 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / February 2008Who'll Take the Fall for Lockheed/NASA This Time?
Will it be Thiokol again? After booster separation aft, there is NO evidence on Challenger's right solid rocket of the 6000 degree heat from an "aft burnthrough." Synchronized frames from several cameras now prove that well, particularly frames from cameras due west (i.e., those with an exposed- for-flame end view of Challenger's inclined outboard side). If the right booster "pivoted" forward and rotated outward to the north after the failure of its lower aft strut (as NASA dogmatically alleged), a "blowtorch plume" would have shown UP in the next few frames, None did, on ANY camera! To borrow a worn out phrase from mother Lockheed and father NASA, the O-ring theory has been "put to bed." Produce the post-aft-sep plume, NASA supporters, or cool it. JTM On Feb 14, 5:23 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > Will it be Thiokol again? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > JTM On Feb 14, 5:57 pm, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: "move on, nothing to look at here." That's why you're in such a hurry/bind to hide it, right? In some places they call that obstruction of justice, JTM On Feb 14, 9:05 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > On Feb 14, 5:57 pm, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > JTM Youre taking yourself to seriously Not hiding anything. Just trying to clean up the garbage. Obstructing what? There is no investigation or trial or coverup There is nothing of import here. Just the rantings of a delusional person looking for some attention. And I have given it too much as it is I hear the moon is in fact made of thermoplastic and put up there by Pepsi.... :-) Brian  SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > On Feb 14, 9:05 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > person looking for some attention. And I have given it too much as it > is On Feb 14, 8:42 pm, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: > On Feb 14, 9:05 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Not hiding anything. Just trying to clean up the garbage. Then start wiping up after JSC Orbiter Manager Richard A. Colonna. As long-time regulars here know well, I've quoted from NASA internal documents that clearly show Colonna used 16 mm film a day or two after the explosion to make his determination for Jesse Moore that a "right- aft SRB burnthrough" was the problem. JTM On Feb 15, 6:22 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > On Feb 14, 8:42 pm, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > JTM Blah blah blah blah blah On Feb 14, 4:23 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > Will it be Thiokol again? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > JTM On Feb 14, 7:35 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > On Feb 14, 4:23 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > > JTM I cannot believe this debate is going on. Its obvious to me that the burn through was intermittent. I had sight in those days and even I saw this effect, once the mounting was cut, the stresses were different and the burn through subsided. Take more putty with it mate. Brian SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Will it be Thiokol again? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > JTM > I cannot believe this debate is going on. Its obvious to me that the burn > through was intermittent. I had sight in those days and even I saw this > effect, once the mounting was cut, the stresses were different and the burn > through subsided. And your solid rocket credententials for contradicting Dr. Harold Ritchey are? JTM On Feb 15, 6:29 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > > I cannot believe this debate is going on. Its obvious to me that the burn > > through was intermittent. I had sight in those days and even I saw this [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > JTM He is only 1 "expert", not the only > I cannot believe this debate is going on. Its obvious to me that the burn > through was intermittent. I had sight in those days and even I saw this > effect, once the mounting was cut, the stresses were different and the burn > through subsided. Yet (allegedly) it was present in all its "blowtorch" fury just one second later, at fireball exit? NO solid rocket expert would buy THAT. Try again, home boy. JTM >I cannot believe this debate is going on. Its obvious to me that the burn >through was intermittent. I had sight in those days and even I saw this >effect, once the mounting was cut, the stresses were different and the burn >through subsided. While what you say is true, why are you responding to Maxson at all? He's been spewing the same bile for years now. Please killfile him. