| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 06/01/2002 11:46:30 AM PDT by Asmodeus
At 4:44 P.M. Paris time on 25 July 2000, with pilot Christian Marty and co-pilot Jean Marcot at the controls accelerated down the runway and subsequently blew a tire on its left main gear. As the crew fought to keep the airplane under control, it began drifting left on Runway 26R with a long sheet of flame trailing from its left wing. The alarm gong sounded in the cockpit, and engines one and two (of four) lost power. "Watch the airspeed, the airspeed, the airspeed!" Marcot yelled to Marty as the airplane continued heading left, in the general direction of a taxiing Air France 747 bringing President Jacques Chirac back from a Tokyo summit.
Marty tugged on the controls and tried for liftoff at 188 knots (11 knots below normal rotation velocity). With trust coming only from two engines the aircraft barely reached 200 feet in the air, before suddenly nosing up, rolling over and crashing into a hotel.
Air France President Jean-Cyril Spinetta watched horrified as he viewed Concorde F-BTSC trail flames and crash outside his picture window overlooking Charles De Gaulles runways. "For all of those who were eyewitnesses to this catastophe, and I'm one of them, the cause of the crash was an engine fire on takeoff." He immediately grounded the Concorde fleet until further notice and British Airways quickly followed suit.
On 16 Aug 2000, Frances Bureau Enquites Accidents declared that a tire blowout caused the crash. It also recommended the suspension of Concordes certificate of airworthiness. France's Direction Generale de l'Aviation (equivalent of the U.S. FAA), pulled the planes certificate. "What is uniquely differant in this case is that tire debris alone is thought to have led to this catastrophic accident." Two official French inquiries were set into motion. The BEA searched for causes, while a judicial investigation headed by three magistrates tried to determine legal responsibilites.
The first puzzle to solve was a piece of the number 5 fuel tank found on the runway that had somehow been torn loose from the inside out. Researchers from the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company, successor to the original Concord builder, Sud-Aviation, ran a computer simulation that showed when a large piece of tire weighing about nine pounds struck the underside of the left wing, the impact generated a shock wave, propagated through the full fuel tank, that first moved up, then down, exploding outward. The resulting one foot square hole created a massive kerosene leak - on the order of 20 gallons per second - that somehow ignited.
Why was there such a large chunk of tire, bigger than usual, after a blowout. Investigators found a 17" titanium thrust reverser wear strip on the runway from an airliner that had just taken off minutes before Flight 4590. Striking the metal strip at high speed, they theorized scalped the number two tire of a 5' length of tread, which was whipped up at the wing by tremendous centrifugal force.
The most controversial finding however, was that a spacer that holds two lateral rings in position on the oleo/bogie coupling of the main left gear and is vital to wheel alignment, had not been reinstalled after routine maintenance work performed four days before the crash, because of an Air France maintenance error. Air France being traumatized by the accident and being sued for $100 million by families of the crash victim, declined repeated interview requests by Air & Space Smithsonian. However, BEA ruled out the missing spacer as a cause of the crash.
"The truth is because of the missing spacer, the left main gear was slightly skewed on the takeoff roll. Skidding heated and wore down the tire, caused the plane to drift to the left side of the runway, and kept it from accelerating normally." charges Jean-Marie Chauve, a 37-year Air France vetran and retired Concorde pilot who has done his own calculations - and has had them verified by independent experts - based on published information from the flight data and cockpit voice recorders. His version is seconded by Michel Suaud, a longtime Concorde flight engineer also retired. They spent several months preparing a detailed report on the crash, which they presented to the investigating magistrate of the judicial inquiry.
"Our figures show that the plane was moving to the left at the start of the takeoff roll, not just after the blowout and loss of engines one and two. The tire burst at around 174 knots and only after the blowout did it strike the metal strip. If acceleration had been normal, the plane would have been airborn about 50 yds before reaching the metal strip. The BEA says the leftward yaw was caused by loss of thrust from the left engines, not by the skewed bogie. But they've never shown us where our figures are wrong."
The bottom line is that Jet A1 fuel does indeed burn and quite fiercly too. It did so after two planes hit the WTC towers, it did so when a plane crashed into the pentagon, it did so when the F4 crashed at Magoo Airshow a few weeks back, and when Flight 255 crashed at Detroit Metropolitian Airport 16 Aug 1987 thirty miles or so from where I live.
