Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CNN Presents Reveals How TWA Flight 800 Could Happen Again
http://www.turnerinfo.com/newsitem.aspx?P=CNN&CID01=52669dd1-1984-424d-9bbe-4ef6fed489d6 ^

Posted on 07/09/2006 9:03:10 PM PDT by Hal1950

Ten Years Later, Government Safety Experts Warn More Explosions, Loss of Life ‘Virtually Certain’

Twelve minutes into a July 17, 1996, Paris-bound flight from New York’s JFK International Airport with 230 passengers on board, TWA Flight 800 exploded and plunged into the Atlantic Ocean. There were no survivors. Ten years later, CNN Presents will air a two-hour documentary on the disaster and reveal why government officials say similar catastrophes are “virtually certain to occur.”

CNN Presents: No Survivors – Why TWA 800 Could Happen Again will premiere on Saturday, July 15, at 7 p.m., with a replay at 10 p.m. The documentary will re-air on Sunday, July 16, at 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. All times Eastern. CNN.com will launch a multimedia in-depth report at www.CNN.com/twa800 on Wednesday, July 5, as well as an audio podcast with CNN correspondent David Mattingly at www.cnn.com/podcasting.

CNN’s realistic animation of the doomed flight will show how an explosion in the Boeing 747’s center fuel tank caused the plane to break apart at 13,000 feet. While the cockpit and first-class section began to fall, the remainder of the fuselage continued to climb through the summer sky for approximately 30 seconds before plummeting into the ocean off the coast of Long Island.

Some eyewitnesses reported seeing what they thought was a missile. Jim Kallstrom, head of the FBI’s New York office, who lost a friend in the disaster – the wife of an FBI colleague – tells CNN: “I would have bet my rather meager government paycheck that it was an act of terrorism.”

Federal officials were already on high alert. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, destroyed by a bomb hidden by Libyan terrorists in the airliner’s baggage compartment. Terrorist Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the first attack on the World Trade Center, was on trial in Manhattan for a separate plot to blow up U.S. jetliners. And, just weeks before the TWA 800 tragedy, a truck bomb killed 19 American servicemen at the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia.

As White House officials monitored the TWA 800 investigation, they were acutely interested in possible links to Mideast terrorism. “We especially wanted to look for an Iranian connection,” former National Security Advisor Tony Lake tells Mattingly for No Survivors.

After an exhaustive investigation into the cause of the TWA explosion, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that the probable cause was not terrorism, but an electrical short circuit that sparked an explosion in the vapor-filled center fuel tank. The NTSB warned that other aging planes were similarly vulnerable and, in fact, some safety experts had warned about the risk of fuel tank explosions as far back as the 1960s.

In a statement to CNN, Boeing says it has “implemented numerous fuel system improvements” and continues “to enhance an already safe fleet.”

CNN Presents also shows the effects of the 10-year-old disaster on the victims’ families, who gather each year on a Long Island beach to mark the anniversary. From the beginning, the families bonded over their shared horror and eventual realization that the accident might have been prevented. For a few, their loss is compounded by the suspicion that the government has not revealed all it knows about the events of that terrible night.

Theories of U.S. Navy missiles fired in error and elaborate government cover-ups still exist. Internet conspiracy rumors snared even the late Pierre Salinger, a former Kennedy White House press secretary who claimed to have secret documents proving that the jetliner was hit by a U.S. Navy missile. Actually, the documents were the musings of a former airline pilot and had been circulating on the Internet for months.

“We knew the story of TWA 800 would be a compelling documentary,” said Mark Nelson, vice president and senior executive producer of CNN Productions. “Right now, the airlines are trying to stop the Federal Aviation Administration from requiring additional safety equipment. The FAA says it’s needed to prevent future fuel tank explosions. The industry says it’s too expensive and unnecessary.”


TOPICS: Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: airlinesecurity; cnnpresents; twa800; twaflight800

1 posted on 07/09/2006 9:03:12 PM PDT by Hal1950
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
“Right now, the airlines are trying to stop the Federal Aviation Administration from requiring additional safety equipment. The FAA says it’s needed to prevent future fuel tank explosions. The industry says it’s too expensive and unnecessary.”

