The ongoing dissent re: TWA Fl800

7/10/02 | John E. Fiorentino

[JohnFiorentino]

Secret FBI report refutes sworn testimony of William Tobin

A recently declassified FBI report appears to refute the sworn testimony of the FBI's former chief metallurgist assigned to the TWA800 crash case.

As disclosed in the recently declassified document (excerpts printed below) it appears William Tobin's testimony before the Senate during the Grassley hearings had little basis in fact.

Tobin testified that by September of 1996, approximately 4-6 weeks after his arrival on the case, there was a general consensus that there was "no bomb or missile damage" evident on the TWA wreckage. At the time frame indicated in Tobin's testimony, approximately one half of TWA800 was still at the bottom of the ocean.

The FBI's James Kallstrom, dismissed Tobin from the probe. Kallstrom believed Tobin's "conclusions" were hasty and unprofessional.

As evidenced by the once secret FBI report, it wasn't until November of 1996 that the FBI considered alternate investigative methods. This was two months after Tobin had already arrived at his conclusions. The report also states that even in November 1996, salvage efforts were still ongoing.

The document indicates that investigators had "little forensic documentation or guidance on large-body aircraft missile engagements, and no supportable mechanical or operational explanation for the crash."

FBI, TWA Flight 800 Brookhaven National Laboratory Examinations. Declassified FBI Report, 1997. (excerpts)

"It became apparent by the end of November 1996, about four months into the FBI's criminal investigation, that no aircraft debris recovered to that time had clear indicia of a high explosive event, although evidence recovery (i.e., ocean trawling for aircraft debris) and subsequent examination by bomb technicians for such indicia was continuing. In the face of no "classic" explosive artifacts little forensic documentation or guidance on large-body aircraft missile engagements, and no supportable mechanical or operational explanation for the crash of Trans World Airlines (TWA) Flight 800, FBI management decided that "... any investigative or scientific avenue that was reasonable and which could assist in providing a factual cause of the incident should and would be pursued."

The report goes on to say, that the initial metallurgical findings were reviewed, stating: A "cursory metallurgical peer review was conducted......" The report further states however, "No analysis or microscopic examinations were conducted." This would seem to indicate a review of the methodology used, and not a review of actual findings, as no further tests were performed.

Reproduced below, are excerpts from William Tobin's sworn testimony at the Grassley hearings.

Excerpts of FBI Metallurgist William Tobin’s testimony during the Grassley hearing.

GRASSLEY: Within 30 days of arriving at Calverton, what was your professional assessment of as to whether the cause of the crash was a bomb?

TOBIN: It progressed from an inclination of viewing the earmarks as possibly a bomb, but it changed rather quickly to confirmation within my mind that there was no indication of a bomb and unlikely to be that of a missile within the first 30 days.

GRASSLEY: At some point, did the bomb techs agree with yours and the NTSB's assessment that the cause of the crash was not a bomb?

TOBIN: Yes, Senator. I would estimate that probably four to six weeks -- after about four to six weeks, we were all unanimously or near unanimously on the same page. And all being the bomb techs, the National Transportation Safety Board and the metallurgy or the material science interests in the FBI laboratory. We were all unanimously -- we were united in our observations and conclusions that there was no bomb or missile damage evident on those aircraft parts.

GRASSLEY: The term four to six weeks brings you to what date on the calendar approximately? Just approximately.

TOBIN: My guess would be mid September, early to mid September.

It would appear that the FBI report and Tobin's testimony are at odds. This is just another glaring example of the inept and inconclusive investigation into one of the worst air disasters in history.

Copyright 2002, John E. Fiorentino -- All rights reserved. Distribution to wire services and recognized news media is allowed. No other use, distribution, or reproduction can be made without the express consent of the author.

[JohnFiorentino]

I have reported your abuse to Free Republic. Wherein you state:

"When coupled with the fact that you routinely deceitfully spin, distort and fabricate information and answers you receive,....."

Barr, you can call me all the names you want. You can do what you accuse me of.......but I refuse to accept from you or anyone, unfounded allegations attacking my veracity, intimating that I am lying, or that I "fabricate" information and answers.

Your statements are unfounded personal attacks, and as such should be removed.

[Asmodeus]

Fabricate - To concoct in order to deceive

EXAMPLE: Your title for this thread. There is no "ongoing" disssent between Tobin and the FBI leadership about whether or not Flight 800 was the victim of a missile or bomb. The FBI leadership belatedly AGREED with Tobin years ago that there was no physcial evidence of a missile or bomb.

EXAMPLE: Your allegations that Tobin's expert metallurgist opinion on that issue was hasty, premature, unprofessional and inept even though NO other expert metallurgist has ever made any such allegations about Tobin.

EXAMPLE: Your doctored "quote" of Tobin in your reply #38 referred to in my reply #39.

EXAMPLE: Your allegations that I am a disinformationalist [see #36], common knowledge SHORTHAND in all the Flight 800 forums and related internet discussions for the past six years for a government agent engaged in the felonious criminal coverup of "the truth". I'm not and your concocted allegations that I am are the ULTIMATE in unfounded personal attacks.

[JohnFiorentino]

BTW Barr, you will notice I use my REAL NAME......Why don't YOU use YOURS?........How many posting screen names do you have?

The document indicates that investigators had "little forensic documentation or guidance on large-body aircraft missile engagements, and no supportable mechanical or operational explanation for the crash." (Declassified Brookhaven National Laboratories FBI report, 1997)

Mr. Barr says....."ALL of the material damage experts who have examined the wreckage agree with Tobin."

The report goes on to say, that the initial metallurgical findings were reviewed, stating: A "cursory metallurgical peer review was conducted......" The report further states however, "No analysis or microscopic examinations were conducted."

