-Caveat Lector-
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, M.A. Johnson wrote:
> MICHAEL SPITZER wrote:
> From another list I'm on:
>
> I was reading the accounts of the plane accident, and from what I
> could make of it, the plane was on its final descent to land.
> Approximate speed was something under 100 mph, given the top
> speed of the plane was about 150 mph. The pieces being found are
> things like pieces of seats, one wheel, a wing strut, a piece of
> landing gear, etc. In other words, small pieces of a very badly
> broken apart plane, a plane whose fuselage was ripped apart badly
> enough to tear the very seats apart. Does this seem logical to
> you? The pieces descriptions sound to me like what would happen
> if the plane exploded, not something that would happen if it
> ditched in the water on final approach. Am I just ignorant here?
Right now, I'm reading several reports that says that it had
'plummeted' at 53 mph. And, they say in other reports that it
descended 1400 ft in 7 seconds. That would be about 120 mph
vertical descent? That's the "official" word on it. Most reports
agree, however, that he was "plummeting" at a rate of 4,700 feet
per minute, which is roughly 53 mph, less than a mile a minute,
and he was less than half a mile up.
Even at 53 mph VERTICAL descent, that's 4664 FEET PER MINUTE!!
That's way way more than that plane is capable of...i.e., rated
for.
Well, I say it got TAGGED! Ain't NOTHIN that coulda caused that,
i.e., logically speaking, out side of a SUICIDE DIVE, or getting
TAGGED!
>
> Yes.
> Water would be like concrete at the speed it *might have* hit.
My dad has 3000 combat hours piloting B-17s and B-25s in WWII and
Korea, and a few hundred in single and dual engine private AC.
He says he was taught in military pilot training school that
hitting water at terminal velocity (i.e., 120 for a person spread
full eagle, 180 mph for the beach ball full of water they pushed
out of a plane during their training, i.e., depending on
aerodynamics) is EXACTLY the same as falling onto concrete (i.e.,
water would not abate the forces experienced in the initial
impact, AT ALL...not for a few milliseconds, anyway, and that
would be well AFTER all the damage had occurred).
>
> The speed you cite is horizontal, not vertical. Find the WEIGHT
> of the plane, the cited altitude and utilize some Physics for a
> better 'picture'.
Descent acceleration is not dependent on weight or mass. In a
vacuum everything falls at the same rate, i.e., acceleration due
to the force of gravity. However, a plane (or it's wings,
pieces, etc.) would be MORE similar to a feather fluttering down,
i.e., much slower descent than an object in a vacuum, due to air
friction.
It is quite possible that the plane was in
> a 'powered dive' when it hit the water -- which could certainly
> exceed its horizontal maximum speed.
>
And, in a power dive, it could have FAR exceeded it's maximum
vertical descent rating...and, even though it woulda probably
come apart much before this, it could even exceed terminal
velocity. However, I seem to remember hearing that that plane
(Piper) was rated at a maximum of 2600 ft/min vertical descent,
i.e., recommended max for both remaining in control and in one
piece.
> You could only 'guess' the speed at impact, but assuming the
> plane merely 'dropped' from the last reported altitude will
> provide its MINIMUM (or approximate since weights of the
> passengers, fuel and luggage would have to be estimated).
>
Well, if the feather analogy holds, and it does, terminal
velocity would be the MAXIMUM possible IF engine off, and things
like the wings that would have vastly reduced this limit (due to
increased air friction), had come off.
Also, a plane like that usually has AT LEAST a 7 to 1 glide
ratio...i.e., if a mile up, it can, IF THE ENGINE DIES, glide a
MINIMUM OF SEVEN MILES.
Here's the way I reason it all so far:
The 53 mph (i.e., 4664 ft/min) is just the vertical COMPONENT of
the planes motion...as would be the read out on the altimeter.
There are also a few instruments that gauge the FORWARD vector of
a planes motion, i.e., its air speed, ground speed, etc. Then
there are a whole host of instruments to tell where the plane is
going in the perpendicular direction to forward vector, to
complete the 3-D aspects a plane moves in.
If the downward component was 4700 ft/min, there was also most
probably a forward air/ground speed as well...this one would
diminish if the plane's engine was disabled ...and if wind is
assumed to be an insignificant factor, would eventually fall to
zero IF the plane was stalled, spinning (anything but a
glide), i.e., eventually the horizontal component would approach
zero and the plane would be falling ("plummeting") straight
If the plane fell 1500 ft or so, it would have probably been
close to zero forward vector when it hit the water, and faster
than 4700 ft vertical descent (the 4700 ft/min they claim is an
average over several seconds, i.e., the sweep time of the
radar...what, about 6-7 seconds?
If the second statistic is true, i.e., the 1400 ft in 7 seconds
(that's 120 mph vertical descent, i.e., approximately terminal
velocity, i.e., GREATER DESCENT SPEED THAN A STALLED TUMBLING _IN
TACT_ PLANE WOULD EVER REACH), then the plane would HAVE TO HAVE
BEEN IN A POWER DIVE, period.
Anyway, back to the 4700 ft per minute statistic. I figure that
whenever WHATEVER went wrong and took him out of a narmal landing
approach to give this 4700 ft/min descent (2-3 times nominal or
max rating), the plane was most probably going much faster in the
forward (horizontal vector) direction at the beginning of that
last 6-7 seconds than it was at the end (if on normal approach it
was doing about 100 mph....then this would taper to near zero if
it was TAGGED, or for some other reason, just fell from the
sky??), and likewise, it was probably descending (or falling)
much less than 4700 ft/min (i.e., vertical component of the
plane's motion) at the beginning of that last radar sweep than at
the end...like 500-600 ft/min on a normal approach at the
beginning, to like ~7000ft/min at impact.
Any way you look at it, I think it would be quite impossible to
pull out of that type of descent AT ALL, even if he still had an
engine, let alone for a pilot that had never done so before,
i.e., a non STUNT pilot. And this would probably be the case AT
ANY altitude, let alone only 1200-1400 ft off the water...
I could be wrong, but based on all the above, the only thing that
seems to fit is that he either went from a normal final approach
(i.e., all things normal at about 1200-2500 ft in altitude and
about 10 miles out) into a SUDDEN and voluntary SUICIDE DIVE, or
MUCH MORE LIKELY, he got "tagged," and literally fell from the
sky.
How's that sound?
Pax vobiscum,
Mike
P.S. I just saw the following, but I dont feel like changing my
numbers, i.e., my same arguments hold true:
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Date: Tuesday, July 20, 1999 2:03 PM
Subject: Was John John murdered by the "Illuminati"?
Was John John murdered by the "Illuminati"?
<<snip>>
"At 9:40:20 (as has been reported by several sources), while
maintaining an altitude of 2200 feet above sea level, an invasive
interference within John John's Piper-Saratoga airplane caused
the plane to plunge into a rapid descent which resulted in radar
tracking of altitudes of 1900 feet at 9:40:24, 1600 feet at
9:40:29, and 1100 feet at 9:40:34, indicating a rapid
accelerating descent which most likely occurred due to mechanical
failure, sabotage, or an external force of some sort impacting
the integrity of the structure of the airplane."
=================================================================
Kaddish, Kaddish, Kaddish, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day.
=================================================================
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