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein On Feb 15, 12:19 pm, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote: > >I cannot believe this debate is going on. Its obvious to me that the burn > >through was intermittent. I had sight in those days and even I saw this [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jeff You know Findley, I've had about all the libel from you that I can stomach. You'd better be prepared to prove what you've said about me and to defend what you've redundantly told others to do about me -- in court. JTM > I cannot believe this debate is going on. Its obvious to me that the burn > through was intermittent. I had sight in those days and even I saw this [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Brian Your statement about the SRB leak being intermittent is not accurate as it relates to Mr. Maxson's web strips. I say this because you mention the mounting being cut which occurred at approximately MET 1 minute 13 seconds which is the timeframe of Maxson's web strips. The "intermittent" portion of the SRB flame leak which you mention occurred only in the first second or so after burnthrough beginning at about MET 59 seconds. After that timeframe, the plume was reportedly "continuous" and "well-defined" according to the Presidential report, with an ever increasing thrust exiting the sidewall of the booster. Near the point of structural break-up the right SRB thrust was 24 psi (which is roughly 96,000 pounds) lower than the left booster. This thrust differential was attributed to the right SRB burn-through. So given the extent of the SRB leak at MET 1 minute 13 seconds, it is difficult for me to imagine the burnthrough disappearing at the critical point of structural break-up. I personally have no explanation for why none of the camera angles on Maxson's web strips appear to show the right SRB burnthrough and what must have been a pretty long flame coming out of the side of the booster. That flame should be visible coming up vertically away from the earth and spraying over the top of the ET (viewed from the south) as the right SRB rotates about its aft attachments and breaks away from the tank. Has anyone seen any video, film, or photos that clearly contradicts Maxson's? I have searched through the Presidential report but there really is not much there photographically. Dave > > I cannot believe this debate is going on. Its obvious to me that the burn > > through was intermittent. I had sight in those days and even I saw this [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Dave Great 3-D perception, Dave, and very good recall from the Rogers report. Maybe no one really can produce optics contradicting those FOIA strips. At any rate, there suddenly appears to be dead silence on my threads. All the personal attacks have ceased for 24 hours. I don't know what to make of it, I intentionally delayed replying to your insightful post, to give others a chance. I suspect that you inadvertently dropped an elephant's foot on Findley's toes, in the process of bringing Gaff back to reality, Again, yours was obviously a concisely scientific post, and it went right to the point JTM On Feb 18, 6:02 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > > > ...Its obvious to me that the burn > > > through was intermittent.... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ...Your statement about the SRB leak being intermittent is not accurate > > as it relates to Mr. Maxson's web strips.... > > ...Has anyone seen any video, film, or photos that clearly contradicts > > Maxson's? I have searched through the Presidential report but there [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Again, yours was obviously a concisely scientific post, and it went > right to the point Thanks. Frankly I went and searched the Presidential report looking for some or any photos that clearly contradicted any of your photos. People will Photoshop just about anything nowadays so I did wonder if that is what you had done because the photos if genuine are difficult to explain. I could not find any contradictory photos in th report and the photos do look authentic to me. Not too long ago I did quite a bit of Presidential report reading so I felt I had to say something here on the nature of the burnthrough. I think as time passes, people's recollection of technical aspects of the accident blurs. I think this is normal. I am dismayed at the dismal quantity of photographs in the report. As for the dead silence, it appears that several people here do not like you so my guess is that they are ignoring you. The personal attacks just clutter up the topics at hand so the "average Joe" will quit reading an otherwise interesting topic and missing a lot of interesting discussion. I like to hear both sides of every story even when one side goes against the status quo so it is a shame the posts get personal. Candidly, it might help too, if you were less antagonistic in your posts as you make negative personal comments as well. I did not intend to drop anything on any poster. Dave > ... I felt I had to say something > here on the nature of the burnthrough. I think as time passes, > people's recollection of technical aspects of the accident blurs. I > think this is normal. I am dismayed at the dismal quantity of > photographs in the report. I agree with you about the uninvolved person's tendency to forget vital technical details. My perception, however, is not that of a "burnthrough" per se, but of an *alleged* burnthrough. Similarly, my intimate involvement with the launch will permit me to admit only to what has been widely *reported* as an "accident." > Candidly, it might help too, if you were less antagonistic > in your posts as you make negative personal comments as well. It's very difficult for anyone falsely accused to avoid appearing defensive, but I do make a conscious effort to ignore the insults and manipulation I've suffered at the hands of many members in this forum. Your point is well taken, however. JTM On Feb 19, 4:10 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > I agree with you about the uninvolved person's tendency to forget > vital technical details. My perception, however, is not that of a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > manipulation I've suffered at the hands of many members in this forum. > Your point is well taken, however. I have been to your website and understand your view on the burnthrough. I accept the burnthrough as fact until proven otherwise. I am open to listening to what you say and show us with your photos. I will continue to follow your posts and watch your website for updates. Dave > > I cannot believe this debate is going on. Its obvious to me that the burn > > through was intermittent. I had sight in those days and even I saw this [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > Brian The time you give, Brian, for when "the burn through subsided" is so preposterous that from this time forward I will refer to it as THE gaffe. > Your statement about the SRB leak being intermittent is not accurate > as it relates to Mr. Maxson's web strips. I say this because you [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Dave On Feb 14, 5:23 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > Will it be Thiokol again? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > JTM Go waste your time on something more productive, like looking for UFO's, the Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, the 2nd gun man, the Black UN helicopters, MIB, etc > On Feb 14, 5:23 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > UFO's, the Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, the 2nd gun man, the Black UN > helicopters, MIB, etc And don't forget the Apollo hoax! George On Feb 14, 5:23 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > Will it be Thiokol again? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > JTM You are the one that needs to cool. In the big picture, what does it matter? The astronaut families got a settlement. ET or SRB? Thiokol didn't to complain that they were blamed and accepted it. Still what does it matter? Nobody cares anymore > On Feb 14, 5:23 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Nobody cares anymore APOLLO 12 UFO Apollo 12 UFO in blackness of sky about 100 miles above the moon, 23 seconds of moving slowly at first then dancing erratic back and forth up and down then goes out, reappears as it reenters from top of frame, then leaps away into the distance (hard to see) as it continues moving erratically for 3 more seconds. Film taken November 1969, File Roll 8032 Magazine E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNEPKqNHr34 Donald Ratsch > APOLLO 12 UFO > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNEPKqNHr34 You might want to take this one to sci.space.history, Donald. JTM On Feb 15, 8:08 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > > APOLLO 12 UFO > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > JTM Now that is the kettle calling the pot black Your threads should go there too On Feb 16, 5:45 am, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: > On Feb 15, 8:08 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Your threads should go there too Now THAT is just far too hypocritical for normalcy. This is still sci.space.shuttle, although with all the devious members like you, Findley, and Thorn, one would never know it. What are you, hired guns for Lockheed? Whatever happened to that sick shyster Herb Schaltegger? Here's a quick example of Findley's hypocrisy, back when Berndt failed in his effort to simulate "veering" within the Challenger fireball: http://tinyurl.com/yvttp8 If it's another hired gun posting, he'll get logical technical responses. Otherwise, the Human O-Ring will try to run the member off. It's transparent. JTM On Feb 16, 7:29 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > Now THAT is just far too hypocritical for normalcy. This is still > sci.space.shuttle, although with all the devious members like you, > Findley, and Thorn, one would never know it. What are you, hired guns > for Lockheed? Classic example of paranoia On Feb 16, 6:56 am, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: > On Feb 16, 7:29 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Classic example of paranoia Super-classic example of shooting the messenger. JTM > On Feb 16, 6:56 am, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Feb 16, 7:29 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > JTM If the government has been engaged in such cover-ups and conspiracies then why the hell are you still here? Surely any government that would engage in half the activities you accuse them of would not hesitate to arrange an "accident" and make you disappear. The mere fact that you continue to convert oxygen to CO2 would seem to argue that your conspiracies are fantasy. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.