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.
Clickable reference sources are underlined.
The timeline and location of the major events of the TWA Flight 800 disaster was approximately as follows:
8:31:10 Intact and climbing 747 approaches 13,800 feet.
8:31:11 Initiating Event at 13,800 feet followed immediately by the commencement of the decapitation process.
8:31:47 explosion of Massive Fireball at 5500-7500 feet. The eyewitnesses contend that the Massive Fireball explosion was immediately preceded by the fiery streak.
8:31:50 Eastwind Airline pilot David McClaine’s timestamped radio report of Massive Fireball explosion.
8:31:55-8:31:57 splashdown.
Total elapsed time from Initiating Event to splashdown of Massive Fireball - approximately 44-46 seconds.
From the website of Comdr. William S. Donaldson III USN (ret):
"Breaking News - Analysis of NTSB Exhibit 22c - The recently released radar data has been compared with the NTSB's trajectory study in Exhibit 22c and a careful analysis shows that Exhibit 22c is internally inconsistent. Two different graphs in Exhibit 22c show widely different times for Flight 800 to be in the air. The graph (figure 10) which shows the CIA/NTSB simulation of the aircraft climbing (like a streaking missile) shows the aircraft was airborn for more than 53 seconds. The graph (figure 18) which shows the radar track from the Islip ASR-8 radar shows 9 radar hits which equal 42.2 seconds. A careful sweep by sweep analysis of the raw radar data has shown that there were only 8 radar hits which equals 36.7 seconds. This leaves 16.6 seconds unaccounted for. If the aircraft fell in a ballistic arc from the initial explosion, it would have hit the water after 8 radar sweeps. If the aircraft did a "zoom climb" as postulated by the CIA and NTSB simulations, it would have been at 15,000 ft or 8,000 ft. after Sweep 8 and should have still been visible on radar for another 16 seconds, or 3-4 radar sweeps.
It was not. Because it was already in the water."
"Radar Analysis - Shows missile impact & proves eyewitnesses did not see "Flight 800 in various stages of crippled flight". The eyewitnesses saw a missile!"
NTSB "explanation" video and graphics timeline[partial]:
8:31:11 Initiating Event at 13,800 feet.
8:31:53 Massive Fireball explosion.
EB: The "explanation" videos and graphics are clearly in irreconcilable conflict with other known facts. But where Donaldson sees something sinister in officialdom’s conduct, I see a monumental screwup that arose out of the unprofessional knee jerk reaction of James Kallstrom - from the inital reports of the Massive Fireball explosion having been immediately preceded by the fiery streak - that Flight 800 was the victim of a missile shootdown following which Kallstrom reported his suspicions to Louis Freeh who relayed them to Janet Reno, the White House and the Hatch Committee, was authorized to seize control of the investigation from the NTSB and proceeded to conduct himself like a bull in a china shop while ignoring both fundamental investigation procedures and the reports he began receiving from the outset from his own experts that were contrary to his missile shootdown notion..
The following tells the tale:
[emphasis added]
From Aviation Week May 17, 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Re-interviews Flight 800 Witnesses
James T. McKenna/Washington
Safety investigators are wrapping up their review of hundreds
of eyewitness
accounts of the July 17, 1996, crash of TWA Flight 800, several
officials
close to the investigation said, including the re-interviewing
of witnesses
who were in the best positions that night to see whether a missile
struck
the 747-100.
The wrap-up work by the Witness Group for that accident investigation
comes
as the key federal agencies continued arguing over the conduct
of the probe
into Flight 800's crash into the Atlantic off East Moriches,
N.Y. The crash
killed all 230 on board.
At a Senate hearing May 10, present and former government employees
testified that FBI officials seemed determined to conclude that
Flight 800
was downed by a bomb, that they hindered and mistreated officials
from other
agencies who argued that a problem on the aircraft was more likely,
and that
the FBI violated basic precepts of forensic science and criminal
science in
investigating the crash.
"The leadership of the FBI was a disaster," Sen. Charles Grassley
(R-Iowa),
who chaired the hearing, said.
The Witness Group's reexamination of the eyewitness accounts of
the crash is
one of the last major tasks yet to be completed in the safety
board's Flight
800 crash investigation. NTSB officials hope to conclude the
probe by
year-end, a step that most likely will be taken without identifying
a
specific cause for the explosion of the center fuel tank that
most officials
believe ripped the 747 apart in midair.
The Witness Group includes one representative each from the FAA,
Boeing, the
Air Line Pilots Assn., TWA and the International Assn. of Machinists,
which
represents the airline's mechanics. For the last year, the members
of that
group have been going over more than 2,500 documents containing
notes from
FBI interviews of people who claim to have seen the crash on
the evening of
July 17, 1996.
Their main goal, NTSB and other officials said, has been to sort
those
documents, categorize the information in them and assemble them
into a
verified database that can be searched easily for common threads
in
eyewitness accounts. But they have re-interviewed some eyewitnesses
who
appear to have been in the best position to have observed Flight
800's crash
sequence in real time and to provide a credible account of it.
The Witness Group, for instance, has re-interviewed a number of
pilots in
the air that night who might have seen Flight 800. On Mar. 26,
group members
traveled to Charlotte, N.C., to re-interview the captain of an
Eastwind
Airlines 737 that was passing over Long Island at the moment
the 747
exploded. The 737 was just above Flight 800's altitude of 13,800
ft. and
slightly behind the 747 at the time.
