Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BOEING RESPONDS TO FBI REPORT
7/10/02 | John E. Fiorentino

Posted on 07/10/2002 9:42:12 AM PDT by JohnFiorentino

*It is worthy to note that these "spheres" were recovered from the corpses of some TWA800 victims at autopsy) ...Authors note*

(FBI report from Brookhaven National Labs, 1997) (excerpts)

This item, one of 20 similar pieces.........was approx. 5mm in diameter and charcoal colored. The item was polished and then subjected to an energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS) analysis to determine its chemical composition.

Small charcoal colored particles (1 of -20 similar pieces) measuring ~5mm in diameter. On polishing the sample was orange colored and transparent.

SEM analysis indicated the material was multi-phase having a base matrix containing Al and Ti. The sample showed significant charging under the electron beam indicating that it is a very poor conductor - i.e.., not metallic. Three other distinct areas could be observed, two were similar to the matrix but contained significant amounts of Zr, the other was mostly Al with Ca, Ba and Ce.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Below is a response from the Boeing Co. re: the "spheres" alluded to in the (FBI report from Brookhaven National Labs, 1997) and just recently declassified. (note one sentence in the below transmission was a little skewed, however, that is the way it was received)

Thanks for your inquiry John.

I am unaware of anything on a Boeing commercial airplane that would use those chemicals in a matrix (or other) form. We do not use Aluminium / Titanium matrix type metals since their differing thermal expansion rates will tend to tear a part fabricated from them apart when subjected to the rapid change in temperatures that jet aircraft encounter. We use a temperature differential of +180 degree F to -70 degrees F in 20 minutes as a design criteria. The +180 was a measured skin temperature of an airplane sitting in the sun in Saudi Arabia. Also, we try to limit the amount of Titanium we put into the airplanes because it costs so much. We use it where strength and fatigue requirements make Aluminium inappropriate.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,

(redacted) Associate Technical Fellow Service Engineering The Boeing Company

Copyright 2002, J.E. Fiorentino - All rights reserved.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 800; aviation; boeing; fbi; investigation; news; twa; twa800list
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

1 posted on 07/10/2002 9:42:12 AM PDT by JohnFiorentino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnFiorentino
All right so what is your best guess? Counterfit parts?
2 posted on 07/10/2002 9:46:58 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva
only if "bomb parts" are considered "counterfit"...
3 posted on 07/10/2002 10:02:41 AM PDT by phasma proeliator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: da_toolman
Ping
4 posted on 07/10/2002 10:02:58 AM PDT by phasma proeliator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Titanium penetrator off a AA missile?
5 posted on 07/10/2002 10:23:34 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: *TWA800_list
Index Bump
6 posted on 07/10/2002 10:43:15 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
ping!
7 posted on 07/10/2002 10:45:36 AM PDT by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Ding ding ding! Winner.

The shrapnel would be scorched by the explosive that propelled it. It need not be a particularly good structural material, it should be light enough to carry enough of it aloft in a missile, and tough enough to penetrate airplanes.

8 posted on 07/10/2002 10:59:27 AM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JohnFiorentino
Guess

These are samples of the recently famous liquid metal: extremely tough, almost zero thermal expansion, low melting point. It can't be used in conjuction with other metals where there are temperature changes because it will tear the machine apart simply by not expanding along with the other metals.

9 posted on 07/10/2002 11:05:16 AM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Would someone making counterfit parts use an expensive ingredient like Titanium????
10 posted on 07/10/2002 11:36:15 AM PDT by TheBattman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eno_
It would figure since many military aircraft have armor plating around critical systems and the cockpit and you would want the missile to penetrate before it exploded.
11 posted on 07/10/2002 5:29:35 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
SAMs are usually not kinetic energy kill missiles. That's a Star Wars technology because you have issues like missiles moving faster than explosions propagate. (Yow!) SAMs use shrapnel to increase their kill radius, and usually explode outside an aircraft. I'm thinking these pellets are from a SAM warhead. The alloy is probably unusual enough for an expert to tell what kind of warhead.
12 posted on 07/10/2002 7:25:20 PM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: eno_
Riiight.. Orange colored, non-metallic, transparent, 5mm diameter beads are being used in SAM missile warheads to blow aircraft out of the sky. Is this some kind of joke?
13 posted on 07/10/2002 8:35:10 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
the "transparent" thing is just plain wierd, although there are translucent alloys of aluminum. I would not think that would be any advantage in a piece of shrapnel in a SAM. But there is nothing at all wierd about 5mm Al/Ti pellet in a SAM warhead. It is just what one would expect.
14 posted on 07/10/2002 10:07:40 PM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: eno_
"It is just what one would expect"