Would you care to name any other metallurgists who examined or re-examined the TWA800 wreckage and fully concur with William Tobin? Can you advise us when these examinations and re-examinations took place? Can you advise us where we might obtain copies of these examinations or re-examinations? Can you advise us where we might obtain copies of documents relating to William Tobin's analysis of the TWA800 wreckage? Can you advise us where we might find documents relating to Mr. Tobin's analysis of the recrystallization of aluminum on the rear spar of the CWT? Can you tell us where we might find documentation relating to Mr. Tobin's examination of the overhead bin from Fl800 as alluded to in your prior postings? Can you provide us with information relating to Mr. Tobin's prior aircrash examinations? Specifically where any prior aircraft were submerged in seawater for several weeks or longer prior to examination? Can you tell us where we might obtain additional information regarding the tail number of the airplane where the "dog-training" exercise was allegedly conducted, and upon which the traces of PETN and RDX discovered on the wreckage was said to have come? Can you provide us with information re: Mr. Tobin's expertise relating to forensic evidence which may be indicative of liquid bombs? Can you provide us with documents relating to Mr. Tobin's previous examinations of commercial airliners destroyed by missile engagements?

[Asmodeus]

Nobody has to disprove your daffy "suitcase bomb" notion. The burden of trying to prove it rests exclusively with you.

As to your questions, I'd suggest that you spend a lot more time doing research and a lot less time spewing out wildly reckless allegations, accusations and personal insults.

Truth is dependent on facts - not speculations, suspicions, allegations or accusations.

[JohnFiorentino]

Mr. Barr's deceitful methods.....

"Interestingly, there doesn't appear to be any such member in the Yahoo TWA800 forum. But, of course, any member can post with any name they wish after signing in. You, of course, are a member there. Would you do such a deceitful thing to try to show that you do have some support for your suitcase bomb theory?"

From the groups moderator:

John
Anybody can post
Jack

In a message dated 7/14/02 12:44:09 PM, jstonemusic@earthlink.net writes:

<< Jack:


HOW could they post if they weren't a member? >>


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
twa800-unsubscribe@egroups.com

"EXAMPLE: Your title for this thread. There is no "ongoing" disssent between Tobin and the FBI leadership about whether or not Flight 800 was the victim of a missile or bomb. The FBI leadership belatedly AGREED with Tobin years ago that there was no physcial evidence of a missile or bomb."

The title reflects just what it says.........There is considerable dissent re: the official conclusions in the Fl800 investigation. I believe we seem to be engaged in some now...no?

"EXAMPLE: Your allegations that Tobin's expert metallurgist opinion on that issue was hasty, premature, unprofessional and inept even though NO other expert metallurgist has ever made any such allegations about Tobin."

I believe Mr. Kallstrom first made that determination. After which he dismissed Tobin from the case....no?

"EXAMPLE: Your doctored "quote" of Tobin in your reply #38 referred to in my reply #39."

There were NO quotes in the paragraph to which you are referring. My purpose was to show Tobin's inability to heed the orders of his superiors. His constant questioning of authority, and HIS statement "... again flies in the face of MY interpretation as to whose aircraft this was." I prefaced it with the subtitle, "Not his decision to make"

NOT HIS DECISION TO MAKE

TOBIN: I was ordered to.......But it was in a very emotional, very frenzied manner, so I inquired as to why.....I was told.......which again flies in the face of my interpretation of whose aircraft this was.......But, so I inquired as to why........And I said, well I'm still missing some critical information, why.......And my response at that point was, well I'm still missing some critical information. Why.........And I was told, yes, we want that overhead bin and I was continued -- told to go find that overhead bin.

YOU "quoted" my non-quote. The complete text was already reproduced in your prior post in any event.

"EXAMPLE: Your allegations that I am a disinformationalist [see #36], common knowledge SHORTHAND in all the Flight 800 forums and related internet discussions for the past six years for a government agent engaged in the felonious criminal coverup of "the truth". I'm not and your concocted allegations that I am are the ULTIMATE in unfounded personal attacks."

That's YOUR definition of "disinformationalist" Barr, NOT mine. Very narrow, and viewed with the tunnelvision which it seems is your trademark.

[JohnFiorentino]

"Nobody has to disprove your daffy "suitcase bomb" notion."

The ONLY person who mentioned my "daffy suitcase bomb notion" was YOU. I asked no questions relating to a suitcase bomb, nor did I make any statements to elicit comments about same.


"The burden of trying to prove it rests exclusively with you."


"As to your questions, I'd suggest that you spend a lot more time doing research and a lot less time spewing out wildly reckless allegations, accusations and personal insults."

Why Mr. Barr, that's what I was trying to do by asking you those questions.......a little "research."

"Truth is dependent on facts - not speculations, suspicions, allegations or accusations."

At last, we agree!

[JohnFiorentino]

Below you will find the results of my, and others investigation into your unfounded allegations.

Yahoo TWA800 forum
From: "reednfolink"
Date: Sat Jul 13, 2002 8:14 pm
Dear Asmodeus/Elmer, First of all, I really appreciate your efforts in getting me kicked off "Free Republic"! Didn't suprise me at all! It was predictable! I don't know whether "you" are a think tank, a propaganda front for the trial lawyers or just a brainwashed SUCKER! Only thing that matters to me is that you are a BACKSTABBING COWARD. I notice quite some time has elapsed since Mr. Fiorentino's post #38, asking you to provide some simple answers re: TWA 800. I asked you the same questions back in March of 2002. Funny, though, that all of my posts were removed by your moderator buddies- only your 100 liner pastes and Rokkes patronizing dribble remains.(for the most part) What other schemes or dirty tricks will Barr/Asmodeus employ to futher his agenda? BEWARE! [emphasis his]

Interestingly, there doesn't appear to be any such member in the Yahoo TWA800 forum. But, of course, any member can post with any name they wish after signing in. You, of course, are a member there. Would you do such a deceitful thing to try to show that you do have some support for your suitcase bomb theory?

