Replies

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.

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.