And we all know debris falls up, don't we?
Look, everyone, do not buy into Asmodeus' continuing propoganda pieces. Those looking for facts can find them in Jack Cashill's article, "Silenced: Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice," originally published in chapters by World Net Daily and available for the first time in its entirety for anyone who asks. I am not selling it in any way. I just want the truth to be told.
If you are interested, and you have MS Word, please send me a private response.
I agree. A Navy missle couldn't have been covered up. Too many sailors on a ship: too many enlisted who would tell their friends or family about it. Word would get out, no doubt about it. Sailors are about the worst beings in the world for keeping things like that secret.
Tuor
how about an errant missile, a more likely scenario, give the numerous, independent eye witnesses who saw something streaking upward before the explosion, and, the navy was in the area holding exercises.
this was right before the olympics, and does anyone here, given the recent info on the fbi ignoring terrorist warnings, think that
a. klinton would never cover something like this up, in the face of the start of the olympics on US soil, with the entire world watching, literally
b. the fbi is competent, not corrupt, would act independently of Klinton and reno, and has no history of cover up to begin with.
not to mention, i cannot recall any other planes blowing up in the middle of the sky in recent history of its own accord. i can recall many planes blowing up in the middle of the sky from missles and bombs.
also, i would like to point out the fbi recently issued a warning that shoulder fired missiles may be used to take out a plane in the near future. so, this scenario is on the terrorist agenda. but, is it the first attempt?
remember gang, this took place with the klinton and reno whitehouse, with the fbi serving as their handmaiden. all the motivation in the world exists to cover up a serious incident. the terrorist hypothesis seems far more likely than the US Navy.
What's an "independent" witness? A witness who is neither a republican or a democrat? Were there any witnesses who were not "independent" witnesses? ANSWER: There is no such thing as an "independent" witness. It's a term coined by the tinfoil hats to imply "whistleblower" witnesses.
Most of the witnesses didn't even see the fiery streak. Of those who did, not all preceived it to be ascending.
NTSB Exhibit 4A:
* 39.95% of the witnesses said they saw a streak of light. Of the 183 witnesses who said they saw a streak of light
* 79.78% provided a description of the path taken by the streak
* 52.73% said it was ascending.
* 07.53% said it was descending.
* 32/19% said it was both ascending and descending.
* 06.16% said it was level.
* 01.36% said it was both level and ascending.
Why Elmer...(Note to "newbys": A$$modeus is also known as Elmer [Fudd] Barr, a known disinfo artiste, currently Pi$$ed off because of being "barred" from spreading his tripe on the twa800.com list)
Your Missile Witness Myth document rests heavily on Faret and Wendell's personally prepared witness statements. Richard Hirsch has questioned Faret on his testimony because of apparent discrepancies.
Q: What was your altitude when you were flying over to the burning debris field?
A: 8100 feet (+/-) down to 7700 (+/-) directly toward it.
Q: Did you actually fly over the burning debris field?
A: I'd have to say yes. If it wasn't directly over it was a little to the NW, a good viewing angle. As soon as we saw the explosion we didn't take our eyes off of it. I was watching the flames descending through the air waiting for them to contact the water. As the flames spread out on the water surface I could see more "stuff" fall into the flames that had lit up the water. The water was black so our only indication of where the surface was, was when the flames hit it. ...the rest is in the report.
Q: I believe you said you saw the smoke cloud drifting slowly to the NNW. Do you mean that's the direction of travel of the smoke cloud?
The reason I ask is the NTSB meteorlogical data gives the direction of wind at 123 degrees true. The average speed of the wind was 24 ft/sec or about 15 mph.
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. We reported what we saw. (2 of us saw the same thing, some credibility must lie there)
Q: You were about 17 NM from the point where FLT800 exploded. Your aircraft was flying at 95 knots. It would have taken your aircraft almost 12 minutes to get to the smoke cloud (a little more if the cloud was moving SSE). Could you have simply under estimated your flight time to the cloud?
A: I travel at 152 kts at that altitude. It took 5-6 minutes. We never took our eyes off of it. The direction of travel was apparent from the stretching "tornado type" plume leaving the cloud and going to the fire. What's also interesting here is that you could clearly see where the plume transitioned from clear sky into the haze layer. 6000' that night. Our viewing perspective was perfect. I have to stand by our report 100%.