Sounds like the airlines don't believe the NTSB.

2 posted on 07/09/2006 9:07:31 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
Tell a lie often enough and big enough and people will start believing it. Sounds like another hard sell coming up. Still can't buy it. Looks like CNN is going to try to outdo the the CIA in an attempt to to de-bunk conventional aerodynamic physics with a new make-believe video showing how the remaining fuselage of an exploding airplane can continue to rise for 30 seconds missing at least one wing, the first-class section, and the cockpit.

What's to gain at this late date by re-creating the same story we've been hearing?

3 posted on 07/09/2006 10:28:15 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

Who are you going to believe, 150 lying witnesses, or my cartoon?


4 posted on 07/09/2006 10:53:31 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
"...CNN’s realistic animation of the doomed flight will show how an explosion in the Boeing 747’s center fuel tank caused the plane to break apart at 13,000 feet. While the cockpit and first-class section began to fall, the remainder of the fuselage continued to climb through the summer sky for approximately 30 seconds before plummeting into the ocean off the coast of Long Island.

Utter Bull crap. The wreckage of TWA-800 was in the ocean 43 seconds after the initiating event after a ballistic fall from 13,800 feet. There was NO ZOOM climb because the there was no time for such a climb to occur, the laws of the conservation of energy and momentum would not allow it, and the wreckage was found exactly where it was expected be found at the end of a ballistic arc.

30 seconds of climb... now they are REALLY exagerating. Engines at idle (per Boeing), and with the main spar broken, missing 14% of the mass of the aircraft, moving the center of gravity back from its designed location by over 12 feet... the aircraft could not have "continued to climb... for approximately 30 seconds"!

5 posted on 07/10/2006 12:15:20 AM PDT by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
Let's examine the MATH of the NTSB's position... I did this three years ago to probe the "Zoom Climb"was untenable by the laws of physics.


To: Criminal Number 18F; JohnFiorentino; acehai; Alamo-Girl; FormerLurker; First_Salute

Well. it can't, except as far as inertia and aerodynamics carry it... 3,000 feet is possible. With a lot of weight forward of the centre of lift suddenly gone, a massive pitch-up is not just possible but certain.

3000 feet is "Possible" but it didn't happen according to the best evidence.

Theoretically, approximately 3000 feet is "possible." If you convert 100% of the aircraft's forward vectored momentum instantly into upward vectored momentum, you can get MORE than 3000 feet of climb if you ignore drag. However if this were what happened, it would have required ALL of the forward momentum to get that much climb... and the stalled aircraft would have then fallen almost almost straight down... meaning it would not have impacted the ocean where we know it did: 2.5 miles East North East of the initiating event position. However, the plane DID impact the ocean exactly where the math for a ballistic fall from the initiating event said it should so therefore it did not exchange forward momentum for upward momentum.

From the math I did on a previous thread:

Let us play a "what if" scenario out...

What if the entire horizontal Momentum of Flight TWA-800 was converted instantly into vertical Momentum? How long would TWA-800 climb straight up and how much higher could it climb before losing ALL MOMENTUM and begin falling? For this "what if" we will ignore the drag on the climbing aircraft (which will only mean shorter time and lower total climb) and consider only the pull of gravity.

I am assuming 330 MPH and 547,000 Lbs aircraft mass. These convert to ~147 Meters per second and ~249,000 Kgs aircraft mass.

The horizontal momentum of the 747 is ~36,500,000 Kg*m/s. and the acceleration of gravity is 2,440,200Kg*m/s^2.

2,440,200Kg*m/s^2 *t = 36,500,000 Kg*m/s - 5,350,000Kg*m/s (Momentum of the missing nose)

2,440,200Kg*m/s^2 *t = 31,150,000 Kg*m/s Again, solve for time (t) when s = 1

2,440,200Kg*m * t = 31,150,000 Kg*m

t = 12.75 seconds

If ALL of the FORWARD vectored MOMENTUM was magically changed instantly to UPWARD vectored MOMENTUM, Flight TWA-800 could only continue climbing for an additional ~13 seconds or so.

How high???

The aircraft, even though climbing because of its Momentum, is being acted on only by the FORCE of gravity... essentially it is in freefall.

The formula for this is:

Vf^2 = Vi^2 + 2 * a * d

(0 m/s)^2 = (147m/s)^2 +2*(-9.8m/s^2) * d

0 m^2/m^2 = 21609 m^2/s^2 + (-19.6m/s^2) *d

(-19.6 m/s^2) * d = 0 m^2/s^2 - 21609 m^2/s^2

(-19.6 m/s^2) * d = - 21609 m^2/s^2

d = (- 21609 m^2/s^2)/(-19.6 m/s^2)

d = 1102.5m = 3617 Feet

Remember, that is ignoring the not inconsiderable force of drag. Also WHERE does the amazing force that converts the vector of the plane's momentum come from?? The CIA and NTSB and you would have us believe that the aircraft's wing maintained its proper and most efficient angle of attack and applied lift force to accomplish this... but that force would have to come from converting the Momentum to lift... and therefore there would be a lot less momentum to continue climbing.

Of course, none of this could happen... the plane will continue mostly forward, decelerating from the initial velocity of 147m/s because of air resistance... not going instantly upward at the 147m/s.

"The captain of the NOAA research ship Rude entered Flight 800's last secondary radar position, speed, heading and gross weight into his computer and it predicted the landing point by calculating a ballistic fall. He went to that spot and immediately found the main wreckage including the fuselage, wings and engines. "

Ergo, unless you want to ignore the very well understood laws of Physics, there was no "zoom" climb. NONE, NADA, ZILCH.

The average climb in those 12.75 seconds would have to be ~283 feet per second to achieve a terminal altitude of 3617 feet above the point of pitch up. However, an average velocity is deceptive... during the last second before reaching terminal altitude, the aircraft would climb only 16 feet! That means that in the first couple of seconds the climb had to be MUCH greater... and during the initial moments of conversion of forward vector to upward vector (supposedly all caused by the force of lift on the upward pitching wing) the apparent G forces on the airframe must have been astronomic. I calculate it to be around 12-13 Gs for at least one second!

In addition, IF it had climbed, the aircraft would have climbed until upward momentum was used up, reached zero upward movement and begun to fall... taking an equal amount of time to fall from its ultimate altitude back to the altitude of the start of the climb... and then fallen the rest of the way to the ocean. The CIA and NTSB cartoons allowed 8-10 seconds for the climb... which requires an additional 8-10 seconds to return to the starting altitude... a total of 16-20 seconds added.

The radar returns do not show the aircraft remaining in the sky for those additional ~16-20 seconds. The radar record shows that TWA-800 was in the sky for only ~38-40 seconds after the last transponder return which took place just before the initiating event.

If we subtract the 16 seconds for the "zoom climb" and fall back to initial pre-zoom altitude, we find that it would be necessary for TWA-800 to fall 13,800 feet AND travel approximately 2.5 miles horizontally in ~22-24 seconds, an astonishing 392-427.5 miles per hour and an equally incredible terminal velocity for the airframe of 575-627 feet per second.

Those same figures (except terminal velocity) ALSO apply to the horizontal vector... but TWA-800 was originally moving at only 330 MPH (484 feet per second) horizontally before the initiating event. WHERE did the extra velocity come from???

Of course these incredible speeds are only required IF we add in the time for the mythical CIA-NTSB "Zoom Climb" to have occured. Without that "extra" time, we find that to fall from the initiating event altitude and position to splashdown and wreckage position requires a much more explicable average velocity of 363 feet per second (247MPH) which IS consistent with an unpowered, ballistic fall of the noseless aircraft experiencing drag.

Again, ergo: NO ZOOM CLIMB OCCURED!

136 posted on 05/18/2003 3:00:52 AM PDT by Swordmaker (Tagline Extermination Services, franchises available, small investment, big profit)


ONLY if ALL of the forward momentum of the aircraft were somehow instantly turned into upward Momentum (Magic?) could you reach the 3700 foot climb of the CIA cartoon... the NTSB rejected that scenario after it became obvious that the public would not accept it. They changed the climb to 1500 feet... but it still could not have happened.

The center wing tank is not merely a tank... it is also a box girder that connects both wings and IS THE MAIN SUPPORT FOR THE AIRCRAFT ON THOSE WINGS... break it and the aircraft can no longer fly, much less climb... especially at the 12Gs of force required to shift the vector of momentum.

The radar track shows that the wreckage of TWA-800 was in the water ~43 seconds after the initiating event. If, as CNN now claims, the fuselage climbed for an additional 30 seconds, it would also take an additional 30 seconds to merely fall back to 13,800 feet... before falling into the ocean... which would take another ~43 seconds... a total of 73 seconds of fall.

IF that happened, WHERE DID THE PLANE GO?... there should have been another 11 or 12 radar returns and they simply were not there. IF it happened the wreckage would NOT have been where IT WAS FOUND... at the end of a ballistic fall that originated at 13,800 feet at the point of the initiating event.

6 posted on 07/10/2006 12:50:56 AM PDT by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
2,440,200Kg*m/s^2 *t = 36,500,000 Kg*m/s - 5,350,000Kg*m/s ...

It's really much simpler than that.

CNN could interview Capt. David McCLaine who was piloting an Eastwind Airlines flight, flying opposite direction and virtually level with TWA when it exploded. McClaine was staring at TWA 800 waiting for it to pass him so he could obtain a direct routing to his destination from ATC. McClaine was watching. He will emphatically tell anyone who asks that no part of the TWA plane rose after the explosion.

ML/NJ

7 posted on 07/10/2006 4:13:58 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

Yep. Them deadly center fuel tanks been bringin' down 747s for donkey's years; sure to happen again, too. And soon. Shucks, happens all the time.


8 posted on 07/10/2006 4:16:06 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
The NTSB warned that other aging planes were similarly vulnerable and, in fact,
some safety experts had warned about the risk of fuel tank explosions as far back as the 1960s.

How convenient, a 35 year old CYA.
9 posted on 07/10/2006 4:24:15 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Yeah, but it wouldn't be as easy to hype if they actually got the facts straight...


10 posted on 07/10/2006 4:52:20 AM PDT by hardknocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

It could happen again because a Mohammedan could evade security somehow and get a seat above the center tank with a bomb surgically implanted in his gluteus.


11 posted on 07/10/2006 6:26:38 AM PDT by arthurus (It was better to fight them OVER THERE than here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
CNN could interview Capt. David McCLaine . . .

Ah, but HE was an eyewitness and eyewitnesses are not to be believed... after all they are all drunk and/or stoned... or totally unqualified to see anything at all.

12 posted on 07/10/2006 2:28:01 PM PDT by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marron

The whole thing stunk like rotten fish from the beginning.


13 posted on 07/10/2006 4:16:18 PM PDT by xarmydog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

Somewhat off-topic: Does anyone have a listing of ex-Clintonits currently at, or who have cycled through, CNN?


14 posted on 07/10/2006 4:47:58 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
" . . . eyewitnesses are not to be believed... after all they are all drunk and/or stoned".

George Black: I'd almost make an observation that one of the things by virtue of my position I got to interview witnesses pretty quickly. In this case, even the FBI was reviewing, interviewing these witnesses, hours, even days, afterwards, and one of the things that we do not know about these witnesses, was what their condition was at the time they made these observations. I noticed that you refer to someone at Yacht Club on an evening during the summer. I suspect, I know what some of their conditions might have been but that is a bit of information we do not have since they were delayed interviews. I would ask you about the value of re-interviewing witnesses after long passages of time and what you think that is worth. Source.

15 posted on 07/10/2006 5:05:47 PM PDT by Hal1950
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson