Theories Abound To Explain Cause of China Airlines Crash Similar To TWA Flight 800

Taipei Times ^ | 27 May 2002 | Chiu Yu-tzu and Patrick Kearns

[Asmodeus]

Theories abound to explain cause
SEARCHING FOR ANSWERS: One source says a Chinese missile strike cannot be ruled out, while another points to similarities to the crash of TWA Flight 800 in the US

By Chiu Yu-tzu and Patrick Kearns STAFF REPORTERS

A Chinese missile or fuel-tank explosion similar to what brought down TWA Flight 800 off the coast of New York in 1996 were among the theories put forth by aviation experts and other sources yesterday to explain Saturday's China Airlines crash.

Kay Yong (¦¥³Í), head of the Aviation Safety Council, said yesterday that flight CI611 experienced an "inflight breakup" at more than 9,100m -- crumbling into four large pieces before falling into the ocean.

The suddenness of the flight's demise -- the plane's pilots reportedly did not radio for help -- had some experts focusing on the possibility that an explosion might have brought the Boeing 747-200 down. Investigators make numbered tags with pieces of cloth to mark the bodies retrieved from the sea. PHOTO: CHANG CHIA-MING, TAIPEI TIMES

According to one anonymous source connected with a Taiwanese think tank, the possibility that a Chinese missile downed the plane can't be ruled out. The People's Liberation Army is currently practicing drills along China's southern coast, the source noted.

Indeed, it wouldn't be the first time that a military misfire has downed a passenger jet. In October, a Russian passenger jet crashed into the Black Sea after being unintentionally hit by an S-200 missile during Ukrainian air defense exercises.

According to the source, China's inventory of military hardware includes a missile known as the S-300 PMU, or "SA-10 grumble." The PLA demonstrated the missile in 1996 just before Taiwan's 1996 presidential election.

But the Hong Kong-based Wen Wei Boa (¤å¶×³ø) yesterday quoted a source in Beijing as saying that no missile tests were performed on Saturday.

The S-300 PMU has a range of 120km, a maximum speed of Mach 7 and would be difficult to be tracked by radar, the anonymous source said.

According to the US Federation of American Scientists, China imported S-300 missiles from Russia in the early 1990s and they are deployed around Beijing. But there is one battery of fixed, long-range S-300s in Zhangzhou in Fujian Province, the source said.

"When an airplane flying at 9,100m collides with any outside force -- say a 1,600kg S-300 missile with a dummy warhead -- the loss of pressure inside the cabin could cause the situation to spin out of control," the source said.

Sudden depressurization inside the cabin would have knocked out the pilots, preventing them from sending a Mayday.

Other signs suggesting an accidental Chinese missile strike were Beijing's unusual friendliness in expressing concern over the tragedy and its offer to help search for survivors just hours after the accident; reports from pro-China media that were quick to downplay any connection between China's military exercises and the accident; and Premier Yu Shyi-kun taking command of search-and-rescue efforts in Penghu. Never before has the premier been placed in charge of an air crash accident, sources said.

TWA FLIGHT 800

One veteran pilot who contacted the Taipei Times yesterday said Saturday's crash bore striking similarities to the crash of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island, New York in 1996.

The pilot sought to keep his identity private for fear of reprisals from the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA).

"Talking to several other pilots after we heard about the crash, we all agreed it suffered the same fate as TWA Flight 800 -- a center fuel-tank explosion," the pilot said.

After nearly four years of investigation, US inspectors said an explosion of vapors inside a fuel tank caused TWA Flight 800 to plunge into the ocean -- in a safety problem that may involve thousands of commercial aircraft built by a number of different manufacturers.

The Taiwan-based pilot alleged that China Airlines knew its 747-200 was vulnerable to the safety problem surrounding the troublesome fuel tank but failed to eliminate the risk.

Government officials yesterday ordered China Airlines to ground its four remaining Boeing 747-200s, which are used for cargo delivery.

As many airplanes do, TWA Flight 800 took off with just 50 to 100 gallons of fuel in its center tank. The procedure is used on short-haul flights to cut the overall weight of the plane and thus save on expensive jet fuel costs.

In the case of TWA 800, experts said fumes inside the tank were heated to above the temperature at which they become explosive -- dooming the 747. What's not known is what ignited the blast.

China Airlines flight CI611 also took off with its center tank nearly empty -- a procedure that Boeing recommended be discontinued after the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 1998 said fuel pumps on older model 747 planes were a possible source of faulty wiring that could have ignited the TWA blast.

"The FAA today issued an Airworthiness Directive prohibiting dry operation of the center wing tank override/jettison pumps ..." on applicable 747 airplanes, Boeing said in the statement to all owners of the planes.

The pilot said China Airlines continued the risky practice "because here in Taiwan everything is about money."

Warnings from boeing

China Airlines vice president of flight safety, Samson Yeh (¸­¤S«C), confirmed that the airline had received notification from Boeing not to run the center tank dry, but that they made their own safety modifications to eliminate any potential point of ignition.

"At the time ... I remember we changed the procedure. In terms of empty fuel tanks we were not supposed to use the fuel pumps [when we flew with dry tanks], otherwise you will overheat it.

I believe [the maintenance department] also put some insulation on the wiring, to isolate [potential sparks]," Yeh said.

Yeh did concede that while an overheated fuel tank was "one of the possibilities" behind the sudden mid-air break up, "this case is different from [TWA 800] because that one was caused by the center fuel tank overheating, whereas this one was a sudden explosion -- which means it's totally different."

Another option for planes designated specifically for short-haul flights is the removal of the center tank and its pump -- a costly and time-consuming process, according to the pilot.

A 16-year veteran for an international carrier, but based in Taiwan, the anonymous pilot said many cabin crews know China airlines' last remaining passenger 747-200 was flying with the potential risk, but that reporting the issue to civil authorities -- charged with overseeing the two national carriers -- could result in the loss of their jobs.

No Taiwan-based pilots want to say anything negative about "the airline industry in Taiwan. They [officials] are very vindictive. We all have to do our PC," he said, referring to a "precision check," a test required by the CAA every six months that allows pilots to stay in the air. "If we said anything they'd fail us for sure."

Another similarity between Saturday's crash and the crash of TWA Flight 800 is that in the latter, many speculated that a missile brought the plane down.

But crash investigators later concluded that it wasn't a missile or a bomb blast that downed the plane.

"High-energy explosions leave distinctive damage signatures such as severe pitting, cratering, hot gas washing and petaling," said Bernard Loeb, director of the US National Transportation Safety Bureau last year. "No such damage was found on any portion of the recovered airplane structure."

The physical evidence "leads to the inescapable conclusion that the cause of the in-flight breakup of TWA Flight 800 was a fuel-air explosion inside the center wing tank," Loeb said.

[Asmodeus]

You were asked the following questions:

Can you explain how Meyer could have seen a "shootdown" of Flight 800 at 13,800 feet at 8:31:12 only 3-4 seconds before he saw the Massive Fireball explode at 5500-7500 feet at about 8:31:47 which he says he and his crewmates agreed at the time took approximately 10 seconds to fall to the surface?

If he's so unflappable and knows what he saw, how do you explain his following statement while being interviewed by an NTSB Witness Group?

"I saw a streak of light in the sky. I have no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"

You did not answer that first question. NONE of the other "shootdown" tinfoil hats have ever done so either.

Your response to the 2nd question was as follows:

"If you'll kindly provide all the folks with the URL of the specific NTSB Witness Group you're referencing; so they can read Meyer's comments first hand, in context, without your artistic input, (or deletions) perhaps I'll endeaver to reply to your last question...Or, perhaps I won't have to.

The requested reference source was included in my prompt reply but you have never answered that question either, have you.

But you DEMAND answers to two questions of your own. The first is as follows:

"Did Faret and Wendell report THE smoke cloud they describe in their personally prepared witness statement as moving NNW?"

The following report of these eyewitnesses includes the answer to your question in bold print.

___________________________________________________________

TWA Flight 800 "Witnessing the downing of Flight 800" by Sven Faret & Ken Wendell

These events outlined below are actual and accurate. No part should be discounted in any way. They are presented without personal opinion and are exactly as viewed by us from our perspective. Our intent is offer as much factual detail as possible in order to aid in this investigation.

Situation:
Pilot: Sven Faret
Passenger : Ken Wendell

8500 feet over Riverhead LI, NY.
Apx 20:40 hrs, July 17, 1996

N1182J climbing at 95 knots (AC-12 Privately Owned)
090 heading
Visibility 8 miles in haze below. Top of haze 6500 feet
Visibility 50+ miles above haze
Setting sun lighting up clouds to the north, above the haze
Ground very dark, Ground surface lights outlining Long Island
Ocean waters very black
Prior contact with Long Island departure control on 118.00.
Frequency change approved, squawking 1200.
Monitoring 118.00, listening to local traffic.

Observation:
Being cautious of traffic in a dark sky, we had all marker lights, strobes and sky flasher operating on our aircraft. Ken pointed out traffic at 3 o'clock low (actually 2:30). Sven saw a white light steady in the sky. My first impression was landing lights pointing towards us putting it in Northerly direction. Ken saw 2 lights very close together. A short "pin flash of light " appeared on the ground (perhaps water). Very shortly thereafter the white light exploded instantaneously into a huge red-orange ball. My initial thoughts were "who's shooting fireworks tonight." The magnitude of the fire ball, and altitude, quickly (less than a second) ruled that out. Immediately thereafter a large fire ball emerged from the bottom of the initial fireball, accelerating straight down, as if it had just started to fall. Like a teardrop it drew with it a tail of fire down to the water surface. We watched intently as the descending fire fell closer to the water. Sven was awaiting the fire to illuminate the water surface as it fell. At the same moment a pilot reported it to the controller on 118.00. A second pilot responded and then we reported it. We saw it hit the water, lighting up the surrounding surface very well. Large splashes could be seen all around the fire. The fire on the surface was relatively small, but was spreading quickly. I asked Ken " What was that!?... It's probably the National Guard boys losing a C130 or something...Maybe they shot down one of their own planes."

We proceeded to fly over to the smoke cloud. As we crossed over the shore line I looked down and saw 3 boats enroute to the fire, about 25% of the way. I estimated the flames to be 6-7 miles off shore. We watched intently seeing a flashing light at the SE edge of the flames, but it soon stopped. We observed a steady blinking light drifting SW away from the scene. Ken said it appeared to be a helicopter just west of the flames. Sven thought it could have been a marker beacon on a life raft. This was about 5+ minutes after the explosion. We approached the black-gray smoke cloud on the west side. We were at 7700 feet and were at the top edge of the cloud. The cloud center was at 7500 feet. There were 2 small bumps atop it. There was no smoke or smoke trails above it. It was still lit up a little by the sun, clear above. There was a tornado like tail leaving the bottom of it leading down to the flames. It had a small arc in it as the winds gently moved the cloud NNW. I said to Ken " I have an eery feeling about this place, what ever stung this thing could sting us too. Let's bolt out-a-here." We swung north. As we were turning, we saw twin engine commuter traffic above us at 8000+ traveling NW. We called Flight service on 122.6 and reported what we saw. We flew back to Riverhead and East. Over Mattituck Airport we decided that the event had to be enough of a finale for the evening. We called approach on 132.25 for clearance back to Islip. We also told that controller what we saw.

Immediate Personal Impressions:
No thoughts of commercial air traffic accident.
Some aircraft with a lot of fuel.
A missile attack seems improbable, but not impossible.
The quickness of the eruption.
A white light exploding into a fire ball.
Very vertical accelerating descent of debris.
The length of the flame tail extending from the descending debris.
Clear sky above the gray smoke cloud.
Dark thin drifting smoke trail down to the debris on the surface.

Post Flight Actions:
We returned back to the hanger and called our wives. We let them know that we were OK, in case they might have heard of any air accident reports. When we got to Ken's house, we heard that a 747 went down. We called Fox News and told them what we saw.

Post Media Personal Impressions:
We were interviewed by the FBI and NTSB. They took our report, but we felt that they did not capture the detail we expressed, or the certainty of our facts.

Comments:
Although Sven & Ken are in no position to conclude anything, this piece of the puzzle MUST fit into any official version of this incident.

Notes:
Only burning debris was visible to us.

Feb 97: Addendum: “Time has passed, the mystery of the downing of Flight 800 still eludes us. (probably not all of us). Until all data is evaluated, we’ll have to wait for the official facts. From an idealistic view, there is no reason to think otherwise. (what a perfect world we live in). Since Ken & Sven made this report public, we have heard many opinions on our sighting. We saw what we saw and report it as such. We have nothing to gain or loose. It has apparent that some aviation experience is required.

There is one fact that bothers us, however. No mention is ever made of the fact that the explosion was at 7500 feet! We do not dispute the fact that something happened at 13,800 feet, but what happened after that. There is 5000 feet unaccounted for.

We would like to emphasize:
"We approached the black-gray smoke cloud on the west side. We were at 7700 feet and were at the top edge of the cloud. The cloud center was at 7500 feet. There were 2 small bumps atop it. There was no smoke or smoke trails above it. It was still lit up a little by the sun, clear above. We don’t why this has never been discussed in any scenarios.”

Nov. 97: Addendum:“In our opinion, the CIA presentation of what happened to flight 800 seems to be the best explanation to date. There are of course, different opinions. Ken & I agree that it's closest we'll get to an official explanation with the facts as presented.”

________________________________________________________________

The second question you DEMAND an answer to is as follows:

"Is this cloud movement reported by Faret and Wendell in a direction not consistent with the upper air wind data the NTSB published in the final report?"

Please provide us all with the "final report" reference source URL you are relying on and include your answers to the two questions you were asked.

In the interim, the readers may find the following additional email Q & A of Faret & Wendell of interest, as well as the comments in the postings thereafter:

LSoft Flight 800 Forum
Date: 9 July 1999
From: Greg Thrum
Subject: Sven Faret - Questions / Answers
I recently e-mailed some further questions to Sven Faret. His reply included the following answers.

>Is my part of the message,
(SF) refers to Sven Faret's answer:

>Sven,
>Apologies for the intrusion. Some more questions on your observations of
>the FLT800 crash if you have the time. Have you seen Dan Savage's computer
graphic representation of FLT800'sdescent path from your observing position?
>(Refer http://neptune.psn.net/~savage/)

(SF) NO, I left all the debating and far fetched scenarios to you guys.

>If so, do you recall any similarities or differences to this view?

(SF) not applicable.

>In your report you say you reported the explosion, though this call is not
>on the released ATC transcript. Were you reporting in on a different frequency
>or to a different Air Traffic Control?

(SF) Dig up the 132.25 or 118.0 LI approach transcripts and the FSS on 122.2
(or 122.4)

>Were you able to observe the tornado-like tail from the smoke cloud all the
>way to the surface of the sea?

(SF) absolutely.

>Was it a single tail all the way or did it split up on the way down?

(SF) Single (looking for holes in our story or another twist, we told you what we saw.)

>Was the spreading fire on the sea generating a separate smoke cloud, ie:
>separately identifiable from the tornado like tail, or the smoke cloud at
>7,500 feet?

(SF) NO. The burning debris left the cloud and burned on the water. I ASSUME that it was generating more smoke, but the plume connected A to B. A very simple observation if you were there. We NEVER took our eyes off it. The wind shift was CLEARLY evident in the shape of the tornado plume. We could see it as it penetrated the haze layer top at 6000' +/- 75 mile visibility atop the haze layer. These that think 20 miles is far, think again.

I have retyped the Q/A section from Sven's reply, adding some spaces and the (SF) identifier,otherwise these are the questions/answers as returned to me via e-mail.
regards
Greg Thrum

LSoft Flight 800 Forum Date: 4 July 1999
From: Richard Hirsch
Subject: Being First and Being Correct

Greg Thrum has brought up a good point. It's about being first with their testimony. Capt. McClaine was the first to describe what he saw as it was happening. Not only that, but his testimony was recorded and time stamped. There is no other eye witness, in the air, on the ground, or on the water who has that degree of corroboration. You don't get more "first" than that. Capt. McClaine also had another professional observer in the cockpit with him, it was his F/O.

Sven Faret had to rely on the height of an 8 minute old smoke cloud which was being produced by a football field sized fuel fire with 50 foot high flames to establish a claim about the height of the original fuel/air cloud explosion. Before 8 minutes had passed, the original smoke had blown away and dissipated. That's why the air was clear above 7700 feet.

At no time did Sven Faret give us a time of the event he saw. He did not give us an altitude estimate. To be able to determine that the light he saw 17 NM away was "below" his altitude (only 800 feet different) is quite remarkable.

Richard Hirsch

NONE of the witnesses knew when they saw the 2000 feet in diameter Massive Fireball explosion that it took place at approximately 8:31:47 and filled the sky at about 5500-7500 feet.

LSoft Flight 800 Forum: From: Richard Hirsch
Subject: Distorting the Facts

No where in Capt. McClaine's testimony does Capt. McClaine say anything about looking at the landing light switch before pushing it to ON. Read the following from his report to Eastwind Airlines:

"As I flicked on the light the other aircraft exploded into a very large ball of flames. Almost immediately two flaming objects, with flames trailing about 4000 feet behind them, fell out of the bottom of the ball of flame. It was too dark to identify any objects or see any debris. (I thought the objects to be the wings, which were full of fuel.)"

The "looking at the landing light switch" statement was manufactured by our resident witness expert and slipped into the debate hoping that no one would notice.

Capt. McClaine told me that when he flipped on the left landing light switch the light he was looking at seemed to explode as though from his action of flipping ON the switch.

Knowing where your controls are in an aircraft are not much different from knowing where your controls are in an automobile. I know where my headlight controls are in my car an never look at them when I turn the headlights off or on. I know where the door locks are and lock/unlock the doors without looking at the door lock switches. The same is true for the automatic window controls. In fact I probably can operate almost all of the major controls without looking at them.

The important thing to remember is that Capt. McClaine did NOT say that he was looking at the left landing light switch when he flipped it to ON.

Richard Hirsch

LSoft Flight 800 Forum
Date: 6 July 1999
R From: Chris Olsson
Subject: Re: Hirsch Could Have Been A Big Help To Shelley Berman

>Imagine the skit he could have done had he heard airliner pilots toggle >switches without looking.

Pilots don't do that.

Neither Captain McClain nor any other pilot would reach up to the overhead panel and throw a switch without looking at what he was doing.

Pilots simply don't do that and there are very good reasons why they don't.

Pilots live in the real world.

For the same reason that pilots are trained not to be come fixated on external visual stimuli, they are also trained to make sure that they throw the correct switches when intended.

Some secondary flight control levers are formed in a tactile style, such that they are identifiable by feel. Thus, the gear lever is formed in the shape of a wheel and the flap lever is shaped in the form of a slab-like flap.

Electrical switches for services such as lights are not given such easily identifiable tactile forms and thus usually require the pilot to actually look at what he is doing when selecting or deselecting these services.

A Boeing (or a Cessna or a Piper) is not as simple as a Volvo or a VolksWagen. Switching on the landing lights commonly requires the pilot to look towards the relevant panel.

Conspiracy theorists seldom acknowledge reality. They don't need to and they don't want to.

Reality scares conspiracy theorists, as does everything else which impinges upon their limited range of perception.

Was McClain the handling pilot (PF) or the non-handling pilot (PNF)? Who was monitoring whom on that flight deck? Who was watching what was happening inside the flightdeck? Who was watching outside? These are very basic questions of airmanship which are nowadays known as Cockpit (or Crew) Resource Management (aka CRM). This is very basic stuff.

Who was monitoring whom? Who was looking at what switches were thrown?

The conspiracy theorists do not appear to have asked or understood the basic questions: Did the BusyBee 737 crew see anything which contradicts the fact that TWA 800 exploded inflight without any apparent impact by external forces such as a missile or shooting star?

Neither McClaine nor Faret saw a missile. There is a very good and very simple reason why no missile was seen.

Go figure.

Cheers, Chris Olsson

[acehai]

But you DEMAND answers to two questions of your own. The first is as follows:

"Did Faret and Wendell report THE smoke cloud they describe in their personally prepared witness statement as moving NNW?"

The following report of these eyewitnesses includes the answer to your question in bold print.

__________________________________________________________

TWA Flight 800
"Witnessing the downing of Flight 800"
by Sven Faret & Ken Wendell

..."We approached the black-gray smoke cloud on the west side. We were at 7700 feet and were at the top edge of the cloud. The cloud center was at 7500 feet. There were 2 small bumps atop it. There was no smoke or smoke trails above it. It was still lit up a little by the sun, clear above. There was a tornado like tail leaving the bottom of it leading down to the flames.
It had a small arc in it as the winds gently moved the cloud NNW."...

OK Elmer, so you agree by your response that the answer to the first question is YES.
Faret and Wendell DID report THE smoke cloud they describe in their personally prepared witness statement as moving NNW.

The second question you DEMAND an answer to is as follows:

"Is this cloud movement reported by Faret and Wendell in a direction not consistent with the upper air wind data the NTSB published in the final report?"

Please provide us all with the "final report" reference source URL you are relying on...

Do I detect a note of sarcasm here, Fudd? Ask and ye shall receive, old thing...

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAR0003.pdf

Page 57 TABLE 3.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it, FUDD? Remaining on one subject at a time might get habit forming if you try it more often.

Your answer to the second question, now, if you're not afraid to...It has a direct relationship to how I answer your questions. And trust me, old thing, they will be answered.

[Asmodeus]

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAR0003.pdf
1.7 Meteorological Information
The surface weather observation taken about 1951 at JFK on July 17, 1996, located 52 nautical miles (nm) west of the accident site, stated the following: Winds 220° at 8 knots; visibility 10 miles; clouds at 6,000 feet scattered, ceiling 7,000 feet broken, 9,000 feet broken; temperature 82° F; dew point 70° F; altimeter setting 30.07 inches of Hg [mercury]; wind shift 1906; rain began 1918 and ended 1929; precipitation 0.00 inch between 1927 and 1951.

The surface weather observation taken about 2051 at JFK stated the following: Winds 240° at 9 knots; visibility 10 miles; few clouds at 10,000 feet; temperature 80° F; dew point 69° F; altimeter setting 30.08 inches of Hg.

The surface weather observation taken about 1945 at Francis S. Gabreski Airport (FOK) Westhampton Beach, New York, located 12 nm north of the accident site (the nearest reporting station to the accident site), stated the following: Winds 240° at 4 knots; visibility 4 miles; haze; clouds at 6,000 feet scattered; temperature 73° F; dew point 66° F; altimeter setting 30.08 inches of Hg; total sky cover 3/8.

The surface weather observation taken about 2045 at FOK stated the following: Winds calm; visibility 6 miles; haze; clouds at 6,000 feet scattered; temperature 72° F; dew point 66° F; altimeter setting 30.09 inches of Hg; total sky cover 3/8. The winds aloft measured by a weather balloon launched from Upton, New York, on July 17, 1996, about 2000, are shown in table 3. (Upton is located about 15 nm from the accident site.)

Table 3. Winds aloft measured by a weather balloon launched from Upton, New York.
Altitude (feet msl)
Wind Direction (degrees) Wind Speed (knots)
1,000 270 12
2,000 280 14
3,000 285 17
4,000 290 17
5,000 303 19
6,000 310 19
7,000 315 17
8,000 320 16
9,000 330 12
10,000 335 12
11,000 320 12
12,000 295 16
13,000 290 16
14,000 300 17
15,000 303 19
16,000 305 21
17,000 315 29
18,000 315 33

These numbers were used during the Safety Board™s trajectory study. 105 Review of the meteorological data revealed no record of significant meteorological conditions in the area or at the time of the accident.

____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ I'm unqualified by training and experience to provide the readers with an expert opinion on that subject, much less about the winds aloft between 8500 feet and the surface from appropximately 8:31:47 when Faret & Wendell saw the Massive Fireball Fireball explosion and started flying straight to it until they arrived at the smoke cloud and trail it left, so please provide us all with an expert opinion explaining specifically how the above readings taken by a weather balloon at an unspecifified time between 8500 feet and the surface supposedly is irrefutable evidence supporting the allegations of some of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats including you that the MF smoke cloud and trail to the surface Faret & Wendell were flying straight to blew away and were replaced by a second smoke cloud and trail rising from the surface fires while they were doing so.

Expert - "A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject".

In the interim, the readers may also find the following additional information about the weather balloons interesting.

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/okx/upperair.htm

WFO OKX is located on the campus of the Brookhaven National Laboratory

Upper-air Observations Program

Weather Forecast Office, Upton, NY (WFO OKX) is one of the select weather stations in the US that is part of the National Weather Service Upper-air Observations Program. There are only 92 Radiosonde stations in North America and the Pacific islands. Radiosondes provide upper-air data that are essential for weather forecasts and research. A new radiosonde ground system will replace the old system currently in use by September, 2005.

---

Weather Balloons

---

Weather balloons are launched from the upper air building which is located in a valley adjacent to the forecast office (pictured, top row left). They are filled with helium inside of the small building (pictured, top row center and right), then taken outside to launch (pictured, bottom row center). The helium, which is a very light gas, allows the balloon to reach heights of 60,000 feet above the earth's surface in about an hour. As the balloon rises, the atmosphere thins and the pressure outside the balloon decreases allowing the balloon to expand and eventually break. This usually happens within two hours of the launch at elevations of 80,000 to 120,000 feet.

An instrument, called a radiosonde, is tethered to the balloon (pictured, bottom row center). As the balloon rises through the air, the radiosonde measures temperature, relative humidity, and pressure. A transmitter within the radiosonde transmits this data back to a receiver located in the shelter (pictured, bottom row right). The receiver tracks the azimuth and range of the balloon as it ascends. From this information, the wind speed at various levels in the atmosphere can be calculated.

After the balloon flight is complete, a technician ensures the data is accurate before it is disseminated. Additional quality control checks are done at one of our national centers before the data is incorporated into computer models which meteorologists use to make their forecasts.

The balloons are launched from hundreds of locations around the world twice a day every day of the year. The launches occur simultaneously worldwide! This gives meteorologists a snapshot of the earth's three-dimensional atmospheric conditions.

---

Check out our most recent Upper Air Sounding Plot
from the 0000Z or 1200Z (8:00 p.m. or 8:00 a.m. EDT) Weather Balloon launch.

---

But what happens to the radiosonde when the balloon breaks? The radiosonde is protected by a styrofoam container, which cushions the radiosonde upon impact with the ground. However, a small parachute will also pop out as the radiosonde falls, slowing its descent.

Are the radiosondes returned? Frequently, the radiosondes are discovered in a pasture, grove of trees, creek, peoples' backyards and other locations. A self-addressed postage-paid envelope, which is in a compartment of the radiosonde container, can be used to return the radiosonde to a reconditioning center for repair, and eventual reuse. Most of the radiosondes launched from this office follow the prevailing wind and wind up dropping into the North Atlantic Ocean, never to be recovered.

[Asmodeus]

You have repeatedly been asked the following questions and have assured the readers you will respond to them promptly but we're all still waiting.

Can you explain how witness Fred Meyer could have seen a "shootdown" of Flight 800 at 13,800 feet at 8:31:12 only 3-4 seconds before he saw the Massive Fireball explode at 5500-7500 feet at about 8:31:47 which he says he and his crewmates agreed at the time took approximately 10 seconds to fall to the surface?

If he's so unflappable and knows what he saw, how do you explain his following statement while being interviewed by an NTSB Witness Group?

"I saw a streak of light in the sky. I have no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"

[acehai]

Your answer to the second question, now, if you're not afraid to...It has a direct relationship to how I answer your questions. And trust me, old thing, they will be answered.

You didn't answer the question, Elmer...And it dosn't take an ex-spurt analyst to read a current winds aloft chart.

...please provide us all with an expert opinion explaining specifically how the above readings taken by a weather balloon at an unspecifified time (sic)

From Ferat...(Your posting)

Situation:
Pilot: Sven Faret
Passenger : Ken Wendell
8500 feet over Riverhead LI, NY.
Apx 20:40 hrs, July 17, 1996...

The surface weather observation taken about 1951 at JFK on July 17, 1996,

The surface weather observation taken about 2051

The surface weather observation taken about 1945 at Francis S. Gabreski Airport (FOK) Westhampton Beach, New York The surface weather observation taken about 2045 at FOK stated the following: Winds calm; visibility 6 miles; haze; clouds at 6,000 feet scattered; temperature 72° F; dew point 66° F; altimeter setting 30.09 inches of Hg; total sky cover 3/8.

The winds aloft measured by a weather balloon launched from Upton, New York, on July 17, 1996, about 2000, are shown in table 3. (Upton is located about 15 nm from the accident site.)

