Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:59 From: email@example.com (David P Benjamin) Organization: Auburn University Usenet Server References: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
Stephen Westin (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote: : In article <airliners.1997.818@ohare.Chicago.COM> email@example.com writes: : <snip> : > The forward cargo door was seen by primary radar and human eyes as it : > departed TWA 800. It left first of all the pieces to go, and landed : > closest to the takeoff point. The door has failed before. The effect of : > departing caused an explosive decompression which was recorded on the : > cockpit voice recorder as a sudden loud sound just before an abrupt power : > cut. The cut occurred when the nose separated from the rest of the body by : > the force of the 300 knot slipstream crumpling the nose into the cargo : > door hole caused crease. : Please explain how UA811 returned safely to Hawaii, while TW800 fell : into the ocean when allegedly the same thing happened. That is fairly easy to explain. The UA pilot wasn't in autopilot and didn't fight the plane. The TWA pilot might have. Or the plane's structure might have had subtle differences that account for it. I can believe a nonlinear event can produce radically different results. There are problems with the cargo door theory. The missing passengers are from rows 17-19. Those rows are behind the second starboard passenger door and several rows behind the cargo door. The missing UA passengers were directly above the cargo door. And then there's the needless attempt to explain everything with the cargo door theory. The radar anomaly has no relation at all to TWA800. It's well away from the aircraft and moving laterally faster than the 747. It's not a cargo door. -- David Benjamin http://www.duc.auburn.edu/~benjadp Home of the USS Alabama Tour and Sea Power in SouthEast Asia Spam reported to ISPs and/or US Fraud hotline. Inquire within.