the_free_fall_victim
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Last revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
the_free_fall_victim [2012/03/24 14:48] tom |
the_free_fall_victim [2013/05/09 10:52] tom |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| Initially, United Airlines did not believe that anyone had jumped from the plane. They felt that cabin pressure would have not allowed this. At that time it was not established that the cabin had been depressurized in order to remove smoke and heat. | Initially, United Airlines did not believe that anyone had jumped from the plane. They felt that cabin pressure would have not allowed this. At that time it was not established that the cabin had been depressurized in order to remove smoke and heat. | ||
| - | Searchers, among them the local National Guard unit, combed the area in search of a "black object" that witnesses had seen fall from the passing aircraft. Azimuths were taken from the positions of two men, who had stood at two different locations, approximately two miles from the crash site, and had claimed to have seen something fall from the airplane. The area where the azimuths intersected is where much of the search was conducted. Nothing was found for several days until someone noticed wilted leaves on broken tree branches. This is the spot where the free fall victim was found. | + | Searchers, among them the local National Guard unit, combed the area in search of a "black object" that witnesses had seen fall from the passing aircraft. Azimuths were taken from the positions of two men, who had stood at two different locations, approximately two miles from the crash site, and had claimed to have seen something fall from the airplane. The area where the azimuths intersected is where much of the search was conducted. The body was found after someone noticed wilted leaves on broken tree branches. This is the spot where the free fall victim was found. |
| It should be mentioned that the passenger who jumped from the left side of the plane did not strike the tail of the aircraft and that he was followed by a dense cloud of smoke. | It should be mentioned that the passenger who jumped from the left side of the plane did not strike the tail of the aircraft and that he was followed by a dense cloud of smoke. | ||
| - | The [[http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A\DOT_56GB\airplane%20accidents\websearch\070964.pdf|Civil Aeronautics Board Aircraft Accident Report]] Page 11 states that the free fall victim exited the aircraft through an emergency window over the left wing. A British Aircraft Corporation Memorandum states that it was the "No. 4 window". | + | The [[http://dotlibrary.specialcollection.net/|Civil Aeronautics Board Aircraft Accident Report]] Page 11 states that the free fall victim exited the aircraft through an emergency window over the left wing. A British Aircraft Corporation Memorandum states that it was the "No. 4 window". |
| In a B.A.C Incident Report there is mention that a preliminary check indicated that no nitrates were found in any of the burns suffered by the free fall victim. For example: no explosive residue was found. Also there was no smoke found in his lungs. The C.A.B report, Page 11 states that the free fall man, **" received burns on the hands, face, and neck before death but had only a few carbon particles in his trachea and a carbon monoxide level of 5% in his blood.'** (According to the report, a concentration of less than 10% carbon monoxide is considered negative). **"The upper portions of his clothes were impregnated with soot."** | In a B.A.C Incident Report there is mention that a preliminary check indicated that no nitrates were found in any of the burns suffered by the free fall victim. For example: no explosive residue was found. Also there was no smoke found in his lungs. The C.A.B report, Page 11 states that the free fall man, **" received burns on the hands, face, and neck before death but had only a few carbon particles in his trachea and a carbon monoxide level of 5% in his blood.'** (According to the report, a concentration of less than 10% carbon monoxide is considered negative). **"The upper portions of his clothes were impregnated with soot."** | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| ===Dr. Robert Graham's Findings=== | ===Dr. Robert Graham's Findings=== | ||
| - | The British Aircraft Corporation, with the concurrence of the Civil Aeronautics Board, conducted tests on **"samples of aircraft structure, components, and the free fall victim's clothing."** Dr. Robert Graham Ph.D.,B.Sc., A.R.T.C.,F.I.M presided over the experiments and wrote the final report dated October 19, 1964. | + | The British Aircraft Corporation, with the concurrence of the Civil Aeronautics Board, conducted tests on **"samples of aircraft structure, components, and the free fall victim's clothing."** Dr. Robert Graham Ph.D., B.Sc., A.R.T.C., F.I.M presided over the experiments and wrote the final report dated October 19, 1964. |
| Perhaps the most intriguing of Dr. Graham's experiments were those performed on the clothing belonging to the free fall victim. (Other tests performed on various parts of aircraft furnishings will be discussed as time allows). | Perhaps the most intriguing of Dr. Graham's experiments were those performed on the clothing belonging to the free fall victim. (Other tests performed on various parts of aircraft furnishings will be discussed as time allows). | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| Specimen #1 and #2 were small pieces of cloth, approximately 4" X 6", that were taken from the free fall victims suit jacket. One piece was from the front of the jacket, while the other was taken from the back of the jacket. The lining and the cloth inside the jacket were attached to the back of the jacket. The back of the jacket **"had the appearance of being scorched."** | Specimen #1 and #2 were small pieces of cloth, approximately 4" X 6", that were taken from the free fall victims suit jacket. One piece was from the front of the jacket, while the other was taken from the back of the jacket. The lining and the cloth inside the jacket were attached to the back of the jacket. The back of the jacket **"had the appearance of being scorched."** | ||
| - | **"The materials received were first examined for [[http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Fluorescence|fluorescence]] or variations in fluorescence in ultra-violet light. Thicker sections were then x-rayed at three levels of penetrating power, to locate any features of interest. This was followed by visual and microscopic examination. Thereafter deposits were removed and examined by infra-red and [[http://www.answers.com/topic/emission-spectrum|emission spectroscopy]]. The lining behind the portion of jacket showing scorching was extracted to remove any remaining traces of oils or similar liquids and this extract was examine [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatographic |chromatographic]] techniques. Deposits were analysed chemically where necessary. | + | **"The materials received were first examined for [[http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Fluorescence|fluorescence]] or variations in fluorescence in ultra-violet light. Thicker sections were then x-rayed at three levels of penetrating power, to locate any features of interest. This was followed by visual and microscopic examination. Thereafter deposits were removed and examined by infra-red and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum |emission spectroscopy]]. The lining behind the portion of jacket showing scorching was extracted to remove any remaining traces of oils or similar liquids and this extract was examine [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatographic |chromatographic]] techniques. Deposits were analysed chemically where necessary. |
| Finally, the features found on the scorched jacket...were reproduced in the laboratory."** | Finally, the features found on the scorched jacket...were reproduced in the laboratory."** | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
| It would appear, therefore, that the source of the liquid whose spurting or splashing caused the scorch mark on Mr. ____'s suit and presumably triggered the cabin fire was a liquid or combustible taken on board the aircraft."** | It would appear, therefore, that the source of the liquid whose spurting or splashing caused the scorch mark on Mr. ____'s suit and presumably triggered the cabin fire was a liquid or combustible taken on board the aircraft."** | ||
| + | Robert Graham gave testimony on January 15, 1965 at the Public Hearing that took place in Knoxville, Tennessee. | ||
| + | [[The Can Of Paint Modifier|The Can Of Paint Modifier]] | ||
| - | Article incomplete | + | [[start|United Flight 823]] |
the_free_fall_victim.txt ยท Last modified: 2014/01/26 01:10 by tom
Page Tools