SEE THAT, ELMER??? 2000 ... Not unspecifified at all, but 2000...Eight O'clock, Elmer

These numbers were used during the Safety Board™s trajectory study.

If they were good enough, specific enough, accurate enough to be used in the trajectory study and published in the NTSB's Final Report...

If they were good enough, specific enough, accurate enough to be used by pilots in flight planning in which accurate times enroute, fuel burn, fuel remaining and fuel reserves are critical to safety of flight, then they are specific enough to determine what direction the winds were blowing from that night to put to rest the fallacy that Ferat and Wendell saw a cloud of smoke being blown in the opposite direction of the prevailing winds. The winds aloft were from:

Altitude ... Wind Direction ... Wind Speed

(Feet) .... (in degrees From) ..... (Knots) 1000 ................. 270 ...................... 12 Due West, blowing Due East

2000 ................. 280 ...................... 14 Slightly North of West, blowing slightly South of East.

3000 ................. 285 ...................... 17 Trend continuing around, blowing more to the Southeast

4000 ................. 290 ...................... 17 Blowing even closer to the Southeast.

5000 ................. 303 ...................... 19 Ditto...Only stronger.

6000 ................. 310 ...................... 19 5 degree change to the Southeast

7000 ................. 315 ...................... 17 Dead out of the Northwest, blowing Due Southeast.

8000 ................. 320 ...................... 16 Continuing the Northerly trend, blowing Southerly

9000 ................. 330 ...................... 12 Same as above.

10000 ................ 335 ..................... 12 ...and so on

11000 ................ 320 ..................... 12

12000 ................ 295...................... 16

13000 ................ 290 ..................... 16

14000 ................ 300 ..................... 17

Review of the meteorological data revealed no record of significant meteorological conditions in the area or at the time of the accident.

Significant meteorological conditions are conditions that could affect the winds aloft, such as frontal passage, or convective activity. There was no front to pass, and no convective activity (thunderstorms) forecast, or reported.

D'ye see the error you made, Elmer?

From Ferat...A: I suggest that the winds below the haze were moving the plume in a SE direction. What were the winds reported at 6,9,12000' Feet? Nothing is straight forward or simple...

Sounds pretty straight forward and simple to me, Elmer...

From Ferat...... as the winds gently moved the cloud NNW

Thats NORTH-NORTHWEST, Elmer...The exact opposite direction the measured at 2000 prevailing winds aloft were blowing. A physical impossibility, Elmer...Ferat was IN ERROR.

You are in error when you say the winds aloft are unspecifified (in more ways than one, apparently...;^) as an excuse to avoid having to admit that Ferat was in error.

And if you made this simple error, as Ferat did, then intellectually honest Freepers must begin to wonder how many more errors you both have, and continue to make, and the agenda involved in defending these errors so vociforously.

[Asmodeus]

Your reference source URL: http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAR0003.pdf
states:
"Table 3. Winds aloft measured by a weather balloon launched from Upton, New York."

You state:
"The winds aloft measured by a weather balloon launched from Upton, New York, on July 17, 1996, about 2000, are shown in table 3."

Two more questions:

1. What is your explanation for the different wording?

2. Who is "Ferat"?

The other two questions you have been repeatedly asked, assured the readers you would promptly answer but never have are as follows:

Can you explain how witness Fred Meyer could have seen a "shootdown" of Flight 800 at 13,800 feet at 8:31:12 only 3-4 seconds before he saw the Massive Fireball explode at 5500-7500 feet at about 8:31:47 which he says he and his crewmates agreed at the time took approximately 10 seconds to fall to the surface?

If he's so unflappable and knows what he saw, how do you explain his following statement while being interviewed by an NTSB Witness Group?

"I saw a streak of light in the sky. I have no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"

[acehai]

"MISSILE WITNESS MYTH" MYTH

__________________________________________________________________

Elmer...You said:

Your reference source URL: http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAR0003.pdf states:

"Table 3. Winds aloft measured by a weather balloon launched from Upton, New York."

You also state:

"The winds aloft measured by a weather balloon launched from Upton, New York, on July 17, 1996, about 2000, are shown in table 3."

Two more questions:

1. What is your explanation for the different wording?

Is this the best you can do, Elmer...What's the matter? Can't you take the heat?...

I'll respond to your asinine and desperate attempt at mis-direction thusly:

"Table 3. Winds aloft measured by a weather balloon launched from Upton, New York." This is the title of the table at the top of page 57 in the above mentioned report.

"The winds aloft measured by a weather balloon launched from Upton, New York, on July 17, 1996, about 2000, are shown in table 3."

This is from the text of the report, page 56, section 1.7, referring to Table 3.

Folks...Let's look at Emers post #63:

He quoted word for word from the report the same thing he just asked in question 1. Didn't he read his own post? Or is this a laughable attempt to prevent the intellectually honest poster from noticing that his argument is coming apart? The emperor has no clothes!

Elmers post #63... surface weather observation taken about 2045 at FOK stated the following: Winds calm; visibility 6 miles; haze; clouds at 6,000 feet scattered; temperature 72° F; dew point 66° F; altimeter setting 30.09 inches of Hg; total sky cover 3/8. The winds aloft measured by a weather balloon launched from Upton, New York, on July 17, 1996, about 2000, are shown in table 3. (Upton is located about 15 nm from the accident site.)

Table 3. Winds aloft measured by a weather balloon launched from Upton, New York.

__________________________________________________________________

2. Who is "Ferat"?

Sven Faret, as you very well know...

Elmer if you want me to pick on all of your typo's as well:

Consider your post #63:

...I'm unqualified by training and experience to provide the readers with an expert opinion on that subject, much less about the winds aloft between 8500 feet and the surface from appropximately 8:31:47 when Faret & Wendell saw the Massive Fireball Fireball explosion and started flying straight to it until they arrived at the smoke cloud and trail it left, so please provide us all with an expert opinion explaining specifically how the above readings taken by a weather balloon at an unspecifified time between.

Question 1. What is appropximately?

Question 2. What is unspecifified?

NOTE: At least I had a plausable excuse for my "brainf--t...
An arab businessman named Ferat was a passenger on Flight 800 when it was shot down.

[Asmodeus]

unspecified - "not stated explicitly".

explicit - "specific"

"At least I had a plausable excuse for my "brainf--t... An arab businessman named Ferat was a passenger on Flight 800 when it was shot down."

Interesting. A few of the tinfoil hats including you have been desperately trying unsuccessfully to discredit your one time Star witnesses, Faret & Wendell, for the last 5 years but you still can't remember how to spell F-a-r-e-t because of your fixation on a Flight 800 passenger you say is named Ferat.

Isn't the passenger's name Ferrat? Source.

Now that we are in agreement that the weather balloon was reportedly launched at ABOUT 2000, how do you expect to determine the specific time and direction of the the winds aloft from 8500 feet down to whatever altitude the surface wind reports go up to?

How do you explain the following altitude estimates of the Massive Fireball explosion, keeping in mind that the tinfoil hats' purpose for alleging the second cloud and trail notion is to try to discredit Faret & Wendell and get the altitude of the Massive Fireball explosion up from 5500-7500 feet to 13,800 feet - which would, of course, have required Faret & Wendell to start climbing immediately upon seeing it to reach that higher altitude, rather than gradually descend as indicated in their report?