---

Thanx to Jack Seaman, the e-mail nonsense has been solved.

---

Well, I had originally decided to rise above the shills on Free Republic, and ignore them. Lately, with the 6th anniversary of the downing approaching, I've been lurking more at both forums. While at freerepublic, I went to the archives to retrieve an article I had posted, and found that all MY posts had been removed! The ONLY person I had abused (in jest) was Elmer. I accused him of setting up a gas chamber to exterminate innocent Freepers who took the bait or wandered in- all in jest! So, when I post at another thread, the the suggestion, to a extremely militant Israeli sympathizer (Freeper) that he read Bill Baker's, "Theft of a Nation", Elmer, thinking I'm a threat of sorts, ridicules me openly in the forum. I know NOW that he is very sensitive and probably had me banned. I am so SICK of (along with most of the population) getting a daily scolding from Bnai Brith (sp). Today, I was scolded on how anti- semetic Henry Ford was (on PBS) and how he associated with right wing Christian Fundalmentalists.(sp) This is a steady drum beat I can do with out, I am not a Jew hater. It was just a "heat of the moment thing" please forgive, Regards STEVE

----- Original Message -----
From: John Fiorentino
To: jsreed@knox.net
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 12:14 PM
Subject: e-mail


Did you send me an e-mail msg last night and then post to the TWA800 Yahoo forum?
----- Original Message -----
From: John Fiorentino
To: twa800@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [twa800] Jack Seaman

---

I believe now, the readers can see through your modus operandi quite clearly.

"Truth is dependent on facts - not speculations, suspicions, allegations or accusations."

Yes, it is..........I suggest you follow your own advice!

[JohnFiorentino]

BOEING RESPONDS TO FBI REPORT
7/10/02 | John E. Fiorentino

Posted on 07/10/2002 1:42 PM Eastern by JohnFiorentino



*It is worthy to note that these "spheres" were recovered from the corpses of some TWA800 victims at autopsy) ...Authors note*
(FBI report from Brookhaven National Labs, 1997) (excerpts)

This item, one of 20 similar pieces.........was approx. 5mm in diameter and charcoal colored. The item was polished and then subjected to an energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS) analysis to determine its chemical composition.

Small charcoal colored particles (1 of -20 similar pieces) measuring ~5mm in diameter. On polishing the sample was orange colored and transparent.

SEM analysis indicated the material was multi-phase having a base matrix containing Al and Ti. The sample showed significant charging under the electron beam indicating that it is a very poor conductor - i.e.., not metallic. Three other distinct areas could be observed, two were similar to the matrix but contained significant amounts of Zr, the other was mostly Al with Ca, Ba and Ce.

---

Below is a response from the Boeing Co. re: the "spheres" alluded to in the (FBI report from Brookhaven National Labs, 1997) and just recently declassified. (note one sentence in the below transmission was a little skewed, however, that is the way it was received)

Thanks for your inquiry John.

I am unaware of anything on a Boeing commercial airplane that would use those chemicals in a matrix (or other) form. We do not use Aluminium / Titanium matrix type metals since their differing thermal expansion rates will tend to tear a part fabricated from them apart when subjected to the rapid change in temperatures that jet aircraft encounter. We use a temperature differential of +180 degree F to -70 degrees F in 20 minutes as a design criteria. The +180 was a measured skin temperature of an airplane sitting in the sun in Saudi Arabia. Also, we try to limit the amount of Titanium we put into the airplanes because it costs so much. We use it where strength and fatigue requirements make Aluminium inappropriate.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,

(redacted) Associate Technical Fellow Service Engineering The Boeing Company

Copyright 2002, J.E. Fiorentino - All rights reserved.

[ladyinred]

For sure!
I think it was a terrorist attack and covered up for whatever reason, like John Doe 2, but then, what do I know? I mean if 150 witnesses can be wrong....!

[ladyinred]

I once thought the operations in the area was the probable cause. However,since 911 and what we have learned about the covering up of John Doe 2 and possilby 3, I am more inclined to think it might have been a terrorist attack also.
What are your thoughts on that possibility?

[Asmodeus]

Memorandum
To: Thomas H. Jourdan
From: William A. Tobin
Date: 07-15-97
Subject: Metallurgical Status Report: TWA 800

The last FBI metallurgical examinations or evaluations conducted of any significance, relating to damaged TWA 800 components, were in approximately October 1996.

As directed by you, on January 1, 1997, I elicited a commitment for the services of a retired research scientist and metallographic laboratory specializing in the aluminum alloys primarily comprising the Boeing 747-100.

Since May 1997, the scientist has been researching the location, morphology, and formation fracture mechanics of small holes with "spike tooth" fractures, the only metallurgically significant indicator present at a high strain rate. However, the holes are relatively small (none of which could reasonably have been responsible for "instantaneous" cessation of the recorders), exhibit no apparent preferred concentration, exhibit no apparent isotrophy, and are in matrices which exhibit no characteristics of impulsive loading or proximity to explosive (ordnance) materials.

The scientist has observed no indication of bomb or missile damage, and brings to ten the number of metallurgists officially examining and pronouncing the absence of bomb or missile damage, four from NTSB, three from Boeing, two from FBI Laboratory, and one scientist consultant.

It is noted that three of the aforementioned metallurgists could be considered to have a strong organizational interest in the finding that something other than mechanical failure initiated the catastrophic sequence of events.

