Comments on: Did a meteor bring down Air France 447?

By: MARK

MARK — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:14:13 +0000

THIS IS JUST ANOTHER COVER UP FROM START TO FINISH. WHEN YOU HAVE SO MANY STORIES WITH TONS OF CONFLICTING SENARIOS LEADING TO THE SAME OUTCOME, MOST LIKELY IT’S A COVERUP. A BANANA CREAM PIE MAY LOOK AND TASTE LIKE BANANAS….DON’T JUST ACCEPT BANANAS WERE USED JUST BECAUSE THE CHEF TOLD YOU SO. COVER UP AND I DON’T MEAN BECAUSE THIS CASE IS COLD…IT STINKS….

By: Stefano

Stefano — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:10:41 +0000

I must point out that TWA Flight 800 was directed to Paris – not Rome. It may seem irrelevant, but one must consider the 1994 hijacking of an Air France jet from Algiers to Paris.
Four Arab terrorists shot three passengers execution style. Once the plane landed in Marseilles for refueling, the French attempted negotiations.
When it became clear the four hijackers intended to blow up the jet over Paris or crash it into the Eiffel tower, French special forces stormed the plane, rescuing everyone aboard. The only ones killed were the terrorists.
Unfortunately, one has to wonder whether the TWA flight 800 crash – barely a year and a-half later – was an act of revenge…

By: Marc

Marc — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:28:10 +0000

Stop all this crazy speculation & hope that the flight data recorder & cockpit voice recorder are fished out of the South Atlantic…..that’s the only way that the cause of the crash will be found out.

By: gslippy

gslippy — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:37:09 +0000

I like the meteor theory; I’m glad someone has taken a shot at the math.

What about a Flight 990 (EgyptAir) scenario, where one of the pilots drives the plane into the sea?

By: Junior

Junior — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:33:31 +0000

we are wasting money with all of these investigators and their corny ideas we could lay of the people of the NTSB and save a couple million dollars a year. Flt447’s fate will never be known the recliner chair witnesses was not on the plane a thunderhead with a canopy over 50ft is like trying to fly through an iceberg I have seen a radar image of the plane in the middle of two large thunder cells check the dopplers for that night. the only good thing about the crash was no one suffered throw away all of the calculators it has been proven that God will come in the middle of the night Moses crossed the Red sea in the middle of the night Jesus was born in the middle of the night and when he died the sun refused to shine– do the math

By: John G

John G — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:38:51 +0000

MOre: But let’s say every one of the 3000 they estimate “with the requisite mass” either WOULD make it all the way to earth or at least to the altitude necessary to down a jet. This does seem to be at least on the order of meteors/meteorites large enough to cause damage likely to strike earth. Which again leads me to believe they did not take altitude into account. Astronomy Cafe(http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q896.html) quotes a study saying “On any given day, the estimates are than the Earth intercepts about 19,000 meteorites weighing over 3.5 ounces, every year of which fewer than 10 are ever recovered.” The 3000 is probably ~5X smaller number because they calculation assumed a larger size would be necessary to down a jet. The 19000 number inarguably is talking about striking at any point (2-dimensionally) or on the Earth’s surface. It would seem to me to be a MUCH smaller probability (by orders of magnitude, OOM) that one would coincide with the height of a jet when the jet were at that exact point in space.

Addendum: Wouldn’t be the “same” OOM as I suggested above (as difference btwn height of jet and height of atmosphere), but still probably OOM lower than the precicted number. The speed of the meteors would increase the depth of atmosphere they pass through in a given time required to intersect the jet, thus “flattening” the atmosphere for them (greater chance of hitting a jet). However, they don’t move THAT fast and the atmosphere is pretty thick… you can sometimes watch a large meteor pass across (an admittedly large swath of) the sky over seconds. The chances, I think, of intersecting a jet are still much more remote than the original calculation predicts.

By: John G

John G — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:45:11 +0000

I think this calculation DRASTICALLY overestimates because it doesn’t take into account the volume of the atmosphere and and altitude of the planes intesecting with an incoming meteor. The original article cites the NY Times letter from 1996 saying “approximately 3,000 meteors a day with the requisite mass strike Earth”. It then points out “This is a difficult number to get. How much mass? How fast does it need to be moving? But let’s assume that this number is correct; it translates to 125 meteors per hour.”

It’s that assumption (that the number is correct) that skews the number so much that it seems plausible. Nothing is said about altitude, only the frequency with which meteors “strike the earth”.

Well, first of all, meteors don’t strike the earth… meteorites do. Secondly, if we’re talking about meteors (which burn up in the atmosphere), the majority of them do so in the mesosphere, typically at 75-100km, well above where any jet flies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteoroid#Meteor).

There is nothing to indicate in either the original letter from Hailey and Helfand in the NY Times, or in the Discover article, that they took into account a meteor not only striking at the point on the 2-dimensional surface of the earth over which the jet lies, but the point in three-dimensional space in the atmosphere which the jet currently resides when a meteor might also be there. Since the height of a jet is several orders of magnitude smaller than the height of the atmosphere, I believe this calculation overestimates the chance by those same orders of magnitude.

By: Anomaly Audio » Blog Archive » PsiOp Radio 77 - 090614

Anomaly Audio » Blog Archive » PsiOp Radio 77 - 090614 — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 05:16:35 +0000

[...] Did a meteor bring down Air France 447? Discover Magazine http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/06/04/did-a-meteor-bring-down-air-france-447/ [...]

By: Astro Space News 22 June 09 | David Reneke

Astro Space News 22 June 09 | David Reneke — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:38:32 +0000

[...] which followed a descending and vertical trajectory and which broke up in six seconds”, the Cosmic Variance blog team on the Discover Magazine website muses on the question “What is the probability that, [...]

By: A-Moose

A-Moose — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:03:38 +0000

What’s more likely than a tiny rock hitting a plane is the theory that a larger meteorite hit the atmosphere and sent a shock wave instantly knocking out electrical and power. Most people know about the Tunguska event that happened in Russian 1908. That meteor exploded in the air and destroyed an area of 830 sq miles. There would be no visible proof if this happened over the ocean and may happen more than we think. Chances are still very rare, but are more likely if you think of how large that shock wave could have been.