[JayUtah]

To be specific, read his next post where he tries to backpedal. It's...astonishing.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

To be specific, read his next post where he tries to backpedal. It's...astonishing.

Well I started to read and stopped, catastrophic failure. But not any worse than here or other threads here. I think you nailed it, he believes him to be the smartest one in the thread.

[sackett]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

...The person who wrote that is clearly not playing with a full deck of marbles.

wrote that is mixing metaphors that have never been mixed before.

He must be shooting craps with about 25 cards left in his bag.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by sackett

wrote that is mixing metaphors that have never been mixed before.

Actually I stole it from Garrison Keillor's "A Lutheran's Guide to the Orchestra."