Q: I assume that 152 knots is your airspeed. What would be your ground speed?
A: Close to the same, that evening.
Q: What was the approximate climb rate of your aircraft as you approached Riverhead at 00:31:12?
A: 500-700 FPM
Comments by Richard Hirsch
I checked Sven Faret's aircraft position from two radar sources. First his position at 00:31:12 was found on a MegaData plot which shows the positions of all the aircraft in the area of FLT800 at that time. Sven's aircraft was right where he said it was in his report. Next I found a radar target flying at an altitude of 7600 feet which was on a direct course from Riverhead, LI to the crash site.
The speed of the radar target was about the same as Sven Faret's aircraft. The time of the position for that radar fix was 00:37:10. At that time Sven Faret's aircraft was still a little over 6 NM from the burning debris area. Flying at 152 knots Sven faret's aircraft would have been over the burning debris of FLT800 at approximately 00:40:00. It took Sven Faret about 8 minutes to get to the debris field after seeing the accident occur.
I'm using the time of 00:31:47 as the time that Sven Faret and his passenger saw FLT800 explode That time is verified by radio reports from other commercial aircraft crews who were in the area at the time of the accident.
Sven's altitude was shown as 8100 feet on the MegaData radar plot at 00:31:12. Sven said he was at 8500 feet when he saw FLT800 explode. The answer for the difference in altitude is that Sven saw the explosion at 00:31:47 so his aircraft had another 35 seconds to climb to 8500 feet before Sven saw the explosion.
....
Did Faret and Wendell actually make it over to the cloud ? Faret seems to be hedging a bit in his answer to Hirsch. Also, Faret and Wendell have the direction of the cloud moving against the winds, how is this possible ? What time did Faret and Wendell get to the cloud ? Hirsch estimates about 8:40PM. If Faret and Wendell got over to the cloud 9 minutes after the massive fireball formed and fell to the ocean, why is there still even a cloud left at any altitude if the winds were at least 15 mph? Have you ever seen a firework explosion cloud stay together for 9 minutes and not dissipate or lose altitude (smoke is heavier than air as it cools).
These questions and possible inaccuracies ( if they got the wind direction of the cloud wrong - how can you believe anything else they say) cast doubt on Faret & Wendell's witness statement, thereby also casting "doubt" in the accuracy of your Witness Myth BS...
[excerpt][quote]
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. [end excerpt][end quote] Source.
Here's Ian Goddard, King of The Hill of the tinfoil hat wannabe witness report analysts at the time, reporting on it to the LSoft Flight 800 Forum on 18 December 1996:
| Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 02:01:03 -0500 Reply-To: Flight 800 discussion list <FLIGHT-800@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM> Sender: Flight 800 discussion list <FLIGHT-800@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM> From: Ian Goddard <igoddard@EROLS.COM> Subject: TWA 800: A Pilot's Report Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (free 2 copy (*)----------------(free 2 forward) T W A F L I G H T 8 0 0: A P I L O T' S R E P O R T
by Ian Williams Goddard What happened on the night of July 17 when TWA 800 exploded in midair? Sven Faret, pilot of a private plane, along with passenger Ken Wendell, were both flying in the area and, with an eagle's-eye view, were on top of it all. Sven spoke on FOX News and CNN the night of the crash. So what did they see? According to Sven's written report [1], Sven and Ken were flying at 8,500 feet over Riverhead, LI, NY at about 8:40 pm, on July 17, 1996 when, accord- ing to the report, "Ken pointed out traffic at 3 o'clock low (actually 2:30). Sven saw a white light steady in the sky." That light, was TWA flight 800. Then the report states that a "short 'pin flash of light' appeared on the ground (perhaps water)." When I asked Sven if this flash rose upwards vertically from the surface, he confirmed that it did. He also told me it was "like a rocket launch at a fireworks display," and that its point of origin was "near the shoreline or in the water." "Very shortly" after they saw this "rocket launch" below TWA 800, their report states that: ...the white light [TWA 800] exploded instantaneously into a huge red-orange ball. My initial thoughts were "who's shooting fireworks tonight." The magni- tude of the fire ball, and altitude, quickly...ruled that out. Notice the harmony of Sven and Ken's observation with that of these ground-level eyewitness ac- counts, ABC World News Sunday (07/21/96): We saw what appeared to be a flare going straight up. As a matter of fact, we thought it was from a boat. It was a bright reddish-orange color. ...once it went into flames, I knew that wasn't a flare. The New York Daily News (11/09/96): It looked like a big skyrocket go- ing up, and it kept going up and up, and the next thing I knew there was an orange ball of fire. Roland Penney and his family, who were in a boat at the time, reported (Newsday, 9/1/96) that they saw "a pencil-thin white trail rising up...that hit that plane." Now back to Sven's report. Moments after TWA 800 exploded, Sven states in the report: 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." It looked like the military shot-down the plane! When asked if the military conducts such activity in the area, Sven replied: "On a regular basis." That military activity is frequent in the area is also evident in the account given by S. Beach resi- dent John Bauman (The Independent, 07/24/96), who said "people continued fishing" after the blast thinking it was probably "the Westhampton Air Force Base doing some kind of testing offshore."