NTSB AIRBORNE EYEWITNESS CHART

And WHEN can the readers expect you to fulfill your promise to explain the following as you have been repeatedly requested to do? Today? Tomorrow? Next summer at 4 o'clock?

Can you explain how witness Fred Meyer could have seen a "shootdown" of Flight 800 at 13,800 feet at 8:31:12 only 3-4 seconds before he saw the Massive Fireball explode at 5500-7500 feet at about 8:31:47 which he says he and his crewmates agreed at the time took approximately 10 seconds to fall to the surface?

If he's so unflappable and KNOWS that he saw a "missile shootdown" of Flight 800, how do you explain his following statement while being interviewed by an NTSB Witness Group?

"I saw a streak of light in the sky. I have no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"

[Asmodeus]

As to be expected because of the title of this thread - Theories Abound To Explain Cause of China Airlines Crash Similar To TWA Flight 800 - another theory not yet discussed here is as follows:

__________________________________________

John Barry Smith's Cargo Door Theory

Smith Table for Matches for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, United Airlines Flight 811, Trans World Airlines Flight 800, and China Airlines Flight 611
Evidence	AI 182	PA103	UAL 811	TWA 800	China Airlines Flight 611
Boeing 747	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Early model -100 or -200	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Polyimide wiring (Poly X type)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Sudden airframe breakup in flight (partial or total)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Breakup occurs amidships	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
High flight time (over 55,000 flight hours)	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Aged airframe (over 18 years of service)	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Previous maintenance problems with forward cargo door	Yes	Maybe	Yes	Maybe
Initial event within an hour after takeoff	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Initial event at about 300 knots while proceeding normally in all parameters	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Initial event has unusual radar contacts	Maybe	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Initial event involves hull rupture in or near forward cargo door area	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Initial event starts with sudden sound	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Initial event sound is loud	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Initial event sound is audible to humans	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Initial event followed immediately by abrupt power cut to data recorder	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Initial event sound matched to explosion of bomb sound	No	No	No	No
	AI 182	PA103	UAL 811	TWA 800	China Airlines Flight 611
Initial event sound matched to explosive decompression sound in wide body airliner	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Torn off skin on fuselage above forward cargo door area	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Unusual paint smears on and above forward cargo door	Maybe	Maybe	Yes	Yes
Evidence of explosion in forward cargo compartmen	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Foreign object damage to engine or cowling of engine number three	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Fire/soot in engine number three	Maybe	Yes	Yes	Yes
Foreign object damage to engine or cowling of engine number four	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Right wing leading edge damaged in flight	Yes	Maybe	Yes	Maybe
Vertical stabilizer damaged in flight	Yes	Yes	Yes	Maybe
	AI 182	PA103	UAL 811	TWA 800	China Airlines Flight 611
Right horizontal stabilizer damaged in flight	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
More severe inflight damage on starboard side than port side	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Port side relatively undamaged by inflight debri	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Vertical fuselage tear lines just aft or forward of the forward cargo door	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Fracture/tear/rupture at a midspan latch of forward cargo door	Maybe	Yes	Yes	Yes
Midspan latching status of forward cargo door reported as latched	No	No	No	No
Airworthiness Directive 88-12-04 implemented (stronger lock sectors)	No	No	No	Yes
Outwardly peeled skin on upper forward fuselage	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Rectangular shape of shattered area around forward cargo door	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Forward cargo door fractured in two longitudinally	Yes	Yes	Yes	Maybe
Status of aft cargo door as intact and latched	Yes	Yes	Yes	Maybe
	AI 182	PA103	UAL 811	TWA 800	China Airlines Flight 611
Passengers suffered decompression type injuries	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
At least nine missing and neverrecovered passenger bodies	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Wreckage debris field in two main areas, forward and aft sections of aircraft	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Initial official opinion of probable cause as bomb explosion.	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Initial official determination modified from bomb explosion	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
	AI 182	PA103	UAL 811	TWA 800	China Airlines Flight 611
Structural failure considered for probable cause	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Inadvertently opened forward cargo door considered for probable cause	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Official probable cause as bomb explosion	Yes	Yes	No	No
Official probable cause as 'improvised explosive device'	No	Yes	No	No
Official probable cause as explosion by unstated cause	Yes	No	No	No
Official probable cause as explosion in center fuel tank with unknown ignition source	No	No	No	Yes
Official probable cause as improper latching of forward cargo door	No	No	Yes	No
Official probable cause as switch /wiring inadvertently opening forward cargo door	No	No	Yes	No
Significant Direct and Tangible Evidence Obtained for Four B747 Breakups in Flight	AI 182	PA103	UAL 811	TWA 800	China Airlines Flight 611

---

Contents Cargo Door Website
Page 2 Details on Accidents
barry@corazon.com Email author here.

__________________________________________

It continues to be self evident that many more facts will be necessary before any of the theories can be evaluated.

[acehai]

"MISSILE WITNESS MYTH" MYTH

__________________________________________________________________

"Now that we are in agreement that the weather balloon was reportedly launched at ABOUT 2000, how do you expect to determine the specific time and direction of the winds aloft from 8500 feet down to whatever altitude the surface wind reports go up to? "

__________________________________________________________________

The NTSB Table 3 on page 57 is a very accurate representation of the winds aloft from 14000 ft down to 1000 ft. (These are actual physical measurements, we don't need to determine, estimate, or guess anything else. What is in this table is what the winds aloft were before, during and after the TWA800 event).

Elmer ... It is eminently apparant that you are sadly ignorant when it comes to meteorology. Radiosondes are launched twice daily at 00Z and 12Z. The data they collect is used as a valid representation of the wind speed, wind direction, temperature, dew point and pressure.

The wind speed and direction measurements taken by the radiosonde at various altitudes for 00Z July 18, 1996 are valid to be used as an accurate representation of the upper atmosphere in that location from that time period until the next radiosonde launch.

Since the TWA800 incident occurred so close to the time of the balloon sounding, the data is an actual representation of the wind speeds and directions at all levels of the atmosphere.

But we can go one step farther:

We know exactly when readings were taken each minute from the radiosonde and the exact location of the radiosonde for each minute as well.

The NTSB Docket CD 8/10/2000 - Exhibit 2L Radiosonde Wind Information, contains the minute by minute readings from the Brookhaven (Upton, NY) 00Z July 18, 1996 radiosonde.

The actual launch time of the Upton NY (OKX) radiosonde balloon was at 7:17 PM EDT July 17,1996.

Since the NTSB has not put the complete docket on-line, I give you

JACK REED'S SITE

Since Jack is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist, certified by the American Meteorological Society, I do not hesitate to submit him to the readers as an "EXPERT" on interpriting and disseminating weather data.

Jack includes the minute by minute radiosonde data and he plots the location of the balloon through its flight. He also labels the location of the TWA800 incident.

To make a long story short... This measured upper air data IS what the wind directions and wind speeds were just before, during and after the TWA800 event took place.

And this data proves that any cloud seen by Faret and Wendell should have been moving SE. NOT the NNW they reported.

Now you can return to picking fly-$quat out of black pepper, Elmer...I'm sure you find it tasty...Have a great day ;^)

[Asmodeus]

"It is eminently apparant that you are sadly ignorant when it comes to meteorology."

Remember this?

#63 I'm unqualified by training and experience to provide the readers with an expert opinion on that subject, much less about the winds aloft between 8500 feet and the surface from appropximately 8:31:47 when Faret & Wendell saw the Massive Fireball Fireball explosion and started flying straight to it until they arrived at the smoke cloud and trail it left, so please provide us all with an expert opinion explaining specifically how the above readings taken by a weather balloon at an unspecifified time between 8500 feet and the surface supposedly is irrefutable evidence supporting the allegations of some of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats including you that the MF smoke cloud and trail to the surface Faret & Wendell were flying straight to blew away and were replaced by a second smoke cloud and trail rising from the surface fires while they were doing so.

Expert - "A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject".

Do you know what an expert opinion is? It's a FORMAL REPORT from a bonafide expert on the subject. In this instance, that would be a bonafide meteorology expert who is also a bonafide expert witness report analyst because your objective is to discredit witnesses Faret & Wendell by attempting to use their personally prepared report and Hirsch's Q&A recording/transcript to do so.

In the interim, the readers are still waiting for your answers to the following two questions you have been repeatedly asked and assured the readers you would promptly answer but never have:

Can you explain how witness Fred Meyer could have seen a "shootdown" of Flight 800 at 13,800 feet at 8:31:12 only 3-4 seconds before he saw the Massive Fireball explode at 5500-7500 feet at about 8:31:47 which he says he and his crewmates agreed at the time took approximately 10 seconds to fall to the surface?

If he's so unflappable and KNOWS that he saw a missile shoot down TWA 800, how do you explain his following statement while being interviewed by an NTSB Witness Group?

I saw a streak of light in the sky. I have no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?

[acehai]

Sure, Elmer...In MY GOOD TIME, NOT YOURS!!!

I'm making sure we stick to one subject at a time...Like Wendel and Faret's poor pre-flight procedures in mistaking the Winds Aloft to be NNW when they were the opposite...

See ya on the other thread...;^)

[Asmodeus]

TWA 800 Witness Fred "Fritz" Meyer reportedly says "I suspect that Bill Donaldson was murdered."

[acehai]

FUDD'S "WITNESS MYTH" MYTH

***********************************************************

Elmer...Since you've been sneaking and peeking at the Yahoo Groups TWA 800 board, why don't you let Fritz Meyer answer your misinformed question regarding what he said at the Witness group meeting. It's on there...

You've posted every thing else...

***********************************************************

Folks...When I contacted Meyer to get his reaction to Elmer Fudd's posting of his Witness Group statements, I included the statement Elmer is so strident about:

Here it is again:

"I saw a streak of light in the sky. I have no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"

Here's Meyer's reply to my e-mail:

TYPO = I saw a streak of light in the sky. I HAD no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"

World of difference, folks...

He had no way of knowing what it was at the time. It looked like a streak of light, and that's what he reported.

But he KNEW what ordnance looked like, and described it when the streak ended and after a space without seeing anything, further to the left, a hard explosion, military ordinance...

He admitted he had never seen the second explosion of "brilliant white light" before...It was totally new to him...

These explosions happened at TWA 800's altitude...The Massive Fireball was the LAST event to happen, further left, and lower down...

The statement Elmer keeps crowing about is misleading because of a common TYPO, folks, which we're all prone to make from time to time.

But will Elmer admit the possibility?

He's been known to make a few typos himself... And his precise time line is just that...HIS timeline, useful in his attempts to manipulate and discredit the eyewitnesses.

And considering Meyers explanation of compressed time sense due to heightened adriniline production makes perfect sense; it's happened to me and probably happened to all of you at one time or the other.

But such consideration does not fit with Elmer's agenda.

Wonder why?

***********************************************************

Oh yeah, Elmer...

Did Faret and Wendel report that the smoke cloud they said they flew to the edge of moved NNW in direct opposition to the prevailing Winds Aloft for that time period as recorded by a radiosonde ballon released at about 2000 (8:00 p.m. local), the evening of the shootdown?

[Asmodeus]

Acehai: "Since you've been sneaking and peeking at the Yahoo Groups TWA 800 board, why don't you let Fritz Meyer answer your misinformed question regarding what he said at the Witness group meeting".

"I saw a streak of light in the sky. I have no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"

"Here's Meyer's reply to my e-mail:

"TYPO = I saw a streak of light in the sky. I HAD no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"

World of difference, folks.

He had no way of knowing what it was at the time. It looked like a streak of light, and that's what he reported.

But he KNEW what ordnance looked like, and described it when the streak ended and after a space without seeing anything, further to the left, a hard explosion, military ordinance.

He admitted he had never seen the second explosion of "brilliant white light" before...It was totally new to him...

These explosions happened at TWA 800's altitude. The Massive Fireball was the LAST event to happen, further left, and lower down.

____________________

Let's take a little closer look Acehai's rant.

" . . . sneaking and peeking at the Yahoo Groups TWA 800 board".

He's referring to a forum open to the public to read just as FreeRepublic is.

____________________

"TYPO = I saw a streak of light in the sky. I HAD no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"

The "shootdown" tinfoil hats have no idea what the real significance of that statement by witness Meyer is. 1. When he saw the fiery streak, it did not look to him like the exhaust or trail or a missile, dispelling the tinfoil hats' allegations that it was obviously a missile in flight. 2. Experts want to know what witnesses actually saw - and separate those actual observations from the witnesses' conclusions after input from other sources. Which is referred to by experts as tainting input.

____________________

But he KNEW what ordnance looked like, and described it when the streak ended and after a space without seeing anything, further to the left, a hard explosion, military ordinance.

If so, why did Meyer and his crewmates initially speculate that what they had seen was a MIDAIR COLLISION?

"In the first place we didn't know what we had. I think we speculated that we might've had a mid-air because we know from here a lot that aircraft from Easthampton Airport and Montauk Sky Portal and aircraft from west of here fly the beach, and they look at the mansions along the beach. And we know that it's very common to have aircraft flying at 1,000 to 2,000 feet, east and west, right at each other along this beach."

"It's very dangerous. It's all VFR traffic. It's unregulated. The only regulation at all occurs when they fly through the southern tip of a control zone. They'll call this tower for clearance through the control zone. They'll say, all right. I'm at 1,500 feet. And the tower will tell them, well, you got another guy westbound and he's at 1,500. So, why don't one of you change altitude. so -- Mid-airs are -- the potential is always there. It's a very dangerous situation. We thought we had one."
SOURCE.

The "Missile Witnesses" Myth Major Meyer's Own Detailed Presentation of His Observations FBI Chief Metallurgist Blows Whistle On Kallstrom's Wild Goose Chase

[Swordmaker]

Acehai quoted the following:

"But he KNEW what ordnance looked like, and described it when the streak ended and after a space without seeing anything, further to the left, a hard explosion, military ordinance."

To which you asked:

"If so, why did Meyer and his crewmates initially speculate that what they had seen was a MIDAIR COLLISION?"

Asmodeus, there is a very simple explanation... these flyers were trying to assess (diagnose) a peculiar event... an event beyond their experience in the area they were flying.

In medicine, an old saying is applicable: "When you hear hoofbeats, look for horses, not zebras."

In this instance, they saw a streak of light, followed by an bright flash explosion. Their experience, in this flight area, is that it is filled with airplanes (horses) and that it would not be unreasonable to assume, initially, that what they had seen was a mid-air collision of two airplanes. They DID NOT expect to see a missile (a zebra) flying before their eyes. The first inclination is to fit observed data into expected norms. It is only upon reflection that a rarer diagnosis can be made... that the hoofbeats were from zebras and not horses... when the observations DO NOT FIT the expected normal scenario. In this instance, the streak of light followed by the bright flash of an ordnance explosion DID NOT FIT the mid-air collision scenario expected. To make that conclusion one must shift time and place and situation.

Flying on a warm evening evening off of Long Island, one DOES NOT EXPECT TO SEE an AA missile! One's mind must shift gears and paradigms to realize what actually was seen.

[Swordmaker]

bump for my last reply to Ass-mode-he-is

[185JHP]

You're right - it isn't credible that a missile was fired from a Navy vessel and not one person would talk about it. Not that there aren't people IN the Navy corrupt enough to try a coverup - it couldn't be done. And for any sceptics that doubt it was a criminal/terorist act that brought it down, I believe it has been established that an individual who was on the passenger manifest for the Ron Brown death flight but didn't make it, was on TWA 800!

[Asmodeus]

You've given a classic example of "shootdown" tinfoil hat blabberbabble on a subject you know NOTHING about.

Expert - "A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.

Objective readers are encouraged to compare the following with your wacky "analysis".

Newsday
Brain Often Blurs What Eyes See
By Earl Lane
Washington Bureau

Washington - As investigators have sifted dozens of eyewitness accounts of the destruction of TWA Flight 800, they have had to keep in mind a growing scientific literature on the fallibility of first-hand descriptions.

In the immediate aftermath of the July 17 disaster, FBI agents interviewed several hundred people who had claimed to see the breakup of the airliner.

Some of them also described streaks of light, suggesting the possibility of a missile attack on the doomed plane.

But specialists say eyewitness accounts - no matter how credible those giving them - can be distressingly unreliable, particularly those gathered days after the fact.

"In general, memory researchers recommend that the most fruitful interview is the first interview,'' said Stephen Ceci, a Cornell University psychologist.

"And that's if the person hasn't been tainted or biased in some way by being given a theory or expectancy by the media or the interviewer or a friend.''

In highly publicized incidents such as the TWA crash, investigators must be especially wary, Ceci said, since there is so much information - and misinformation - available from media reports and word-of-mouth.

A law enforcement source familar with the TWA investigation said FBI agents use interview methods intended to assess the consistency and reliability of witness accounts. They look for any signs that the witnesses may be repeating news accounts or seeking to give interviewers what they believe they want to hear.

"There is a science to interviewing people,'' the source said.

But even witnesses who have been carefully interviewed and are reporting what they sincerely believe they saw can make mistakes, Ceci said.

"There is not a snapshot in the brain of that fireball in the sky or a streak of light prior to the explosion,'' he said.

Memories are stored in neurons distributed throughout the brain, he said, and the information stored in those brain cells "must be rounded up and put back together to tell a story . . . many things can go wrong in reconstructing it.''

Elizabeth Loftus, a psychologist who has written extensively about eyewitness testimony, said people tend to fill in gaps in their recollection with information they get from other sources.

"I don't mean to belittle the crash witnesses,'' Loftus said. But in some cases, particularly traumatic events, the perceived memories can be both vivid and incorrect. "People have claimed to see things a lot more bizarre than flashes of light,'' Loftus said.

Loftus has studied accounts of serious auto accidents. "You have cases where a witness says the blue car was traveling south and the yellow car was traveling north,'' Loftus said, and the witness will stick to that account even after it has been proved that just the opposite was the case.

There are ways to improve the reliability of accounts, Loftus said. "Some banks train tellers in anticipation of a bank robbery,'' she said. "You are to sit down, don't talk to anybody else and write out your own version of the event.'' Loftus said that professional training or expertise can affect the reliability of eyewitness accounts. She has done experiments in which she shows arson investigators a video of a fire scene, with fire officials giving orders to their personnel on how to fight the blaze. The arson investigators remember how many hose teams the chief is ordering into the building and other details that untrained viewers disregard, Loftus said.

But experts caution that trained professionals also can make mistakes. Howard Egeth, head of the psychology department at Johns Hopkins University, said studies have found that police officers often do no better than lay persons when trying to identify suspects.

And even when witness testimony is carefully couched, it can be misinterpreted by others.

Investigators in the TWA case have been interested in the accounts of National Guard air crews who were doing search-and-rescue training on the night of the disaster. One pilot reported seeing a "streak of light'' on the same trajectory as a shooting star. His remark was viewed by some as supporting the missile scenario.

But the pilot, a Vietnam veteran who has seen missiles fired in combat, dismissed that notion. He said the orange-red streak was descending across the sky and, as he followed it, eventually erupted into the large fireball described by other witnesses.

Experts also say it is understandable why some witnesses hold strongly to their accounts even as contradictory information comes to light.

As Loftus and a co-author have written, "We want to believe . . . that our minds work in an orderly, efficient way, taking in information, sorting it, filing it, and calling it back later in full and vivid detail. In a chaotic world, where so much is out of control, we need to believe that our minds, at least, are under our command.''
Al Baker contributed to this story.
[emphasis added]
Source - Click Here

[Swordmaker]

Your database is truly amazing... my compliments to your staff.

This article from the September 1, 1996 Newsday was part of the astounding coordinated effort to disparage and impeach ALL of the eyewitnesses to TWA-800. To believe this, NOTHING reported by a witness can be at all reliable in any way.

The true method of evaluation of eyewitnesses is to compare and contrast the various reports... not to totally discount everything stated and ignore the qualifications and training of those who are making the reports. ALL observations are filtered through the mind of the observer... and initial reports are best for raw data, however INTERPRETATION of that data requires input from other sources.

Now, let's look at your introduction to the article and see how you are less interested in presenting an objective discussion than you are in attacking anyone who disagrees with you. You said:

You've given a classic example of "shootdown" tinfoil hat blabberbabble on a subject you know NOTHING about.

Expert - "A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.

Objective readers are encouraged to compare the following with your wacky "analysis".

Your introduction is filled with "loaded" words... all designed to attack your oponents and are therefor ad hominem" argumental fallacies. They are intended to insult the person you are addressing and prejudice the idle reader against anything they may say.

YOU have no information at all about my background or fields of expertise... yet you, based on some articles in the popular press, call a well thought out analysis and opinion "tinfoil hat blabberbabble" and "wacky." It is neither.

Our system of justice DOES NOT RELY on experts. It relies on the judgement of ordinary people, weighing and evaluating the evidence presented which may include the OPINIONS of experts. In the case of TWA-800, the testimony, the evidence, offered by hundreds of eyewitnesses, regardless of its probitive value, was systematically distorted, devalued, obfuscated, and finally, uniquely, BANNED from presentation before the probitive panel effectively preventing that panel from evaluating and weighing that evidence. Instead, they were given an "expert's" opinion and interpretation of that testimony that in most, if not all, instances was FALSE TO FACT and was based soley on what THIRD PARTY interviewers recalled of the statements sometime after the interview! The FBI 302 system does not lend itself to accurate reporting... it relies on the memories of the FBI agents as to what the witness reports. The NTSB was then presented with an "expert's" recollection of what the FBI agents wrote down of what they recalled the witnesses said instead of hearing what the witnesses have to say themselves. Absurd.

You continually present yourself as an "expert" on this case... I suggest that there is another definition of "expert" that fits:

Expert - "An unknown drip under pressure."