I'm not trying to be rude here, but it absolutely isn't what anyone with any knowledge of SAM or AA missile warheads would expect. The frag from missile warheads is produced by scoring the inside of the warhead casing. The fragments are designed for a specific destructive effect and range in size from 5 x 1 inch long rods to 1.5 x 1 inch cubes depending on the warhead and missile. The warheads are made of hardened steel. They have to be heavy and strong to ensure the kenetic energy of the fragments is enough to penetrate their target. 5mm, non-metalic beads wouldn't even be useful as birdshot, nevermind missile frag.

15 posted on 07/11/2002 8:12:59 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Eva
All right so what is your best guess? Counterfit parts?

Aluminum from the airplane, titanium from some poor guy's golf clubs.

16 posted on 07/11/2002 8:16:14 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Somehow by random chance alloyed into 5mm spheres? Not very likely. Whatever it is it was almost certainly manufactured.
17 posted on 07/11/2002 8:18:49 AM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: eno_
Somehow by random chance alloyed into 5mm spheres?

That's no big deal. After all, they make (or made) ball bearings by dropping molten metal off a tall tower. The plane dropped for a much longer time, giving plenty of time for a "metal fog" to form droplets that solidified as spheres.

There's still the problem of how such a fog might form, but that, too, might be explained away. Titanium has very high melting/boiling point (3034/5948 degF), but if it came into contact with burning aluminum (~5700 degF).

The missing link would be an ignition source for the aluminum, though it's possible that a high-voltage electrical spark onto a jagged edge might provide the necessary heat.

18 posted on 07/11/2002 8:40:53 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
What do we know about the spheres?......We know their size, we know where they were recovered, and we know their elemental composition. We also know, at least according to BOEING that they didn't come from the airplane.

The FBI report categorizes them as of "unknown origin"

Beyond that, we are left to speculate.
19 posted on 07/11/2002 10:55:05 AM PDT by JohnFiorentino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JohnFiorentino
Beyond that, we are left to speculate.

Agreed. I should probably have more clearly labeled my #18 as speculation.

20 posted on 07/11/2002 10:59:15 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
I do not think there was any evidence in the wreckage of an aluminum fire. It is possible but it happens most often as a result of fire started by munitions, on ships hit by missiles, for example. And even then, the odds of that fire involving, say, a Breitling wristwatch or a Callaway titanium golf club seems on the far side of unlikely. Too bad the article provides such a lousy description of the artifacts.
21 posted on 07/11/2002 11:27:13 AM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: eno_
What would you like me to do?........Make up a description?.....The description posted came from the Brookhaven National Labroratories report. If you feel it is "lousy" perhaps you should write or call and let them know.
22 posted on 07/11/2002 1:07:27 PM PDT by JohnFiorentino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JohnFiorentino
OK maybe I'm stupid, but a "not metallic" pellet containing Al and Ti? Is it or ain't it? Aluminum is a conductor, but it's non-conductive?

There is some public information on what is used in SAM warheads, but it is not possible (for me, anyway) to make a clear ID based on this info, as valuable and intrguiging as it is.

23 posted on 07/11/2002 1:21:57 PM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: eno_
"I do not think there was any evidence in the wreckage of an aluminum fire."

Actually, the final report specifically states wreckage recovered in the "green zone" included melted wiring and aluminum materials.

24 posted on 07/11/2002 1:23:18 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
An aluminum fire is quite another thing. Like a magnesium fire, but much harder to start and much MUCH hotter than molten aluminum, and the only even remotely plausible way to melt titanium. There was no burning aluminum in the wreckage.
25 posted on 07/11/2002 7:03:20 PM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: All
Here's some details from Insight on the pellets found in some Flight 800 victims:

According to Stalcup, "More than that, we have information that shows that 20 unusual .2-inch-diameter round pellets that were found in bodies were withheld from the NTSB but analyzed by the FBI and found to have been made of aluminum titanium matrix and other elements like zirconium, barium and cerium. These are pyrotechnics or incendiary devices, and the matrix structure of these objects is consistent with pellets used in antiaircraft missiles."

