TWA 800: Pilots speak out

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com ^ | May 17, 2003 | Jack Cashill

[joesnuffy]

TWA 800: Pilots speak out

Posted: May 17, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

After my most recent trip to Washington last weekend, I have come to one sorry conclusion: The only people who believe that a fuel-tank problem destroyed TWA Flight 800 sit in America's major media newsrooms.

They certainly don't sit in the cockpits of America's airliners. After some 200 radio and TV interviews and a score of live appearances, I have talked to at least 100 airline pilots. Of those, exactly one supported the government thesis.

What follows are some of the unsolicited e-mails I have recently received from pilots and my comments on the same. I have edited them only for length and for spelling. Not all of the pilots agree with James Sanders and me on every point in our book, "First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America," but they uniformly reject the government thesis.

Each of these individuals identified themselves to me. I have chosen, however, to shield their identities lest there be repercussions.

Ex-Air Force combat pilot

I loved the book. I am an ex-Air Force combat pilot, functional check flight pilot and standardization and evaluation pilot. I flew 145 combat missions. From the first announcement of TWA 800 I believed the plane was brought down by a missile. To me the strongest evidence of the government cover-up is the lack of satellite photo releases to back up the claim that there was no missile. No part of the earth is probably more under satellite surveillance than the mid-Atlantic from New York City to Washington, D.C. If the satellite photos backed up the "no missile" theory, the photos would be everywhere.

There are other interesting questions: Why, if it was mechanical failure, was the entire 747 fleet not grounded? While there were corrective mechanical changes, anything this catastrophic would have deserved far more severe reaction. Why has Boeing never protested this conclusion? Anyway, great book.

Retired airline pilot

As a pilot for 33 years, I have flown many of the different Boeing A/C, all with a center tank, many times empty, with the pumps running, and guess what? Nothing happened. Even after the TWA incident when the FAA required checks of the wiring in all Boeing A/C, even when insulation was found missing from wires, even with empty tanks … nothing happened.

None of the pilots or maintenance persons I ever talked with believed that tank explosion was caused by faulty wiring shorting out because the pumps were on with an empty tank.

Retired TWA Pilot and Accident Investigator

The item "Probe's conclusion built on faked interview" is flawed, as is the NTSB conclusions it tries to refute.

First of all, there were not 736 witnesses who saw the missile. There were 736 witness's to the explosion, but only a small fraction, something like 80 or so, saw a streak of some sort. The majority saw no such streak.

Of those who saw the streak, some said it went straight up, a few said it went down from the aircraft, others saw more than one streak, streaks were from several directions. Wire's missile was climbing at a 40 degree angle, etc.

Assuming this "missile" was a heat seeker such as the Stinger which we gave to bin Laden, it would have homed in on the hottest part of the target, the nearest tailpipe, not the fuselage. The aircraft was under climb thrust and putting out a lot of heat.

I don't know what to make of the 3,000 degree climb of the wreckage. The "video" shown alongside this article shows all four engines leaving contrails. At 13,000 degree? Ridiculous.

I don't believe the NTSB conclusions. Of 1,108 B-747s built, only one experienced this problem? Hardly. I think it was a bomb.

When the wreckage of TWA 800 was raised from the bottom and placed on a barge, I noticed the nose section was blown cleanly off. I went around and searched for the wreckage of PAA 103 at Lockerbie. The nose was blown off at the same frame!

PAA was brought down by a bomb. I think that's what happened to TWA 800. BTW, the aircraft was the same one I flew for my ATP rating in September 1972. I knew many of the crew who perished.

Note: Of the 700-plus eyewitnesses that the FBI interviewed, some 270 (FBI's figure) saw streaks of lights ascending or arcing over before the crash. Roughly one-third of those followed the streaks from the horizon. There were many more eyewitnesses who did not share their accounts with the FBI. We too believe it was a bomb, a flying bomb that was exploded somewhere under the plane.

Retired TWA pilot, senior Air Line Pilots Association investigator

Sometime in the late '80s, I was on a flight between JFK and Tel Aviv (TLV). The airplane was a 747-200. During the initial climb out from JFK, a strange rattling and metal-to-metal noise began to emanate from the throttle quadrant.

We ignored the noises as a nuisance and since everything else was normal continued on our way. At about 23,000 feet airplane altitude, the FE announced that he cannot control the cabin.

[Later] the FE announces, "I have a Differential Fault" on generator number 3. ... Not more than 30 seconds elapsed from the GenDiff announcement by the FE when he announces that he now has a GenDiff on generator number 4! We not only have the Virgin Mary in first class but Jesus Christ and the 12 Apostles just showed up.

That did it; we declared an emergency, made a 180 degree turn and headed back to JFK. We were just past Nantucket Island heading for Yarmouth in the Canadian Maritimes when we made the turn and dumped about 160,000 pounds of fuel (the natives of Nantucket can thank our crew for having never sighted a mosquito since that day).

... So we had two 85KVA capable generators, running at about half load, dead short against the wing spar. 170KA is equivalent to 1,700 100-watt bulbs; with four generators online, each was running at about one-half load when the first GenDiff occurred and three-quarters when the second went off. The spar also serves as the front portion of the wing fuel tanks which had much fuel and air.

So after F800, I always asked the question – if a dead short electrical arc of considerable power on a fuel tank did not cause us to blow up, how did static electricity cause the [center wing tank] to go off in F800?

All of the above can be quantified with crew names, airplane number and log book write-ups if necessary. I truly don't know the consequence of a dead short on an airframe. All I know is that I have five crew members who witnessed it.

PS: After the shoddy investigation by the NTSB on TWA F840 in 1979, I never had much respect for the outfit.

PPS: I just finished the book – great job. Thanks on behalf of those friends I lost.

Note: This has been shortened considerably. The pilot's point, however, is clear.

TWA pilot scheduled to fly Flight 800 on July 17

I commend you for the excellent series of articles . … I do hope the prosecutions proceed. There is nothing worse than corruption in our government.

My interest in this is that I should have been the captain of 800 that day. Management used its prerogatives and took the flight for training purposes. I lost many friends and associates on that flight. I had flown that aircraft No. 119 only several days prior to the shoot down. Justice over due. Let the trials begin!

Retired airline pilot

I am totally convinced that an outside source blew up TWA 800. In fact I went live on Fox TV on their 10 p.m. newscast that night and stated that fact. (I am their in-house spokesperson for aviation matters.) We can muster up a number of pilots with thousands of hours and years and years of experience to augment and support your theory. Please contact me if you are interested in us pursuing this any further.

Note: Yes, we are. Our best bet for genuine exposure at this time is for America's pilots to force the issue. If some pilot or pilot's organization is willing to take the lead, we are more than willing to help.

Related offers:

Price slashed on "First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America"! New book by Jack Cashill and James Sanders says government lies upped drama ante for terrorists. From WND Books, available in ShopNetDaily.

Purchase Jack Cashill's stunning documentary video, "Silenced: Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice" from WorldNetDaily's online store.

"Altered Evidence" from Flight 800 How the Justice Department framed a journalist and his wife. Also available from WorldNetDaily's online store!

[Criminal Number 18F]

The 50 gallons is what is called "unusable" fuel -- its fuel the pumps can't reach. Every plane has some amount of unusable fuel, from the tiniest trainer (where it might be a gallon and a half) to a massive 74.

Under the conditions of TWA 800, that fuel was a thin, hot (60 degrees Centigrade) film on the bottom of the tank - good conditions for forming vapour.

I don't know where this business about fuel-pump alarms came from. The tank was deliberately left empty that day (airliners usually don't top off their tanks, they only carry enough fuel to make it to their destination, and an alternate one in case the destination closes... it costs money to haul thousands of pounds of extra fuel).

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Yasotay]

As a self stated SF "Assistant Operations and Intellience Sergeant" you post very strong arguments, but why do you ruin your case by insulting other sides that disagree with you?

[liberalnot]

i was listening to some of the reports afterwards on the radio of people involved with investigating flight 800.

i heard people who were eating dinner on their patios, at restaurants, tell their stories about seeing something rise up from the ocean and strike the plane. one woman offered photographs to the fbi, but they never came by to pick them up.

i listened to one military helicopter pilot give his eye witness account. i related it to a friend who teaches at a college. he said, "you can't trust people in the military", dismissing the report.

and, there you have it. bill clinton needed to get re-elected in 1996.

[Poohbah]

OK, this thing had a large plume, and boosted all the way to the target.

What was the launch platform?

[PatrioticAmerican]

"then the alarm should not sound alerting the pilot to pump fue"

What alarm?

[PatrioticAmerican]

Your post missed the crucial technical details. No center tank could be detonated under the same conditions that a 747 flying at 13,800 at 250+ knots would experience. It is damned cold at that altitude. Cold enough that the fuel even puts out a match.

Also, flt 800 experienced the same flight conditions that thousands of other 747s have experienced. It even experienced the same flight conditions day after day. No explosions. None.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"That's not evidence. "

Neither is a closed source. The closed source being th FBI, which denied access to others, others whose job it normally is to investigate such incidents.

Famous But Incompetents: "There is no evidence of a missile, but we won't let you investigate the wreckage. It might have been a terrorist job, but here is a video by the CIA that proves it was the center fuel tank."

[PatrioticAmerican]

Wrong. Re-entry ain't slow.

[Poohbah]

You still haven't gotten around to addressing the central issue: the only Navy SAM shooter was 200 miles away, and the missile would not have a visible plume as it intercepted TWA 800 because the booster motor had burned out quite some time before.

[Poohbah]

This wasn't an ICBM telemetry package, which has a LOT more weight available for protecting the thing. A SAM is a much smaller beastie.

[Archangelsk]

It is damned cold at that altitude. Cold enough that the fuel even puts out a match.

Thus fuel-oil heat exchangers which would probably heat vapor in addition to Jet-A.

[PatrioticAmerican]

We powered down all systems with the announcement of a no-go mission. T+12 we were told all flight dynamics were nominal. My site picked up track seconds before mission data was to be recorded. We were one of only several sites that had any mission data coverage. We had 110%.

The cartoon was that of a service truck blowing apart at the pad, and the mission controller saying, "It blew. I heard it go."

[PatrioticAmerican]

"But only if the missile hits at a relatively low velocity."

Slow velocity means it crushes. The faster the better for survival. Where did you get the slower thing?

[Poohbah]

Slow velocity means it crushes. The faster the better for survival.

Only if the impact speed is faster than the speed of sound in the hardware of the telemetry package, otherwise it just means that the shockwave is steeper.

[Slyfox]

Bill Clinton was an utter failure as a president and as an American. He governed by polls and appeasement, never by decision

Actually, he did not govern. He let Hillary set the agenda. She made all the decisions and finding the truth about Flight 800 was not on her radar screen.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"What was the launch platform?"

Excellent question. If a missile was the source of the plume, where from and what was it. What was its target, if any. Who fired it?


Here is the real question: The plume was NOT the 747, so what was it. The FBI tried to get that crazy CIA video to tell people that the plume was the 747. That a 747, without its nose section, could climb 3,000 feet. etc, etc, etc.

BS.

So, what was the source of the plume? Excellent question.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Navy SAM shooter"

I never said it was a a Navy shot. It could have been, and, no, the only SAM shooter wasn't 200 miles away, but, I do believe, only 35 miles away.

Question for you: What was the purpose of the Navy operation being conducted that evening?

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Only if the impact speed is faster than the speed of sound in the hardware of the telemetry package, otherwise it just means that the shockwave is steeper.
"

Wrong. Physics, my FRiend, physics. F = MA. Also, high velocity means that IF the package were to disintegrate, its pieces would have a better chance of moving through the 747 and not stopping to be evidence. Of course, no one will know if there really is any evidence as the FBI refuse access to anyone but themselves.

Remember, it was a center fuel tank explosion, but, no, you may not see the wreckage because it could still be a terrorist investigation.

P.S. If you private reply me an eddress, I'll send you two pictures worth looking at: An ocean and land impact of ICBM telemetry package warheads. The ocean impact is recoverable, and the land transmitted data beyond the suface, depth is classified, but you would get the picture.

[Poohbah]

I never said it was a a Navy shot. It could have been, and, no, the only SAM shooter wasn't 200 miles away, but, I do believe, only 35 miles away.

Wrong. Nearest US Navy surface combatant was the USS Normandy, 200 miles away.

Question for you: What was the purpose of the Navy operation being conducted that evening?

Good question. W-105 and W-106 were active, which are AVIATION warning areas only, not NAUTICAL warning areas.

Supposedly, this was a low-altitude CEC engagement gone sour, but the story doesn't add up if you know anything about how SM-2 actually works. Normandy would have been well over the horizon from TWA 800, so they would've needed another networked sensor to "see" the intended target.