Skip to comments.TWA Flight 800 - "CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS IS A LIE? I CAN'T"
Posted on 02/28/2002 9:31:30 AM PST by Asmodeus
click here to read article
You're pretty salty for a guy who's only been aboard a month.
You're pretty salty for a guy who's only been aboard a month.
Could have been the lighter stuff falling down later after the sub had come back up to scope depth.
We were still tracking falling debris 45 minutes after the Challenger explosion. (course, they were 10 miles high when it happened)
I don't want to initiate a long and protracted debate on a side subject that will lead to nothing, but I don't find any documentation that politics and/or corruption on the part of any official involved in the TWA 800 investigation has been alledged or proven. Overwhelmingly asserted by several very vocal and unrelenting individuals, I'll admit. But nothing of substance offered in proof.
The other thing that bothers me personally, is the limits to which people, armed with the incomplete or skewed data, will go in defending their conclusion, however (and most often) fatally flawed it may be.
What a bunch of crap! It's called continuing a lie. Covering up a lie is complicity! That is the exact opposite of "CLASS"!
Obviously, our government cannot admit that fact, because it can paralize air travel, as well as shake our security. Of course, I have no proof, only speculation. It was obvious to me after hundreds of eye witnesses testified that they seen a flame going up from the sea to hit the plane, and made the explosion. The government said all of them were unreliable? thus a cover up started.
Still peddling the cargo door conspiracy theory.
How many government officials have to be lying for this conspriacy theory to be true? (any less than the missile theory?)
It couldn't have been.
On July 17, 1996, in New York, sunset occurred at 7:24 PM. Flight 800 exploded at 8:31 PM.
While the aircraft might have still been in direct sunlight because of its altitude (and thus clearly visible from the ground), how much daylight would you expect there to be at ground level 67 minutes after sunset?
No, I don't have any data illustrating what overpressure from exploding ordnance would look like on an FDR tape, and it doesn't matter anyway because the FDR data has been tampered with.
So I guess there is no point in discussing any conclusions anyone has taken from the FDR data. Now maybe we can resume a discussion on the questionable source quoted in Irvine's article ironically published on his AIM site.
You're safe! There's not a whole lot of room for passengers in my jet.
Well, that's a different take from the typical conspiracy approach favored by the likes of Rivero et al. I am surprised this has become an obsession for you, because I think you are on a road to nowhere. You basically trust none of the investigation data, but it is exactly that data that most of the folks you listed as trusted sources rely on. Garbage in equals garbage out, and I'm not sure you are ever going to find something that measures up to your standards. What is your desired outcome in all your personal effort? You have a contract with dead French students? Is that a personal vow or a formal contract? And I'm not sure what citizen duty you hope to accomplish "exposing" me. I'll save you some trouble and invite you to visit me whenever you chose. I live in Madison Wisconsin. Come on up and I'll buy you some cheese curds and a beer. I think you'll find the cheese curds a lot more exciting then anything you'll learn about me.
Some other interesting questions arise out of the following:
Reed Irvine states as follows about his first telephone discussion with Randy Beers: I obtained Beers phone number from information and found him willing to talk. In our taped interview, he was somewhat more guarded than he had been with his acquaintance. He said he didnt want to do anything that might "mess up" his retirement, but nothing was said about the conversation being off the record. I told him that I was with Accuracy in Media and recommended that he visit our Web site, where he would find a lot of articles we had written about TWA 800. The following is a partial transcript of the taped interview. I did not begin taping at the very beginning of the conversation. The transcript begins where the taping started. This was Thurs., Nov. 15 at 10:00 a.m. [emphasis added]
B: I told everything, you know, when the Navy came on board with everybody else on my submarine.
Reed Irvine states as follows about a later telephone discussion with Randy Beers: I called Randy again the next morning, Friday, Nov. 16. He asked me to call him back Monday morning, Nov. 19. I did, and I found myself talking to an entirely different person. The confident, courageous master chief had been transformed into a quivering moral coward. He said he had talked to his skipper over the weekend and that he had been reminded that he had signed certain papers when he retired from the Navy. Whoever it was that he had talked to had scared him to death. He feared that he was going to lose his retirement because of what he told me. He claimed he had spoken off the record, but I told him that was not so and that was very clear from the tape that I had recorded. [emphasis added]
Reed Irvine states as follows about a still later telephone discussion with Randy Beers: "My last conversation with Randy Beers was on February 5. I wanted to tell him that I was going to reveal his name, and I left a message saying it was important that he call me. He did. He first asked me if I was recording the call. I wasnt and I said so. He then said that he was so upset that he had experienced trouble sleeping for two months. But he had found a solution to his problem. He told me that he was notorious for telling tall tales and that all that he had said about where the Trepang was and what he had seen was false. He claimed he just made it up.