The FIRO chairman continues: "In fact, I found a quote in National Defense magazine that was referring to warheads that said 'pellets imbedded in titanium matrix' are used in antiaircraft warheads. The 'secret' [Brookhaven] report analysis concluded that the origin of the pellets is 'unknown' and that one of the pellets was submitted for identification because of its dissimilarity in appearance with TWA 800 debris. ...'"

The Brookhaven report on the pellets was just posted
http://www.twa800.com/pdf/brookhaven-report.pdf

26 posted on 07/15/2002 10:32:51 AM PDT by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Consistent with pellets used WHERE in antiaircraft missiles, and which missiles? Sorry, but this is just baloney. Note the complete lack of actual sources or details. "I found a quote in a National Defense magazine"?!?!?! Give me a break. This is flawed guesswork by non-experts desparately trying to find something to base their faulty theories on. Neither the fuel, explosive or warheads of antiaircraft missiles are composed of pellets.
27 posted on 07/15/2002 9:12:14 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
The pellets were "transparent" but the reference Stalcup seems to refer to is talking about "tungsten pellets embedded in a titanium matrix". Wouldn't tungsten pellets be solid steel?

I have seen web pages that mention pellets used in warheads to add the explosive effect. An important point is that all the elements in the pellets are used in explosives. This page does not mention warheads but mentions a lot of the elements the pellets were composed of.....

PYROTECHNICS, PROPELLANTS AND EXPLOSIVES

Fire generators, for domestic use (matches, fuel pellets for field stoves) or military purpose (incendiary grenades).
· Heat generators. Aluminium has already been mentioned as an incendiary metal. Other incendiary metals include zirconium, magnesium, titanium, and depleted uranium.
http://imartinez.etsin.upm.es/bk3/c15/Pyrotechnics.htm

28 posted on 07/16/2002 7:07:26 AM PDT by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: All
This page lists ALL the elements which the pellets found in victims were composed of under "Propellants, Explosives and Pyrotechnics."

http://www.blazetech.com/ADORA/Chemical_List/Propellants__etc_/propellants__etc_.html

Considering that the pellets were not from the jet, how is this not proof that some kind of explosive device was involved in the crash?

29 posted on 07/16/2002 9:00:27 AM PDT by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama; Rokke
"The Brookhaven report on the pellets was just posted. http://www.twa800.com/pdf/brookhaven-report.pdf "

Huh?

A Brief Summary of a Declassified FBI Report
Subject: The analysis of evidence with possible high energy characteristics at the Brookhaven National Laboratory
Tom Stalcup, Feb. 20, 2002

30 posted on 07/16/2002 12:01:09 PM PDT by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
"The Brookhaven report on the pellets was just posted. http://www.twa800.com/pdf/brookhaven-report.pdf "

Huh?

If you dig just a little deeper you'll find that the actual Brookhaven report starts on page 4.

31 posted on 07/17/2002 9:00:47 AM PDT by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Now why would Elmer Asmodeous Barr want to do that?.........He is much more interested in elevating minutia to a higher sphere.
32 posted on 07/17/2002 12:51:53 PM PDT by JohnFiorentino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Eva
All right so what is your best guess? Counterfit parts?

Aliens done it.

33 posted on 07/17/2002 12:58:40 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnFiorentino
R.I.P. 7/17/96

"So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs." -- Mt 10:26-27

At approximately 8:31pm edt., July 17, 1996 TWA Fl.800 out of Kennedy International Airport, exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off East Moriches, LI. Of the 230 men, women and children aboard the ill fated flight, none survived.

Now, six years later, on the anniversary of the crash, lingering doubts still remain.

The official version of what happened that night places the blame on a "spark" of unknown origin which ignited the fuel vapors in the plane's nearly empty Center Wing Tank. Many choose not to believe this scenario.

After a controversial four year long investigation by the NTSB, assisted by other federal agencies, we have arrived at this point in time, the sixth anniversary of the crash.

This short editorial will not be a critique of that investigation, nor a news item presenting fresh evidence. For today, it somehow seems inappropriate to become embroiled in the continuing controversy that is the Fl800 mystery. Today, is a day to remember. A day to remember the 230 souls who lost their lives. A day to remember champions of the truth, like Cmdr. William S. Donaldson, USN/Ret., who himself passed away in 2001. His brother Bob Donaldson continues in his brothers footsteps. He dutifully maintains the website dedicated to the Fl800 mystery at http://www.twa800.com.

Yes, today we remember. It matters not whether you believe the official version of events, whether you agree with all that Cmdr. Donaldson and others had, and have to say, or whether you sit on the proverbial fence. What matters today, is that we remember.

My deepest sympathies go out to the victims and families of the TWA800 disaster, and to Cmdr. Donaldson, and his family, a victim simply of life’s end. You are not forgotten. The search for the truth continues.








Copyright 2002, John E. Fiorentino


34 posted on 07/17/2002 4:04:40 PM PDT by JohnFiorentino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
The pellets could have come from anything, including the engines or something in the cargo hold. However, they did not come from a missile. The image of an anti-air missile warhead filled with small metallic spheres is not at all accurate. Missile warheads are carefully designed to destroy their intended target. Their designs are very complex, and engineered to maximize the destructive effects of a relatively small amount of explosive and warhead material. That does not include shaking several BB sized pellets into the casing to fill up any extra space. The fragments that impact the target are formed when the warhead casing explodes. They are formed by scoring the inside of the warhead casing with a waffle type pattern to ensure they are the proper size to do the most damage. Not only are the pellets described in this thread too small, but it would be impossible for an exploding warhead to form spherical pellets when it explodes.
Yes, several of the elements described in the reference can be used in explosives or pyrotechnics. But they can also be used in a lot of other things more commonly found in an aircraft, its engines, or even simple electronic equipment. The report does not draw any conclusions about where the material may have come from, which is apparently an open invitation to assume they are some form of otherwise unidentified explosive. Last time I heard about Barium, it was used in enemas, which is probably appropriate for the article that started this thread, because the theories it has generated have a lot to do with $%it.
35 posted on 07/17/2002 5:59:46 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Apparently you never read the thread. If you did, you would quickly realize that your statement re: the spheres possibly coming from the engines makes no sense. Unless of course YOU know more about a Boeing 747 than Boeing does.

If you bothered to read Boeing's reply to the FBI report, which I believe has SOMETHING to do with the title of this thread, you will notice that Boeing says in effect, whatever the spheres are, they DIDN'T come from the aircraft.



BARIUM
Name origin: Greek: barys (heavy or dense).
Description: Soft, slightly malleable, silvery-white metal.
Discovered by: Sir Humphrey Davy
Year: 1808
Place: England
Sources: Found in barytine (BaSO4) and witherite (BaCO3), never found in pure form due to its reactivity. Must be stored under kerosene to remain pure.
Use(s): Barite, or barium sulfate (BaSO4), when ground is used as a filter for rubber, plastics, and resins. It is insoluable in water and so is used in X-rays of the digestive system. Barium nitrate, Ba(NO3)2, burns brilliant green and is used in fireworks
36 posted on 07/18/2002 5:31:19 PM PDT by JohnFiorentino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JohnFiorentino
I think it is pretty clear I've read the thread. The letter you received discusses the actual aircraft. Note the temperature range he mentions concerns the aircraft skin. You may want to send your letter to a GE or Pratt & Whitney engineer and see what they say. Or maybe you could get a cargo manifest from the flight, and see if anything in the cargo hold might have been the source. But here is a better idea...
Why don't you send your letter to every possible missile engineer you can find and try to determine which missile could be responsible for creating 5mm, transparant, non-metallic spheres. Call me silly, but if you are looking for the origin of something, why not go right to the source of where you think your something came from.
37 posted on 07/19/2002 6:04:19 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Did I say they came from a missile?........How could you possibly be aware of the sources I have or will consult?....I believe Boeing is quite familiar with what types of engines are on it's planes.......And why would I be interested in a cargo manifest?........Do you think something went "bang" in there?.......Or maybe we should check out the overhead bin that Tobin was directed to investigate?......Were there signs of an "explosion" in the passenger cabin?.......If not, how do you suppose those people got peppered with these pellets?......Are you familiar with all the different variations of explosive or incendiary devices?......Did William Tobin have any experience examining aircraft wrecks after immersion in salt water?......Where DID the PETN and RDX come from...certainly NOT from the "dog training exercise" as we have been led to believe.....Why does NTSB still refuse to release the autopsy reports?......IF the source of the pellets WAS the cargo hold, how do you suppose people in the passenger cabin wound up with pellets embedded in their bodies IF the explosion took place in the CWT, portions of which are BELOW the passenger cabin?....The NTSB sequencing report gives no clue as to how contents from the cargo hold might be found in victims bodies....does it?
38 posted on 07/20/2002 1:36:34 PM PDT by JohnFiorentino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: JohnFiorentino; All
The curious should check our bump lists for the wealth of infomation & opinions kept on this site about Flight 800 and many other hot subjects:

