Posted on 02/28/2002 9:31:30 AM PST by Asmodeus
First, we knew almost immediately after the accident that TWA Flight 800 had experienced an in-flight breakup. This was strongly suggested by the radar data - there was a loss of transponder returns and the primary radar returns indicated that pieces had departed the airplane and were fairly widely dispersed in the ocean. The wreckage recovery locations made it evident relatively early in the investigation that the in-flight break-up was initiated by an event in the area of the fuselage near the forward part of the center wing tank.
Specifically, pieces from the forward part of the center wing tank and adjacent areas of fuselage were recovered from the westernmost portion of the wreckage field (the portion of the wreckage field closest to JFK Airport from where Flight 800 took off). This first wreckage area is referred to as the "red zone." The recovery of the pieces from the red zone indicated that they were the first pieces to separate from the airplane. The nose portion of the airplane was found farther to the east, in what was labeled the "yellow zone," indicating that this portion of the airplane separated later in the breakup sequence. And most of the remaining wreckage was found in the easternmost portion of the wreckage field, farthest from JFK, which was labeled the "green zone."
This basic evidence - the radar data and the wreckage recovery locations - indicated that the airplane broke up in flight, and that the break-up initiated in the area of the fuselage near the forward part of the center wing tank.
On the basis of this initial information, we considered several possible causes for the initiation of the in-flight break-up:
• a structural failure and decompression;
• a detonation of a high-energy explosive device, such as a bomb or missile warhead; and
• a fuel air vapor explosion in the center wing tank.
We found no evidence that a structural failure and decompression initiated the break-up. A thorough examination of the wreckage by our engineers and metallurgists did not reveal any evidence of fatigue, corrosion, or any other structural fault that could have led to the break-up.
As a side note, I would like to mention that there was absolutely no evidence of an in-flight separation of the forward cargo door - one of the many theories suggested to us by the members of the public. The physical evidence demonstrated that the forward cargo door was closed and latched at water impact.
We also considered the possibility of a bomb or missile. However, high-energy explosions leave distinctive damage signatures on the airplane's structure, such as severe pitting, cratering, hot gas washing, and petaling. No such damage was found on any portion of the recovered airplane structure, and as you know, more than 95 percent of the airplane was recovered. Our investigators, together with many outside participants from the parties to the investigation, closely examined every piece of recovered wreckage. All of the participants agreed that none of the wreckage exhibited any of the damage characteristics of a high-energy explosion - that is, of a bomb or a missile.
Further, no missing portions of fuselage were large enough to represent the entry of a missile. You may have noticed that some of the photographs of the reconstruction show what appear to be several large missing areas, such as those that are shown on the screen now. However, almost all of the fuselage structure in these areas is actually attached to the adjacent pieces, but has been folded back or crushed in such a way that it does not cover its original area. Therefore, these large gaps that appear to exist in the reconstructed fuselage do not represent areas of damage that could have been caused by a missile.
In addition, we found no localized area of severe thermal or fragmentation pieces and no localized severe damage or fragmentation of the seats, such as would be expected if a high-energy explosive device had detonated inside the airplane. The injuries to the occupants and the damage to the airplane were fully consistent with an in-flight break-up and subsequent water impact. In light of all this evidence, a bomb or missile strike has been ruled out as an initiating event of the in-flight break-up.
The FBI did find trace amounts of explosive residue on three pieces of the wreckage. However, these three pieces contain no evidence of pitting, cratering, hot gas washing, or petaling, which would have been there had these trace amounts resulted from a bomb or missile. Further, these trace amounts could have been transferred to these pieces in various ways. For example, in connecting with ferrying troops during the Gulf War or during dog-training explosive detection exercises that were conducted on the accident airplane about one month before the accident. There is also the possibility that the explosive residues could have been deposited on the wreckage during or after the recovery operations as a result of contact with the military personnel, ships, and vehicles used during those operations. We don't know exactly how the explosive residues got there - but we do know from the physical evidence I've just discussed that the residues were not the result of the detonation of a bomb. [end quote] Source
He said he was a witness and he said he wasn’t a witness.
”Another piece of information making the rounds among Medical Corps types is that the man who actually launched the missile is presently in a mental institution. This comes from a physician whose security clearance is so high that he has worked in the most secret medical facility maintained by the military (sorry, I won't say which one it is). I tend to believe anything this person says, but certainly can't prove it.”
The following is by a sound expert the FBI reportedly consulted about the Flight 800 disaster:
http://www.nmia.com/~jwreed/twa.htm
[excerpts][emphasis added]
"Commander Bill Donaldson's much-publicized contention once was that an errant missile from naval exercises was responsible, but he attributed it to a rocket with a 93-lb explosive warhead, much too small to cause such noise on Long Island, much less the multiple bangs. Later, he switched to a terrorist source, but others still maintain that the U. S. Navy was the source. Whoever the culprits, something the size of a Scud missile, with 1000-lb warhead, could possibly have almost made enough noise, but again, no following sequence of smaller bangs. And I doubt that any cover-up, from the White House, the Kremlin, Teheran, or Bagdad, could have been maintained this long, particularly if the FBI had found any evidence of chemical or nuclear explosion residue on the recovered aircraft fragments".
