/etc wrote in message
news
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 13:26:53 -0500, when the end of the
tunnel became apparent, John Maxson posted:
/etc wrote
in message news
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:16:33 -0500, when the end of the
tunnel became apparent, John Maxson posted:
/etc wrote
in message news On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:30:12 -0500, when the end of the
tunnel became apparent, John Maxson posted:
Steve wrote in message
m...

Forgive me for jumping into this debate WAY late in the
game, but what is the significance of this SRB crossing
that John Maxson is always talking about?

It means that the anomalous flare/plume was an effect,
rather than the cause, of the 51-L catastrophe.

IMHO nobody ever stated that this flare/plume was the cause
of the accident.

Not even Jon Berndt?

You've got me lost here...

Here's a recent quote from BBR (one of dozens):

"Another piece of evidence we have that precludes a
crossing even more solidly is the breach in the right
SRB seen before and after the disintegration."

Notice the words "breach" and "seen." The alleged way
the "breach" was "seen" was via an anomalous "plume."

I suppose the plume was caused by the "breach" then.
Is that right?

If you accept the conclusions of Rogers, NASA, and BBR,
that's true. If you're an independent thinker, you must ask
which booster the anomalous flare/plume appeared on at
fireball exit, because the alleged pre-explosion anomaly was
near the aft part of the right SRB.

NASA and Berndt simply *assume* that the right SRB exited
on the same side as it was prior to the explosion. If it did not,
then there was no pre-explosion, right-SRB "breach;" we were
simply seeing some other type of enhanced flames earlier; and
the flare/plume at fireball exit was actually on the *left* SRB, a
reminder of what happened when it tore away from the tank.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)