TWA800_list:

To find all articles tagged or indexed using TWA800_list, click below:
  click here >>> TWA800_list <<< click here  
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)


39 posted on 07/20/2002 1:45:32 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JohnFiorentino
Sorry, I've been away from the computer for a couple days. You ask a lot of questions and I'll try to offer a few answers. First, no you didn't say the pellets came from a missile, but that seems to be the consensus of this thread and of many TWA 800 conspiracy theorists. Your point in all this seems to be there is no logical explaination for the mystery pellets outside of some covered up explosion. I am merely pointing out to you that there are several less sinister possiblities than a missile or a bomb, and the response you shared from the Boeing engineer doesn't exclude any of those possiblities. Jet engines make extensive use of titanium, tungsten, aluminium alloys, etc etc etc..
One doesn't even have to read the NTSB report to understand there was an extensive break up and fire as TWA 800 destructed. As has already been discussed in this thread, it is not beyond the realm of possiblity for melting, burning metal from anywhere on the aircraft to form small pellets that found their way into passengers. You say the passengers were peppered, but from the info you've offered it appears only 20 pellets were found.
You must have a theory concerning these pellets. Share it, and then take the next step and offer some evidence to support that theory. It appears you think they originate from some explosive device. What was it?
40 posted on 07/22/2002 7:55:10 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Well, you seem to have jumped to some conclusions again. Here's my position in a nutshell. The official "investigation" into Fl800 was flawed, rife with inconsistencies, and PERHAPS worse.

That's where I stand. That's why I continue to look into this thing. I do have some opinions, or suspicions, but nothing I would throw out publicly as far as a theory goes.

Let me ask you a question. Let's take one thing at a time. Do you believe the traces of PETN and RDX found on Fl800 were the result of a "dog-training" exercise? If YES......please state your reasons, and your evidence.
41 posted on 07/25/2002 5:03:41 PM PDT by JohnFiorentino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: JohnFiorentino
I find it interesting you won't offer an opinion on the subjects being discussed in a thread you initiated.

With regard to the traces of PETN and RDX found on TWA 800...Yes, I certainly believe they could have found their way onto the aircraft during a dog-training exercise. Thousands of those exercises were/are conducted aboard commercial aircraft every year. I am fully aware of the reports suggesting the exercise that occurred on 10 June must have taken place on a 747 parked next to the future TWA 800 aircraft, so for the sake of argument, lets just say that particular dog-training event never took place. The shelf life of RDX and PETN falls somewhere between 30 and 50 years. What do you suppose the odds are that a dog-training exercise was conducted on the aircraft sometime in its service with TWA? Furthermore, theories suggesting the traces of RDX and PETN came from a bomb or missile must account for the fact that A. the samples weren't co-located, and B. there were no other signs of an explosion associated with the chemicals.

To tie things to the topic of this thread, how is it that if the pellets in question were part of some explosive device, they didn't contain traces of RDX and PETN?
42 posted on 07/25/2002 10:16:29 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Well, I can theorize anything I want re: some dog training exercise having taken place at some time during the life of TWA800, but that isn't the point. The point is the NTSB and FBI hung their respective hats on the erroneous assumption that the 6/10 exercise was conducted aboard 800. The evidence shows otherwise.

The "shelf-life" of RDX&PETN is irrelevant, UNLESS said explosive traces were IN FACT the result of some theorized prior explosives exercise, with the added caveat, that said exercise was conducted in such a manner as to leave residue behind.

It is also a known fact that immersion in salt water, QUICKLY eliminates traces of both these explosive by-products.