The "spike tooth" failures, known to both the NTSB and FBI from other incidents to be the result if high velocity contacts from damaged aircraft components, have recently been duplicated in empirical tests conducted by the NTSB where metal pieces were brought in contact with the aircraft skin at strain rates already known to be available from the forward velocity of the passenger jet and velocities associated with free fall from 13,800 feet. In view of these observations, therefore, it is unreasonable to expect the "spike tooth" failures will be related to any criminal behavior which could have caused the disaster.

[Asmodeus]

May 10, 1999

Statement for the Record of
Donald M. Kerr
Assistant Director, Laboratory Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation

on
FBI Laboratory Support in TWA 800

Before the
United States Senate Committee
on the Judiciary Subcommittee on
Administrative Oversight and the Courts
Regarding FBI Laboratory Support in TWA 800
Washington, D.C.

Statement of Lewis Schiliro

Good Afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon to address the role of the FBI Laboratory in the investigation of TWA 800.

As you may know, I did not become Assistant Director of the FBI's Laboratory Division until October 1997, more than a year after the explosion of TWA flight 800 off the Long Island shore. I am familiar with the performance of Laboratory personnel in that investigation, however, and am happy to answer any questions you may have in that regard. Before discussing the details of the Laboratory involvement in that investigation, I would first like to provide a brief overview of current Laboratory operations.

I. Current Overview of the FBI Laboratory

First, and foremost, the FBI Laboratory is stronger, more efficient, and better organized than it has ever been before. This is due in part to the important role of oversight, including that provided by this Committee, in ensuring the effective performance of all components within the Laboratory. Perhaps the most significant achievement during my tenure as Assistant Director has been the formal accreditation of the Laboratory by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB).

Even before it became an official recommendation by the Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General (OIG), accreditation by ASCLD/LAB was among the top priorities of Director Freeh. During the past several years, the Laboratory has undergone numerous internal and external reviews, enhanced its quality assurance system, and modified its policies, practices and procedures in preparation for accreditation. The FBI Laboratory includes eight disciplines for which accreditation is available through ASCLD/LAB. Those disciplines -- Controlled Substances, DNA, Serology, Firearms/Toolmarks, Latent Prints, Questioned Documents, Toxicology, and Trace Evidence -- were all fully accredited by ASCLD/LAB on September 11, 1998.

Two of the scientific disciplines that I believe are of particular interest to the Committee -- explosives examinations and metallurgy -- are not accreditable by ASCLD/LAB. With regard to explosives examinations, however, the chief of the FBI's Materials and Devices Unit, Dr. Tom Jourdan, has been tirelessly pursuing a program to provide for accreditation of explosives and hazardous devices examinations. Toward that end, Dr. Jourdan has examined protocols and policies of forensic laboratories worldwide and engaged in the exchange of information with France, England, Ireland, Israel, and Australia. As a result of these efforts, Dr. Jourdan hopes to present ASCLD/LAB with an accreditation program for explosives and hazardous devices at its annual meeting this September.

As for metallurgy, it is not presently an accreditable discipline under ASCLD/LAB for several reasons. First, forensic metallurgy is a narrow field of science with a very limited number of qualified experts. Second, metallurgical examinations are varied and often require a number of novel examination approaches. Since examination protocols must necessarily be general in their application, ASCLD/LAB has not developed a program for certifying the metallurgical examination procedures.

Although only eight of the Laboratory's disciplines were subject to, and approved for, ASCLD/LAB accreditation, all of the other disciplines throughout the Laboratory, including explosives and metallurgy, are held to similar standards.

A. Restructuring of the Laboratory Division

In February, 1997, the FBI Laboratory sought approval from the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office of Personnel Management to establish four senior-level scientists positions in the following disciplines: biological sciences, chemical sciences, physical/materials sciences, and computer/information sciences. Due in large part to the exemption from Title V hiring restrictions granted by the Congress, the Laboratory was able to select individuals who possess exceptional qualifications for these positions.

In addition, the Engineering Sections at the Engineering Research Facility at Quantico, Virginia have recently been assimilated into Laboratory operations. This restructuring will be particularly beneficial following the relocation of the FBI Laboratory to its new facility in Quantico. Construction is currently underway with a target relocation date of 2001.

B. Expansion and Upgrading of Programs

During the past several years, the nation has witnessed several major catastrophic events which have required the immediate deployment of Laboratory personnel. The explosion aboard TWA 800, as well as the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, highlighted the critical need for immediate assistance of scientific experts and evidence technicians at such mass disaster scenes. As a result, the FBI Laboratory established five Rapid Deployment Teams (RDTs) to respond to future crises.

Each of the teams includes Laboratory examiners and technicians, as well as a senior-level Laboratory manager who serves as Team Leader and liaison with the on-scene commander. Although the teams are configured primarily to address bombing and hazardous materials incidents, personnel from any discipline may be assigned depending on the type of event requiring their assistance.

The FBI's Evidence Response Team Program has continued to expand and Evidence Response Teams have been deployed around the world to major bombing crime scenes, most recently in East Africa. There are presently over 100 teams located in the various FBI Field Offices. Approximately 700 Agent ERT members have received post-blast bombing crime scene training.

In February, 1997, the Explosives Unit of the FBI Laboratory was restructured, separating the Bomb Data Center (BDC) from the unit and merging the remainder of the unit with most functions of the Materials Analysis Unit to form the Materials and Devices Unit (MDU). The Chief of the MDU, Dr. Tom Jourdan, holds a Master's Degrees in Synthetic Organic Chemistry and Nuclear Chemistry, a Ph.D. in Chemistry, and has completed the U.S. Navy's Explosive Ordnance School, Basic Demolition Course.

Under Dr. Jourdan's leadership, the MDU has increased its personnel resources and technical capabilities. The MDU has four broad areas of responsibility: examinations of evidence associated with bombing matters, elemental analyses, scanning electron microscopy, and metallurgical/materials science examinations.

The bombing matters examinations involve the identification and intended function of recovered bomb components, as well as direct field support in bombing crime scenes. During the last couple of years, the following individuals have been added to the staff of the MDU:

FOUR BOMB COMPONENT AND RECONSTRUCTION EXAMINERS WHO HAVE RECENTLY JOINED THE MDU:

• John K. Underbakke -
  B.S. in Criminal Justice.
  Over 12 years of explosives training and experience in the military.
  Chief of the Army EOD Training Department and the Hazardous Devices School.
  Experience as field Evidence Response Team member.
  
• Rex A. Stockham -
  B.S. in Chemistry.
  Formerly worked as a Physical Science Technician in the MDU prior to going to Agent's Training.
  
• Michael W. Hughes -
  B.S. in Chemistry.
  Formerly worked as a Physical Science Technician in the MDU prior to going to Agent's Training.
  
• John W. McSwain -
  B.S. in Accounting.
  Special Agent Bomb Technician (SABT) for over 5 years.
  Extensive experience in major bombing matters to include OKBOMB, SOURGAS, and East Africa Embassy Bombings.
  
• Mark Withworth -
  B.S. in Aeronautical Engineering
  SABT for four years.
  Extensive experience in bombing matters, to include a number of international bombing scenes
  
• METALLURGISTS:
  
• Dr. Mike Smith -
  Senior FBI metallurgist who is presently receiving cross- training as an explosives device examiner.
  
• Eric Jensen -
  M.S. in Physics
  

In addition to its present staff, two applicants have been selected to join the MDU and are currently in a background investigation phase. One individual has a Ph.D. in Inorganic Chemistry and postdoctoral work in the areas of energetic materials, as well as analytical chemistry. This individual directs research and development for the testing of energetic materials and has conducted contract research for a number of domestic and international agencies. He brings with him significant hands-on experience with explosives. The other applicant has an M.S. degree in Physics. He is also a research scientist who has directed operations and research programs which involve the field testing of improvised explosives. In addition, he has managed the mathematical modeling of these energetic materials.

The staffing concept of the MDU has been to meld together individuals who possess extensive experience in hands-on, post- blast bombing crime scene search and component recognition/ reconstruction with scientists who possess strong explosives backgrounds and academic credentials that complement and support the collection and examination processes, as well as research and development activities. It should be noted that in any major bombing investigation, the Laboratory employs an interdisciplinary team approach in which the MDU examiners work with colleagues from the Chemistry Unit and other forensic units of the Laboratory, as well as field crime scene search and bomb technician personnel.

In furtherance of its training mission, the MDU has centralized the FBI's post-blast investigations training and staffed it with the SABT instructors who also conduct the forensic bomb device examinations and reconstructions.

As a separate unit, the BDC has expanded and upgraded a number of its programs. SABTs have received expanded training and now, upon request, can assist as well as provide training to state and local bomb squads. The BDC provides program management and oversight to the Hazardous Devices School (HDS), at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, which is the only source of certification for public safety bomb technicians. It also recently hosted a National Bomb Squad Commanders' Conference which was attended by over 130 participants. In addition, the BDC has been actively involved in a variety of research and development projects seeking to increase the technical capabilities of public safety bomb squads to safely detect, diagnose, and defeat bombs, with an emphasis on chemical and biological devices and large vehicle bombs. As part of its mission, the BDC provides planning and operational assistance to public safety bomb squads during special events, such as the recent NATO 50th Anniversary Summit in Washington, D.C.

The Hazardous Materials Response Unit (HMRU), which was formed in 1986, has expanded its programs to counteract the threat of terrorism involving nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The HMRU has provided on-scene field support and special event support on an ever-increasing basis. It has provided training and equipment to FBI agents so that they can respond to criminal acts involving the use of hazardous materials.

As a result of its emphasis on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA programs, the FBI Laboratory has personal identification capabilities that can materially assist in the identification of remains. Such capabilities are available to support the identify of victims of mass disasters, such as bombings and air crashes and complement the capabilities of the FBI Disaster Squad.

 

C. Partnerships

The FBI Laboratory is committed to and has long promoted interaction with other Laboratories on specific cases and in technical working groups examining broader issues. The Laboratory has established working partnerships with other forensic laboratories, including the New York State Police, the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Illinois State Police, and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. These partnerships provide for bilateral exchanges in areas of quality assurance, audits, and training, resulting in stronger forensic programs for all.

The Laboratory has also been instrumental in the formation and technical leadership of numerous scientific working groups within the forensic community. The purpose of the scientific working groups is to develop and standardize protocols and analytical practices in disciplines such as materials analysis; friction ridge analysis, study and technology; imaging technologies; digital evidence, bombing and arson matters. Many FBI Laboratory examiners serve in leadership roles in these groups as they seek to bring together national and international experts to develop procedures, protocols, training and accreditation guidelines.

Similar arrangements have been developed between the FBI Laboratory and members of the Federal scientific community. Through partnerships with the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the Environmental Protection Agency, the FBI has been able to share information and enhance forensic applications, the transfer of technology, research and development, and specialized training.

The FBI Laboratory's involvement in the TWA-800 investigation was an outstanding example of good quality assurance practice. The same procedures that are routinely utilized to ensure the integrity of evidence and guard against contamination in the FBI Laboratory were employed during the examinations at the Calverton Hangar, where the aircraft examination and reconstruction efforts took place. The FBI Laboratory assumed responsibility for preparing the hangar, and utilized examiners from the Chemistry Unit for analysis of control swabbings taken from the walls and interior portions of the hangar. The Laboratory arranged for a hazardous material contractor to cover the hangar floor with protective material to guard against contamination.