CONCLUSION With over 150 eyewitnesses who saw a "streak of light" and a "skyrocket" shoot up and hit TWA 800 initiating its annihilation, and with these wit- nesses on land, in the Great South Bay, out at sea and even up in the air, all giving virtually ident- ical accounts, to say that this is an overwhelming case for a missile hit is an major understatement. How many criminal cases can you recall with uniform testimony from over 150 witnesses? It's a prosecu- tor's wildest dream come true. But in the la-la-land of TWA 800, anyone who considers this testimony as proof of a missile strike is portrayed as a mentally unbalanced idiot by the GovtMedia and are, on the Internet, assaulted with vicious ad hominem attacks and threats of physical violence. How strange. For some, no amount of evidence will shatter their unfaltering faith in the FBI-NAVY-NTSB cover-up; and with all the physical evidence -- debris, radar and satellite records -- locked away, off-limits to public viewing, it's a cover-up by definition. And speaking of a cover-up, why are we not hearing all of pilot Sven Faret and Ken Wendell's eyewit- ness testimony in the media? It's painfully clear that the major media is now following the lead of the government in suppressing all evidence of a missile strike, hence the term "GovtMedia". In August 1997 it was finally pointed out to Goddard and his tinfoil hat followers that ALL the observations of unusual events in the sky by Faret & Wendell, up until then their Star "missile shootdown" witnesses, were BELOW their own flight altitude of 8500 feet. Since then, some the tinfoil hats have been engaged in non-stop efforts to discredit Faret & Wendell, as you have now again dramatized. Lawyers would refer to it as attempting to impeach your own witnesses.
|
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.”
Faret & Wendell: " 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.
Although the 5000 feet is not accounted for in any of the "missile(s) shootdown" websites or by any of the tinfoils posting here or anywhere else, the 5000 feet is accounted for in the The "Missile Witnesses" Myth.
But in your answer to:
Did Faret and Wendell actually make it over to the cloud ?
All you did was reiterate word for word Faret and Wendell’s witness statement. Where are the hard facts (truths) such as radar data to show if they made it over to the cloud and at what time.
How can you verify the truth and accuracy of their statements:
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 two small bumps upon 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.
…..
especially with them stating the direction of the cloud moving opposite of the winds!!!!
From the NTSB final report Page 57 Table 3 . Winds aloft measured by a weather balloon launched from Upton, NY.
Altitude Wind Direction Wind Speed
Feet (from) in degrees knots
1000 270 12
2000 280 14
3000 285 17
4000 290 17
5000 303 19
6000 310 19
7000 315 17
8000 320 16
9000 330 12
10000 335 12
11000 320 12
12000 295 16
13000 290 16
14000 300 17
The winds were blowing from the west and northwest at ALL altitudes that any of the wreckage would have passed through. Any cloud or debris is going to be drifting East-Southeast.
Once again if Faret and Wendell got the movement of the cloud wrong how do you know that the rest of their statements are correct?
Oh yeah, Fudd...There were several questions in my post that demand answers from an EX-SPURT such as you purport to be, but you only responded to one with the same tired cut and paste bull$hite you've been forced to use over and over. What's-a-matter, pal? Your one-trick pony wearing out? Hmmmmm?
And I'm sure you won't have a bit of trouble supporting this allegation with appropriate URLs where we can all peruse these accident records, will you?
Is your source Christine Negroni, by any chance?
BBWAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.