So, from an investigatory standpoint, the statements by NTSB and FBI are dubious at best. Schilliro's comments that the 6/10 exercise "took care of the PETN-RDX question" is NOT supported by the evidence. To state at this point, well, it may have come from ANOTHER exercise, or out of your grandmother's underwear is ludicrous. It's sloppy at best, and perhaps more ominous in a worse case scenario. The fact is the traces of explosives MAY in fact be a benign indicator. You can't get to that point however, by failing to identify the source. The suggestion that lack of proper source identity automatically defaults to a benign causation by some sort of factual attrition is unscientific.

The fact that the pellets didn't have PETN-RDX residue could be explained in a myriad of ways. Of course the first assumption which you have made is they should have had traces of explosives if they were from an explosive device. That was never stated here, nor is it accurate on it's face.

My purpose here, is not to prove one way or the other whether the spheres originated from an explosive device. Frankly, from the evidence as it is presented, I don't believe one could draw that conclusion with any degree of accuracy. However, neither can one rule it out.

You're welcome to respond, and then, if you wish, we could tackle some more questions.......I hope you will have the answers to those also.
43 posted on 07/26/2002 4:02:50 AM PDT by JohnFiorentino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JohnFiorentino
You say the NTSB's assumption the 6/10 exercise was conducted aboard 800 is erroneous. What do you base that on? An "investigative" report by a reporter with very questionable motives (Hendrix)? As is reported by both the NTSB and conspiracy reporters "investigating" the exercise, there was almost no documentation of the exercise, and the officer concerned was relying on his memory of something he had conducted 70 days before his interview.

The shelf life of PETN and RDX certainly is relevent, as is the manner the exercises are conducted because it changes the timeline required for such an incident to have taken place from 6/10/96 to any day 30 years prior to the crash. From the officer's recollection of the exercise, it is a sloppy procedure. He recalls det cord dust visibly escaping some of his packages, and he recalls his training aids were stored in direct contact with other military type explosives. Clearly, it isn't beyond the realm of possiblity for PETN and RDX to have been introduced into TWA 800 by one of those exercises. In fact, it would be surprising if it wasn't. Does the specific date matter? Only if your motive is to cast doubt on parts of the NTSB investigation. Not if your goal is to identify how explosive elements made it onto the aircraft.

I'll agree that there is a descrepancy between the NTSB account and subsequent accounts published in tabloids, but it is your choice to believe who you want. You rest your hat on reporters who make their living generating news, and I'll rest mine on sworn testimony presented to Congress. I'm not going to argue that people don't lie to Congress, but at least the penalties for doing so are a lot higher.

With regard to PETN and RDX dissolving in salt water, that would certainly imply the explosive elements were introduced after the crash. Apparently that isn't always true, or somehow the pieces of wreckage containing the microscopic trace elements weren't exposed completely to salt water. A common problem with folks unfamiliar with aircraft accident investigation is they insist everything must be black and white. It is or it isn't. There can be no ambiguity. Well, they are wrong, and unfortunately there is a whole industry developed to take advantage of their ignorance in the form of tabloid reporting, investigative novels and documentary films.

If your purpose in this thread is to provide evidence of controversy in the TWA 800 incident, then I'm afraid you are a bit redundant. I do appreciate the fact that you can present your questions in a generally civil and mature manner. That makes you unique in debate full of dead horses.
44 posted on 07/26/2002 8:45:55 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Here's some questions....YOU produce YOU'RE evidence.....
Why did the Justice Department write off a dozen or more high explosive residue hits on Flight 800 debris as being contaminated from a dog handling exercise done 10 June 1996 in St. Louis when no written record of such training exists?

Why would the FBI find the recollection of the dog trainer credible when his first two guesses as to the date of his training, the aircraft wasn't in St. Louis, and in the third guess the aircraft's recorded departure time was in conflict with his testimony?

Review the following, and make your own assumptions:
http://www.multipull.com/twacasefile/january.html

Just SHOW, not tell me my questions have NO MERIT, and we can move on.
45 posted on 07/26/2002 12:04:02 PM PDT by JohnFiorentino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: JohnFiorentino
Why did the Justice Department write off a dozen... A dozen? I know of three.

...as being contaminated from a dog handling exercise done 10 June 1996 in St. Louis when no written record of such training exists You don't believe an interview with the officer who conducted the exercise can be considered sufficient?