He said the submarine was at its homeport in Groton, Connecticut that night, not beneath TWA Flight 800 when it was blown out of the sky. He said he didnt know anything about any exercise that was taking place and he had never heard of W-105, the large area off Long Island that is regularly used by the military for testing and training. He said at least twice that this was his story and he was sticking to it. That is a gag line that says, in effect, I am lying but dont expect me to admit it." [emphasis added]
Note: Everyone should obtain competent legal advice and guidance before making any decisions about taping conversations. Applicable law today, yesterday, last week or last year may be different tomorrow, next week or next year.
At first, the question of whether or not to tape record a phone call seems like a matter of personal preference. Some journalists see taping as an indispensable tool, while others dont like the formality it may impose during an interview. Some would not consider taping a call without the subjects consent, others do it routinely.
However, there are important questions of law that must be addressed first. There are both federal and state statutes governing the use of electronic recording equipment. The unlawful use of such equipment can give rise not only to a civil suit by the "injured" party, but also criminal prosecution.
Accordingly, it is critical that journalists know the statutes that apply and what their rights and responsibilities are when recording and disclosing communications.
Although most of these statutes address wiretapping and eavesdropping -- listening in on conversations of others without their knowledge -- they usually apply to electronic recording of any conversations, including phone calls and in-person interviews.
Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most have also extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)
Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
It shouldnt need to be said, but it is illegal in all states to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.
Federal law and most state laws also make it illegal to disclose the contents of an illegally intercepted call or communication.
At least fifteen states have laws outlawing the use of hidden cameras in private places. Be warned, however, that the audio portion of a videotape will be treated under the regular wiretapping laws in any state. Also, many of the statutes concern unattended hidden cameras, not cameras hidden on a person engaged in a conversation. And regardless of whether a state has a criminal law regarding cameras, undercover recording in a private place can prompt civil lawsuits for invasion of privacy.
This guide provides a quick reference to the specific provisions of each jurisdictions wiretap law. It outlines whether one-party or all-party consent is required to permit recording of a conversation, and provides the legal citations for wiretap statutes. Some references to case law have been provided in instances where courts have provided further guidance on the law. Penalties for violations of the law are described, including criminal penalties (jail and fines) and civil damages (money that a court may order the violator to pay to the subject of the taping). Instances where the law specifically includes cellular calls and the wireless portion of cordless phone calls are also noted, but many laws are purposely broad enough to encompass such calls without specifically mentioning them.
Sidebar articles throughout the guide address specific issues related to taping. Note that these are general discussions, and you will have to consult the state entries to see how these issues apply in particular states.
Still have questions about how the laws affect you? Journalists can always call the Reporters Committees hotline at 800-336-4243 for further information. [end quote]
The legality or illegality of recording your discussions with another person without their knowledge and consent, whether face to face or on the phone, is dependent on the then applicable law(s) under the circumstances.
Its only common sense that if you obtain the consent of another person to record your discussion with them, its in your own self interest to document it after returning your recorder on and thereby avoid the possibility of a later swearing match.
Reed Irvine has publicly stated that Randy Beers claimed he had spoken off the record, but I told him that was not so and that was very clear from the tape that I had recorded.
Is it logical that Randy Beers would state to Reed Irvine that their earlier discussion was off the record if he had known it was being recorded?
Where is the rest of the recording transcript? Will it be "very clear" to objective observers from the complete transcript and tape that Randy Beers knew it was being recorded?
What is clear is that Randy Beers recanted his first story, that he thereby demolished his own credibility and that his recanted comments didnt even come close to being "shootdown" evidence anyway.
See also: The missile theory myth.
"It could take a couple of minutes."
Falltime of the Massive Fireball to the surface was only about 7-10 seconds. Sources
By the way, there is a "submarine witness" interview report:
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:43:41 -0500
Reply-To: Flight 800 discussion list FLIGHT-800@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
From: Tom Stalcup stalcup@MAGNET.FSU.EDU
Organization: Florida State University
Subject: More Witnesses
[excerpt][quote][emphasis his] BARBARA PACHOLK had an AMAZING story. She saw two objects rise from the water or land. The first object exploded near the tail and the second near the nose. She also saw a black submarine and its periscope. According to Ms. Pacholk, the periscope was looking in the direction of the plane, rotated about a 3/4 turn and saw her, then left the area. She believes that it is possible that at least one missile came from this sub. She also notice two large navy vessels in the ocean. One of which quickly left the area after the tragedy.[end quote]
Stalcup was referred to by Bill Donaldson during his congressional testimony, the transcript of which was earlier posted in this thread.
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 wasnt 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:
"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
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.
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.