During and since the TWA-800 investigation the FBI Laboratory has been acquiring the most modern laboratory equipment and instrumentation to support forensic analyses, particularly those relating to bombings and weapons of mass destruction matters. In addition, Mobile Modular Laboratories have been configured for deployment to support on-site forensic analyses and examinations in a wide spectrum of environments.

As part of its research and development mission, the Laboratory has targeted critical areas which will enhance its support of major crime investigations. These efforts presently involve 16 internal research and development activities, as well as 30 counterterrorism research projects that have been outsourced to DOE national laboratories, private sector vendors and academic institutions. These initiatives focus on:

1. Field Portable Explosives Detection Technology
2. Forensic Evidence Analysis and Crime Scene Technology
3. Information Infrastructure Technology
4. Specialized and Examiner Training
5. Victim and Terrorist Identification
6. Remote, Render-safe Technology, Detection of Explosives and Neutralization Techniques
7. Hazardous Materials Response
8. Computer Analysis Response Team (CART)
9. Latent Print Automation

II. Laboratory Support of TWA-800 Investigation

The FBI Laboratory responded quickly to the TWA 800 disaster on July 17, 1996. That evening, the Evidence Response Team (ERT) from the Newark Division of the FBI arrived at the scene. The following morning, three examiners from the Materials and Devices Unit at FBI Headquarters arrived in Calverton and were joined later that morning by three examiners from the Chemistry Unit.

The first week following the crash was devoted to the recovery of bodies. This was the first priority of all personnel who arrived at the scene. As a result, the only debris recovered was that which contained bodies and that which was floating and washed up on the beach.

During the course of the investigation, approximately 5,000 hours of on-site support was provided by Laboratory examiners. Laboratory support was maintained by teams who were rotated in and out during the investigation. Over a million pieces of debris were recovered. Explosive residue chemists conducted an exhaustive survey of wreckage that entailed over 9,000 swabbings and examinations. Tens of thousands of pieces of debris were visually inspected by bomb technicians, with 116 subsequently submitted to the Laboratory for further analysis.

It is important to note that the FBI Laboratory's on-site support was provided despite numerous other demands on its resources. Several examiners and evidence technicians were reassigned to New York from the ongoing investigation of the Kobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. Others reported to New York from Atlanta where the Olympic Games were underway. Approximately one week after the TWA-800 crash, the bombing of Centennial Park in Atlanta occurred.

One of the major issues which arose during the recovery phase, was the storage of the quickly accumulating evidence. An FBI Agent from the Long Island Resident Agency arranged for the use of an empty Grumman/U.S. Navy hangar for evidence storage and ultimately for reconstruction of the aircraft. The FBI and ATF then provided mobile equipment for use in analyzing evidence at the site, while the U.S. Navy engaged a private contractor to map out the location of the debris on the ocean floor.

Security in and around the testing areas of the hangar was tight. Only designated laboratory personnel were allowed access and no weapons or ammunition were allowed inside the hangar. Personnel from the FBI's Chemistry Unit manned the testing area of the hangar from July 18, 1996, the day after the crash, until November 8, 1996. Throughout that time, all ships and vehicles used to transport evidence were swabbed to ensure that no pre- existing residues were present. In addition, over 9000 swabs and vacuum samples were collected and tested, including all recovered seats and floorboards and over 500 swabs were taken of the center fuel cell alone.

Over 60 Laboratory Division employees from the Evidence Response Team, Materials and Devices, Bomb Data Center, Chemistry, Trace Evidence, Latent Fingerprint and Special Photographic units worked on the case back in Washington, providing many additional thousands of hours of support.

On August 23, 1996, we announced that scientific analysis conducted by federal examiners had found microscopic explosive traces of unknown origin relating to flight 800. We also advised, however, that based upon all of the scientific and forensic evidence analyzed up to that time, we could not conclude that the flight had crashed as a result of an explosive device.

Shortly thereafter, on August 30, 1996, we announced that additional microscopic explosive traces of unknown origin had been found. We again reiterated that we still could not conclude that the aircraft was brought down by an explosive device.

These announcements came after extensive discussions among senior level scientists and the on-scene commanders. The Laboratory personnel noted that the finding of explosives residue without the corresponding blast damage could not yet be explained and cautioned against jumping to false conclusions.

The New York Office management carefully weighed the information provided by the Laboratory and, together with Director Freeh, decided to issue the above announcements. These events portray a careful, deliberative process in which scientific findings were given proper consideration and, ultimately, an appropriate public release of the information was made.

During the initial months, continued scientific testing continued to confirm that there was evidence of explosives residue with no evidence of bomb blast or missile effects. It was not until September 1996, that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced that in June 1996, the Boeing 747 known as TWA flight 800 had been used in a Bomb Dog training exercise. Although this announcement solved the anomaly of the bomb residue, it did not solve the mystery of the cause of the explosion.

The Laboratory's finding and reporting of these residues constituted the consummate double blind test. Through the practice of good science and protocol, the Laboratory confidently reported its findings at a time when there was no explanation for the presence of such residues.

A number of metallurgists from a number of different organizations worked on, or were consulted about, the TWA-800 crash. These metallurgists worked well together and were in agreement with the Laboratory explosives examiners that there was no indicia of blast effects or missile strike.

III. Lessons Learned

Earlier this year, an after-action meeting was held at Calverton to discuss the events surrounding the investigation of TWA flight 800 and to identify optimal practices for a future major aircraft downing investigation. The agencies attending the meeting were as follows: the FBI, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Defense-Office of Special Technology, Defense Intelligence Agency - Missile and Space Intelligence Center, Naval Air Warfare Center, Air Force Research Laboratory, and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. I would like to note that all attendees expressed satisfaction with the meeting and found it to be very constructive and productive. There was no sign of hostility, nor disagreement, among the participants.

At this meeting the need for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the FBI and the NTSB was recognized. This MOU would set forth each agency's role and responsibilities and define the interaction that should occur between the two agencies during the investigation of a transportation disaster.

The FBI and the NTSB also agreed to pursue cross-training of personnel in order to provide investigators with a better understanding of each agency's mission and responsibilities. As a result, the FBI's Evidence Response Teams will participate in NTSB Crash Investigation Courses and NTSB investigators will attend FBI ERT training. This cross-training will commence next month.

In closing, I would like to say that in the TWA-800 investigation and the more recent East Africa bombings, the FBI has demonstrated its ability to address major challenges wherever they may occur. The lessons learned have enhanced our capabilities and identified optimal practices that will help the FBI Laboratory to meet the challenges of the future.

[JohnFiorentino]

Fred Whitehurst's complaints stemmed from such pressures, in particular the culture clash between the needs of science and the needs of law enforcement that are accentuated by the dominance of a law enforcement ethos rather than that of science in the FBI lab. Many accused him of being unable to make the distinction between pure and practical science. Yet Whitehurst is actually quick to acknowledge the uniqueness of the forensic process within science. The forensic scientist seeks to link a sample to an individual, to a substance, to distinguish it from other specimens in a way no other scientist would even attempt. The forensic scientist's standard fare is the sort of degraded, soiled sample that a research scientist would trash if it ever came near his or her laboratory. The forensic scientist's goal is not pure knowledge but practical supposition.

Whitehurst's contention is simply that such ends have to be underpinned by scientific method, proven protocols, and validated procedures or they yield no proven truth, the ultimate aim of both law and science. Forensic science has to use procedures and processes that have withstood traditional scientific scrutiny -- i.e., been subjected to publication and peer review, the sort of "institutional skepticism" that is the cornerstone of the scientific process. Forensic science examinations should be fully documented, subject to cross examination, and the results and process available to the defense. The reality is somewhat different. The openness, democratic debate, public dissemination, and protracted research that are the hallmarks of proper science contrast sharply with the secrecy, haste, and authoritarian hierarchy of the crime lab.

For years, some lawyers and many scientists have argued that forensic science is hardly a branch of science at all in its refusal and institutional inability to accept or conform to scientific norms. With relatively little research done in forensic science itself, there has been a propensity to adopt or adapt half-baked research done elsewhere. The result: Time after time definitive research in the field of forensic science has only been done after questions have been raised about the accuracy and reliability of its procedures, usually in court.

http://63.147.65.175/books/chap173.htm

---

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

DAUBERT et ux., individually and as guardians and litem for DAUBERT, et al. v. MERRELL

DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the ninth circuit

No. 92-102. Argued March 30, 1993 -- Decided June 28, 1993

Petitioners, two minor children and their parents, alleged in their suit against respondent that the children's serious birth defects had been caused by the mothers' prenatal ingestion of Bendectin, a prescription drug marketed by respondent. The District Court granted respondent summary judgment based on a well credentialed expert's affidavit concluding, upon reviewing the extensive published scientific literature on the subject, that maternal use of Bendectin has not been shown to be a risk factor for human birth defects. Although petitioners had responded with the testimony of eight other well credentialed experts, who based their conclusion that Bendectin can cause birth defects on animal studies, chemical structure analyses, and the unpublished "reanalysis" of previously published human statistical studies, the court determined that this evidence did not meet the applicable "general acceptance" standard for the admission of expert testimony. The Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed, citing Frye v. United States, 54 App. D. C. 46, 47, 293 F. 1013, 1014, for the rule that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is inadmissible unless the technique is "generally accepted" as reliable in the relevant scientific community.

Held: The Federal Rules of Evidence, not Frye, provide the standard for admitting expert scientific testimony in a federal trial. Pp. 4-17.

(a) Frye's "general acceptance" test was superseded by the Rules' adoption. The Rules occupy the field, United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 49, and, although the common law of evidence may serve as an aid to their application, id., at 51-52, respondent's assertion that they somehow assimilated Frye is unconvincing. Nothing in theRules as a whole or in the text and drafting history of Rule 702, which specifically governs expert testimony, gives any indication that "general acceptance" is a necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence. Moreover, such a rigid standard would be at odds with the Rules' liberal thrust and their general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to "opinion" testimony. Pp. 4-8.

(b) The Rules--especially Rule 702--place appropriate limits on the admissibility of purportedly scientific evidence by assigning to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand. The reliability standard is established by Rule 702's requirement that an expert's testimony pertain to "scientific . . . knowledge," since the adjective "scientific" implies a grounding in science's methods and procedures, while the word "knowledge" connotes a body of known facts or of ideas inferred from such facts or accepted as true on good grounds. The Rule's requirement that the testimony "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue" goes primarily to relevance by demanding a valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to admissibility. Pp. 9-12.

(c) Faced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony under Rule 702, the trial judge, pursuant to Rule 104(a), must make a preliminary assessment of whether the testimony's underlying reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid and properly can be applied to the facts at issue. Many considerations will bear on the inquiry, including whether the theory or technique in question can be (and has been) tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, its known or potential error rate, and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation, and whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community. The inquiry is a flexible one, and its focus must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate. Throughout, the judge should also be mindful of other applicable Rules. Pp. 12-15.

(d) Cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof, rather than wholesale exclusion under an uncompromising "general acceptance" standard, is the appropriate means by which evidence based on valid principles may be challenged. That even limited screening by the trial judge, on occasion, will prevent the jury from hearing of authentic scientific breakthroughs is simply a consequence of the fact that the Rules are not designed to seek cosmic understanding but, rather, to resolve legal disputes. Pp. 15-17.

951 F. 2d 1128, vacated and remanded.

---

Free v. Bondo-Mar-Hyde Corp., No. 01-2240 (4th Cir. Jan. 10, 2002) (unpublished). District court awards summary judgment to defendants after excluding causation testimony from plaintiffs' metallurgist in products liability action arising from explosion of aerosol can of paint remover. Exclusion affirmed. Metallurgist is qualified in metallurgy but lacks knowledge re: (a) aerosol can manufacturing; (b) process of filling aerosol cans; (c) testing of cans during manufacturing process; (d) pressurization of cans; and (e) normal pressure expected for this type of can. Metallurgist consequently lacked expertise to opine on whether certain scratches on can were defects or were normal results of manufacturing process, or to opine on whether scratches caused explosion.

---

. Metallurgist William Tobin told the OIG during his first interview that the EU constantly pressured scientists in other units, including himself, to produce conclusions that were consistent with EU theories. Tobin later indicated, however, that he had been pressured to come to some conclusion, rather than to reach a particular result.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/fbilab1/10norflk.htm

The science of metallurgy is the only scientifically appropriate discipline to evaluate metal damage and causes of the metal damage of the recovered parts of Flight 800.

http://www.lektrik.com/sinc/tobinandrandich.htm

As for metallurgy, it is not presently an accreditable discipline under ASCLD/LAB for several reasons. First, forensic metallurgy is a narrow field of science with a very limited number of qualified experts. Second, metallurgical examinations are varied and often require a number of novel examination approaches. Since examination protocols must necessarily be general in their application, ASCLD/LAB has not developed a program for certifying the metallurgical examination procedures.

[JohnFiorentino]

R.I.P. 7/17/96

"So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs." -- Mt 10:26-27

At approximately 8:31pm edt., July 17, 1996 TWA Fl.800 out of Kennedy International Airport, exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off East Moriches, LI. Of the 230 men, women and children aboard the ill fated flight, none survived.

Now, six years later, on the anniversary of the crash, lingering doubts still remain.

The official version of what happened that night places the blame on a "spark" of unknown origin which ignited the fuel vapors in the plane's nearly empty Center Wing Tank. Many choose not to believe this scenario.

After a controversial four year long investigation by the NTSB, assisted by other federal agencies, we have arrived at this point in time, the sixth anniversary of the crash.

This short editorial will not be a critique of that investigation, nor a news item presenting fresh evidence. For today, it somehow seems inappropriate to become embroiled in the continuing controversy that is the Fl800 mystery. Today, is a day to remember. A day to remember the 230 souls who lost their lives. A day to remember champions of the truth, like Cmdr. William S. Donaldson, USN/Ret., who himself passed away in 2001. His brother Bob Donaldson continues in his brothers footsteps. He dutifully maintains the website dedicated to the Fl800 mystery at http://www.twa800.com.

Yes, today we remember. It matters not whether you believe the official version of events, whether you agree with all that Cmdr. Donaldson and others had, and have to say, or whether you sit on the proverbial fence. What matters today, is that we remember.

My deepest sympathies go out to the victims and families of the TWA800 disaster, and to Cmdr. Donaldson, and his family, a victim simply of life’s end. You are not forgotten. The search for the truth continues.

---

Copyright 2002, John E. Fiorentino

[JohnFiorentino]

TO ALL........Those interested may wish to go the sister thread to this article entitled Boeing Responds to FBI Report to read some rather interesting discussions.

BOEING RESPONDS TO FBI REPORT
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/713899/posts

[JohnFiorentino]

Retired Airline Pilot sues NTSB for "Zoom-climb" data
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/723257/posts

[JohnFiorentino]

A NEW THREAD ON TWA800 IS POSTED HERE.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/727052/posts

[JohnFiorentino]

A NEW ARTICLE ON FL800 IS POSTED HERE.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/727674/posts

[JohnFiorentino]

A New Article on TWA800 is posted here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/729346/posts

[JohnFiorentino]

It's been brought to my attention by some that another of my articles dealing with TWA800 is just "too unbelievable" or "way-out" to be taken seriously. I have decided to post here and on other threads the source verification for that article. The article in question is here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/727674/posts

Below you will find verification:


THE NEW YORK STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE
AFTER ACTION REPORT
THE CRASH OF TWA FLIGHT 800
17 July 1996 OFF THE COAST OF LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........
(excerpts)

One of the missions the Guard accepted was controlling all flight operations at East Moriches as of 6:00 a.m. Sunday, July 21. Helicopter traffic grew heavier at the small Coast Guard station as the recovery operations at sea expanded. Divers were ferried out to the local-state-federal flotilla at sea and investigators, dignitaries and families were being transported to the Coast Guard station for briefings, etc. The need for tighter control over air operations became evident after it was learned that for the first 2 ½ days, a man claiming to be a U.S. Army Reserve lieutenant colonel bluffed his way onto the Coast Guard site -- wearing a U.S. Army Reserve green flight suit and flashing official-looking identification cards -- directed landings and takeoffs. It was later determined that he was an imposter. On Sunday, the Coast Guard requested, through SEMO, a grader to improve the landing strip. On Monday, July 22, a new asphalt landing strip was constructed by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works with assistance from equipment provided by the DMNA task force.

FULL TEXT HERE

http://www.nysemo.state.ny.us/TWA/SUMMARY.HTM