Why would the FBI find the recollection of the dog trainer credible.... Because the manner in which bomb training exercises are conducted explains very well how different types of explosive could be dispersed throughout an aircraft without leaving any signs of an explosion. Despite his inability to recall with complete precision his exercise on 10 June, he has conducted countless similar exercises and knows exactly what he is talking about. His testimony about the nature of his exercise matters more than the timing of it. Especially considering the length of time evidence of the explosives can remain in an aircraft once they've been deposited there. If this were the only bomb sniffing exercise to be carried out in 1996, than maybe his recollection of the timing of his exercise would be more relevant, but with several thousands of these exercises being conducted annually, I think there is a very good chance that the TWA 800 aircraft experienced just what he described at some point in its career.

I don't believe I've ever said your questions have no merit. Now you are the one leaping to conclusions. In fact, I complimented you for the civil nature in which you asked them.

46 posted on 07/26/2002 12:46:21 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
I must say, you continue for some reason, to miss the point. I have done and continue to do investigations for a living. If for example I wanted to present exculpatory evidence in a bombing of an aircraft for instance, and used the reports and documents generated by NTSB, FAA and FBI in the TWA800 case, the prosecution would tear me to pieces. The issue is not whether the dog-trainer was competent, whether he had performed previous exercises, whether those types of exercises are in fact performed on wide body civilian airliners. None of that is relevant. The issue is, was IN FACT the 6/10 exercise performed on the airplane that would be TWA800. Based on the evidence, it appears the answer to that question is no. One can conjecture, guess, or hypothesize ad infinitum, but there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. The facts show the trainer FAILED to write down the tail number of the aircraft, he stated he conducted an exercise that day, and true, there is no reason to doubt him. But was it conducted on Fl800? His statement in NO WAY corroborates the FAA contention. What he did do, was write down the time of the exercise, from that information, it can be deduced that he wasn't on Fl800.

It would have been much more believable if the NTSB had offered such an exercise as a POSSIBILITY, which rightly can be stated as you have, there is that possibility. But that is not what was done. The emphatic statement was made that the 6/10 exercise was performed aboard the questioned aircraft without any verifiable supporting evidence. The resulting "conclusion" coupled with claims of no evidence of any impulsive loading, pitting, etc. was used to categorically rule out a bomb or missile. The fact that traces of PETN-RDX remained after immersion in saltwater IS NOT necessarily an indication that said chemicals were placed on the aircraft after recovery, as you contend, or intimated that I contend. If in fact that were the case, then the dog training scenario would carry even less weight. And in fact, would be contradictory. What it does seem to indicate to me, is that there may have been a rather substantial amount of these chemicals present, before salt water immersion. Lending even more strength to the argument that said residue was in fact not the result of any training exercise, unless you believe it is standard operating procedure to contaminate passenger aircraft with large amounts of hazardous chemicals.
47 posted on 07/26/2002 7:21:00 PM PDT by JohnFiorentino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Let's move on shall we?......Reproduced below are excerpts from an investigative piece I wrote....You tell me why NTSB couldn't id this aircraft. (And thank you for the compliment)


The NTSB "Investigation"
"A Shot in the Dark?"
(excerpts)


Inspector Clouseau beware---the NTSB is gaining on you!



The NTSB, under the direction of it's then director, Jim Hall was apparently unable to identify an aircraft on an ATC, (air traffic control) tape despite the fact that the pilot radioed it's tail number to the control tower!

On the evening of July 17, 1996 a pilot of a private aircraft radioed Gabreski Tower on Long Island that he had witnessed a "boat leaving in a Westerly direction" from the TWA 800 crash scene. The report appears on the Gabreski ATC tape--the pilot gives his tail number as "N776." Although it would turn out this tail number was incomplete, the pilot nonetheless made other statements which would aid any competent investigator in determining the identity of his aircraft. Apparently the NTSB employed no such competent personnel.

The following are from official NTSB documents:
This is from exhibit 3A:
> > >
> > > >>At 0041:27 UTC and again at 0041:37 UTC, an Emergency
Locator
> > Transmitter
> > > signal was
> > > heard on the New York Flight Service Station frequency.
> > >
> > > The tape from Gabreski Tower (FOK) was barely readable.
However, the
> ATC
> > > group was able
> > > to discern a report on the tape of a pilot who reported a
power boat
> > > proceeding west from the
> > > vicinity of the impact site. The identification of the
aircraft was
> not
> > > clear

From exhibit 3E:
> > >
> > > 010545 125.3 N776
> > > 776 I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU HAVE ANY REPORTS
> > > ABOUT THIS THING OUT THERE BUT *** THERE'S
> > > SOMETHING BURNING AND WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THERE
> > > WAS A BOAT LEAVING IT *** TO THE WESTERLY DIRECTION.

