|
chenalos (August 2, 2008 at 3:34 pm)
That is the center of the controversy. The CIA produced the climb video to explain away reports of s streak of light coming from the horizon, and exploding in the air. The argument is that what eyewitnesses thought was a missile was just 800 going into a flaming climb. Since that is physically impossible (and it is) it proves that the governments claims are a mass-media lie.We need to re-investigate starting with eyewitness accounts and real data. What really happened?
seban678 (August 1, 2008 at 4:23 pm)
aloha was not just because of the wind it blew up because of the inside pressure and metal fatigue.. but that's not the point anyway.what i don't get is: what do you think happened? regardless of how or why it blew up, the attitude of the plane afterwards isn't what the controversy is about
chenalos (August 1, 2008 at 3:51 pm)
Aloha lost most of it's roof, peeled back to the wing. This was just from wind diverted from a nose section, and it still took out half the plane. This is a full open fuselage exposing both the cabin and cargo bay to frontal wind. Not to say that at 747 has a wider fuselage than Aloha's 737, meaning that the stress on the craft would be even greater.Nothing can keep a plane with no nose in the air.Nothing.
seban678 (August 1, 2008 at 3:28 pm)
I'm not so sure about this... the fuselage section surrounding the wings is pretty strong, and i doubt that the stresses induced by the wind would exceed normal pressurization stresses. the aloha 243 flight suffered the loss of a good portion of its fuselage at cruising speed and still the rest of it held up.
chenalos (August 1, 2008 at 3:19 pm)
No, it doesn't. Even if the fuselage could handle the stress, the pitch up would be too far: Wing Stall in three seconds, too fast for a thousand foot climb. If the nose section were cleaved off as shown, then you have an open fuselage of a 747 going into 800 kM/h wind. This is a closed fuselage with no vent capable of channeling out the oncoming air. An open-front fuselage going into this kind of thrust would rip to pieces.Can you see how the Governments model cannot work, now?
seban678 (August 1, 2008 at 3:02 pm)
how can i know if there is any wing stall without any data on the attitude or speed of the aircraft? the FDR stopped working at the moment of the explosion... the plane has lost weight when it lost its nose section, and the center of gravity moved backwards, so it seems quite logical to assume it pitched up.. doesn't it?
chenalos (August 1, 2008 at 2:56 pm)
How can you be a pilot and an aerospace engineer and not know about wing stall?
seban678 (August 1, 2008 at 1:12 pm)
then explain me.. i'm interested since i'm a private pilot and student in aerospace engineering. why can't an airplane whose center of gravity is displaced far behind the wings and at climbing power go up?
chenalos (August 1, 2008 at 1:05 pm)
You know nothing about aerodynamics. You know nothing about TWA800. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
seban678 (August 1, 2008 at 7:51 am)
the plane did this anyway, whether there was a bomb or not.. i don't really see your point |