"So, What Really Happened? Again, I do not know. But, it appears to me that Richard E. Spalding's (Sandia Lab satellite detection expert) hypothesis of an explosive earth-methane burp encounter survives by default. Dick has analyzed many flash signals from satellite monitors that cannot be explained as known explosions or meteorites. He has collected reports, even books, dating back hundreds of years and from every continent, about mysterious bangs and flashes, many of which were sufficiently documented to be quite credible; but just have not or cannot be explained. So, Dick has, for several years now, engaged the Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute for Dynamics of Geospheres, in various studies of methane deposits, possible emission mechanics, and ignition and explosion chemistry and physics. But beyond this mini-Soros program to feed starving Russian scientists, he has gotten no support for any geophysical expeditions required to explore possible methane burps. This subject quickly raises hackles in the establishments of geology and geophysics (See Thomas Gold, "Power from the Earth", J.M.Dent and Sons, London, 1987). Yet Dick has also postulated an ionized methane trail, similar to a lightning leader path, that might be activated to cause the appearance of a rocket plume, as was widely reported to reach TWA Flight 800." [end excerpts]
[Note: It is a “work in progress” website that also includes witness report analysis and the readers are encouraged to examine it at this time for updates]
The government's contention that the center fuel tank exploded as the initial event is not supported by a single witness or a single piece of physical evidence. It is invented out of whole cloth.
My A$$. I think that it's safe to say that we all understand the need to keep a lid on certain matters that threaten national security. However, the day that the majority of Freepers agree that a blanket ice-down on all information on a matter of public concern and safety by authorities to whom we give our trust is the day that I shut my hard drive down for good and trade my computer in on a Nintendo.
"the right NOT to know" = DOUBLETHINK
Agreed.
Can I assume you found the data that shows what a missile explosion looks like on a flight data recorder? Could you share it or at least publish a source? Otherwise, your theory is completely unsupportable, and not worth bringing up again and again.
"The government's contention that the center fuel tank exploded as the initial event is not supported by a single witness or a single piece of physical evidence."
How about hundreds of pages of documentation and pictures including signed and approved addendums by engineering experts from Boeing, TWA and ALPA who were actual parties to the investigation, and actually examined the evidence? I guess that carries less weight then your unsupported contention that the FDR perfectly recorded a missile exploding near the front of the plane.
The visible fiery events seen by the “missile witnesses” did not appear until approximately 20-30 seconds after the initiating event began tearing the 747 apart at 13,800 feet. The Massive Fireball, unofficially calculated at 2000 feet in diameter, exploded in the falling main fuel bearing wreckage, filling the sky between about 5500-7500 feet and the falltime of the MF to the surface took approximately 7-10 seconds, obviously impossible from 13,800 feet. Sources
Think not? Then please extend the readers the courtesy of explaining how witness Meyer could have seen an “ordnance shootdown” of the airliner at 13,800 feet only 3-4 seconds before he saw the Massive Fireball explosion at 5500-7500 feet.
When it was pointed out that the data of the last second showed changes incompatible with the last second of data recorder (which would have been instantaneously disconnected by a center tank explosion) data of a flight going along normally, the reaction of the NTSB was to claim that they had inadvertantly included one second of the aircraft's previous flight from Paris to New York.
However, further analysis of the air speed, altitude and rate of climb data showed that those of the last second were very abnormal, but coordinated. When analyzed back to the air pressures that would produce such data, it become apparent that the data recorder had recorded a sharp "overpressure", a polite term for an explosion, in proximity to the front of the aircraft.
Lo and behold, soon after this analysis was published, the NTSB pulled the original data recording and substituted another in which the last second of original data had been deleted.
Unless you archived the original data (and I did not) within the first few days of it being posted, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ORIGINAL DATA.
twa800.com/final.pdf
The ORIGINAL flight data recorder data is included in the index of that report, as is a detailed analysis of that data.
It was after Cmdr. Donaldson confronted the NTSB with the fact that their own data showed an explosion in proximity to the aircraft that the NTSB pulled the original last second of data from their site.
I would suggest that anyone interested in whether a missile may have brought down TWA Flight 800 read Cmdr. Donaldson's report. It is about 70 pages long.
I have personally been convinced that a missile brought the aircraft down ever since the night it crashed. That night, I watched on TV the interview of the Air National Guard pilot who was flying the c-130 that was in the area and was the first plane to get to the crash site. This Vietnam U.S. Air Force veteran, who knows exactly what a surface to air missile (SAM) looks like, said in plain English that he had seen what happened and that a SAM had brought down the airliner. When another one hundred witnesses said the same thing, it didn't at all surprise me.
When someone (the NTSB) conducts a hearing and excludes all 100 witnesses who saw the event, and who all say the same thing happened, you better believe the whole thing was rigged from the beginning.
Now tell me again, Rokke, how much you trust the Federal government.
A lot more than I trust an internet debate on LSoft which seems to be your primary source for the "missile" data on the FDR tapes. I haven't read Donaldson's analysis yet, but I will. After reading other bits of analysis he's done, I'm sure I will be completely underwhelmed. The guy had great intentions, but almost no idea of what he was talking about. His analysis of shoulder launched heat seeking missiles guiding on heating vents (fundamental to his theory) is laughable, and his analysis of radar data that supposedly showed missile debris exiting out the right side of the aircraft was so flawed a graduate of 7th grade geometry could disprove it. So let me just make a prediction...I predict Donaldson will continue his streak, and his FDR analysis will be as flawed as the rest of his efforts.
I'll read it tonight and report back.
FreeRepublic obviously. But the fact that someone on FreeRepublic tells me the sky is green doesn't make it so, unless they can back it up with evidence and proof. That's all I'm asking for. And from all your barbs directed at Elmer, it would appear you don't like or trust him. I'm familiar with Barf. He and I went round and round about P-3's dragging target sleds. I definitely admire his engineering work. I'm not so impressed with his interpretation of radar data.
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.