During his several communications with Gabreski Tower the pilot of N776 indicated to the Tower--"Skyhawk 776"--another identifier. A "Skyhawk" is a Cessna 172P, fixed wing -- propeller driven, 4-seat aircraft.

In the initial investigation into this anomaly performed by ARAP, (Associated Retired Aviation Professionals, a group headed by Cmdr. William S. Donaldson, USN/Ret) which has been independently looking into Flight 800, the search for N776 was once again unproductive. This search yielded erroneous information which this author quickly refuted. The aircraft was initially traced to an individual in Texas, who did not own a Cessna, his tail number though was indeed N776. The total time spent tracking down ARAP's lead and discovering their mistake was approximately 3 hours. Subsequent investigation and searches of FAA databases have now uncovered the true identity of "N776." The total time expended was several days, at the cost of only several dollars.

Why is it that the NTSB---which expended many millions of dollars and several years---was unable to discover the identity of this aircraft? More importantly, what did the pilot of "N776" actually see? Why is it so important?

This aircraft's pilot is perhaps the only adult individual to view what has now been coined the "30-knot track." What was the 30-knot track? Simply stated, it is a radar return indicative of a surface vessel travelling at 30-knots away from the TWA 800 crash scene. It is the only vessel in the area, which the FBI says it was unable to identify. This radar return also falls within an area established by the FBI from which they postulated the launch of a portable shoulder fired missile or (Manpad) may have taken place.

The information presented here is still being investigated. Will it yield any new clues as to what may have happened to TWA Flight 800?...........




Copyright 2002, John E. Fiorentino





John Fiorentino, is an independent researcher and paralegal investigator, who has been looking into the tragic crash of TWA Flight 800. He is the author of a forthcoming book on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Mr. Fiorentino has also produced several independent musical releases. He is currently employed at a law firm in New Jersey.



48 posted on 07/26/2002 7:40:13 PM PDT by JohnFiorentino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: JohnFiorentino
It is too bad you aren't representing Boeing and TWA as they are both paying out millions of dollars to families of the victims who are suing them on the basis of the conclusions published in the NTSB final report. Apparently, the parties involved don't share your pessimism over the quality of the NTSB's investigation.

You criticize the assumptions made by the NTSB in reaching their conclusions, but apparently find no fault with those of Sanders and Cashill as they attempt to discredit the NTSB investigation (and sell copies of their books and advertise their movie). Do you realize their interaction with the officer involved in the bomb exercise was via some volunteer retired homicide detective. They never even actually talked to the guy. So this retired New Jersey homicide detective tells them that the officer told him blah blah blah. I am NOT a lawyer, but isn't that type of hearsay evidence not usually very reliable? But based on the fact that you linked me to their article, I can only assume that is where you find your evidence to make this statement; "His statement in NO WAY corroborates the FAA contention."

I also believe you overstate the significance of the PETN, RDX portion of the NTSB's final report. Your statement "The resulting "conclusion" coupled with claims of no evidence of any impulsive loading, pitting, etc. was used to categorically rule out a bomb or missile." is a gross mischaracterization of the total investigation that included countless tests, simulations and investigations by several different agencies to rule out the possiblity of a bomb or a missile. I don't know the basis of your contention that the fact that some PETN/RDX residue remained on the wreckage must mean there was a lot to begin with, but after condemning the entire NTSB investigation for making what you believe are faulty assumptions, I'd think you'd be a little more careful about tossing your own around.
49 posted on 07/26/2002 9:20:36 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: JohnFiorentino
That is an interesting article. However, the 30 knot track is only relevent if you believe TWA 800 was shot down by a missile. By the time the Gabreski transcript was produced, investigators were looking at other causes. Since there is no conclusive evidence that a missile was involved, and a considerable amount of evidence that a shoulder launched missile couldn't have downed TWA 800 even if one was launched, then it doesn't really matter what the 30 knot track was, or who was flying N776xx.
50 posted on 07/26/2002 10:35:53 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson