261–270 of 270 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not an assumption. Here's what a tail-heavy 747 does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUWC2jfjqI
you will notice a rapid lack of upwards ('vertical') movement in that video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would cause a fire, not a detonation. The same way gas tanks don't actually explode if you shoot them, they spring leaks and those leaks may catch fire but actual booms require very specific circumstances. Specifically, they require the correct mixture of air and fuel vapors but that doesn't require a missile impact to ignite. Something much more mundane like a spark is just as effective and about 5 orders of ma…
> a spark is just as effective and about 5 orders of magnitude more likely to occur. Seems you know of data about commercial airline fuel tank spark explosions. I didn't find much about this problem online. When else did this seemingly under-reported catastrophic commercial airline event happen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Airways_International_Fli...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_214
All fuel tank explosions. Modern aircraft have equipment specifically to mitigate fuel vapor in the tanks because of these sorts of incidents.
TWA 800 also caused improved maintenance requirements of wiring that might arc/spark, as inspections of other aircraft found widespread metal shavings, non-standard wiring, and eroded insulation in nearly every aircraft they took a look at.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the docket, the claim is that it was from land not from a naval warship: > Although the SPY-ID(V) would later become a key component aboard the next wave of Navy destroyer ships, in 1996 the only option with the hardware and computing power sufficient to operate the SPY-ID(V) was a New Jersey land-based testing site called the Combat Systems Engineering and Development Site (“CSEDS”).
There are still hundreds of people at a testing facility - and many of those would likely be civilian contractors, so not even under the military's direct control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you will notice a rapid lack of upwards ('vertical') movement in that video.
You’ll notice it’s taking off, not at cruise speed, and still makes a thousand or more feet into the air.
You make a good point about TWA 800 being at cruise speed compared to the cargo flight, and let's assume you're right and it does manage to nose up and keep going for some time: in that case you'd see something go upwards after an explosion, not streak towards it - though eyewitness accounts in times like that have been known to be flakey, so i give up here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Few generations is not enough. Having a few generations between large-scale war is how Europe operated in the last 200+ years. Maybe it's just few generations o'clock. Add to that how Europe absolutely botched both Bosnia and Kosovo and had full-scale wars there. Your arguments about world peace are bogus. Europe is encircled in a ring of fire made from ex-USSR, Middle East and Maghreb. All the wars in the world happ…
Not sure if all the wars in the world happen around Europe, unless you literally mean AROUND not IN. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_confli...
Meanwhile, East Asia or Americas just don't see that amount of action. Africa does, but that's another story.
It's like someone is throwing wars towards Europe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’ll notice it’s taking off, not at cruise speed, and still makes a thousand or more feet into the air.
Unfortunately I can't find altitude graphs or anything for national airlines 102, so can't really back up my argument with facts, but I'm gonna take a guess and say it wasn't flying like a rocket vertically upwards for 1000 feet. My guess is that it would have stalled very quickly after it nosed up too far and started dropping. You make a good point about TWA 800 being at cruise speed compared to the cargo flight, an…
Unless there's a subsequent explosion of the now-burning half a plane.
There's a good set of animations on https://imgur.com/a/zin7CRo that illustrate the theory of what happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are still hundreds of people at a testing facility - and many of those would likely be civilian contractors, so not even under the military's direct control.
How would all hundreds know though? I have no idea what happens on the other side of the floor in my building, let along the other floors. And my data isn’t even classified
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Expert witnesses always agree with whomever hired them. Just a point to consider.
The real filter is, of course, on being able to hire credible expert witnesses who agree with you.
I once saw a professor emeritus from a major CS/EE university who had founded their CS program and semiconductor program, had a bazillion highly ranked papers in those fields, a ton of patents including several that laid the foundations for modern integrated circuits, was an IEEE Fellow, a National Academy of Engineering member, and more I don't remember, testifying that the term RAM as commonly used in CS and EE includes hard disks, CD-ROM, and floppies.
I was doing some work for the opposing side and asked their lawyers how that expert could possibly say that. Surely if his friends or colleagues found out it would tarnish his reputation I though.
What they told me was that STEM communities, both academic and industrial, are well aware of how expert witness gigs work. Lawyers tell you what they need to do, and you find some argument for their position that isn't definitely a lie (in this case RAM stands for "Random Access Memory", and hard disk, CD-ROM, and floppy are indeed memory and have random access so of course are RAM), write up a report stating that, show up at the trial, have your impressive credentials read, and spend maybe an hour being examined and cross examined. In exchange for this you get enough money for a big fancy RV or a nice boat.
So when his colleagues learn that he said it is normal in CS to include floppies and disks and CD-ROM when talking about a computer's RAM they don't think he'd gone nuts or senile. They just think he must have wanted an RV or boat or to remodel his house and took an expert witness gig.
Our expert, who had a similar list of credentials, was using the gig to pay for a $100k car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The one's going up and the other's coming down.
If you read the NTSB’s report, you’ll note that they address this explicitly: the front half of the plane more or less sheared off, causing the back half to pitch up before descending.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> The high speed impact of an inert body into an aircraft the size of a 747 is not a reasonable explanation for a violent in-flight breakup Please explain this assertion. It makes no sense (at least to me).
It's exceptionally difficult to make a large airliner explode like a gas station in a 1980s action movie by hitting it with an inert missile-sized body. You could certainly cause damage which would cause it to eventually crash but TWA 800 violently exploded in mid air, which is different.