Group members also met with CIA officials Apr. 30 to get briefed
on that
agency's analysis, done for the FBI, that concluded that most
eyewitnesses
could not have seen the initial explosion of Flight 800, only
its immediate
aftermath. The most surprising information from the briefing,
several
individuals said, was the CIA officials' contention that they
told the FBI
as early as December 1996 that there appeared to be no evidence
that a
missile struck Flight 800.
Much of the group's work has been rudimentary. The FBI turned
over more than
2,500 individual documents, called FD-302s, for the bureau form
used to
record the notes of an eyewitness interview. The notes are not
direct
statements of each eyewitness' account but the interviewer's
version of that
account. The FBI fielded more than 1,000 agents to canvas the
New York area
for clues to what might have happened, but interviewers also
included local
law enforcement personnel who turned over notes to the FBI.
Some of the interviews in the days immediately following the crash,
however,
were done by FBI agents in league with analysts from the Defense
Intelligence Agency's Missile and Space Intelligence Center,
who were "among
the U.S. government's foremost experts on shoulder-launched surface-to-air
missiles," Lewis Schiliro testified at the hearing. He is the
assistant
director in charge of the FBI's New York office.
Safety board officials said the organization of the documents
was unclear.
Individual documents, for instance, do not identify whether they
record the
interview of a new witness or the follow-up questioning of one
previously
interviewed. The Witness Group has tried to sort the documents,
separating
accounts of witnesses who actually saw the 747 during the crash
sequence
from those who most likely saw just the aftermath on the surface
of the
Atlantic.
To a limited extent, officials close to the probe said, group
members have
attempted to verify the positions of the eyewitnesses on the
night of the
crash to assess whether they had a clear view of Flight 800.
(continued)
(continued)
The Eastwind airliner was not "just above Flight 800's altitude of 13,800 ft. and slightly behind the 747 at the time" it’s pilot, McClaine, saw "the explosion".
The explosion McClaine saw was the Massive Fireball explosion at 5500-7500 feet at approximately 8:31:47 - 36 seconds after the Initiating Event at 8:31:11 and well over a mile lower in the sky than 13,800 feet.
The reportedly 2000 feet in diameter Massive Fireball explosion was by far the most dramatic visual event in the sky and understanding where it took place and when it took place in the timeline of events is the key to understanding what the witnesses saw.
Almost all of the eyewitnesses saw the Massive Fireball explosion and most of them watched it’s flames fall all the way to the surface. Or at least as far toward the surface as their vantage point and the earth’s curvature permitted. McClaine was an airborne witness and watched the MF flames fall all the way to the surface.
Airborne witnesses Sven Faret & Ken Wendell also saw Massive Fireball explosion take place - below their own flight altitude of 8500 feet - and watched it fall all the way to the surface. They flew over to the smoke cloud it left and found it’s top to be at 7700 feet the sky clear of anything unusual above 7700 feet.
All of the altitude estimates of the airborne witnesses who estimated the altitude of the Massive Fireball explosion were reportedly compatible with the report of Faret & Wendell:
Interestingly, Faret & Wendell thought it was a white landing light that exploded below their 8500 foot flight altitude and McClaine thought it was a yellowish landing light he had been noticing ascending for perhaps as long as 6 minutes that exploded.
That’s where the confusion started about McClaine’s observations. Including in his own mind as what he actually saw became tainted with later input.
And that confusion may well have been a major contributing factor that eventually led to all the untenable "explanation" video’s and graphics.
(continued)
(continued)
The conclusions of Faret & Wendell and McClaine that the different landing lights they thought exploded arose out of the fact that the Massive Fireball explosion was along their same lines of sight as the landing lights, whether between or beyond, creating optical illusions.
Faret & Wendell eventually prepared the following Addendum to their report:
"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 was 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 know why this has never been discussed in any scenarios.
Indeed, none of the "explanation" videos or graphics account for it - nor do any of the missile shootdown theories - nor do any of the missile shootdown websites.
That’s another of the inevitable adverse consequences that arose out of witness "interviews" and witness report "analysis" by FBI agents and/or amateur investigators who lacked the indepth experience necessary to properly and thoroughly interview the Flight 800 witnesses or analyze their reports.
The Flight 800 disaster is uniquely about what the witnesses saw, where they saw it, and when they saw it in the timeline of the events.
(continued)
A very impressive post. I would simply this: it reminds me of the Kennedy assination and the grassy knoll et al.
Regardless of how the plane came down, it must be remembered that many factors, not all of which can be scientifically shown, effect flight. For example, just for the sake of argument, when the nose came off (assuming the official report is correct)how did that effect the cables controlling the plane? No knows because such an effect might only occur in that plane and no where else. Were the throttles locked open to give more power and so on? No knows because the crash would have obscured, if not destroyed that sort of information. The point is with the brief time involved, these could account for the descrepancies involved.
As to the missile idea. Let's assume there was one. Let's assume it was fired by someone on our side by accident or by an enemy who then simply forgot to take credit for his actions in public. If it is on our side, the truth will out. Missles leave chemical traces on metal, in seat cushions, in bodies and so forth. These traces are unique to a missle and its exotic metals, fuels, explosives and so forth. Blast patterns are obvious to the trained eye. Bluntly put, you fire a missile at a plane it leaves a hole in it where a piece of metal formerly was. People who are very skilled in understanding airplanes generally realize that five foot diameter holes in the side of an airplane probably weren't put there by Boeing.
I'm trying not to sound sarcastic here but the fact is almost all the plane was recovered. Any of the lawsuits in progress can test the metal, parts etc. at any time for evidence. I'm sure many have done so and the possibility of all of these tests not finding something is unlikely. Also, remember this point. That missile, if it existed, would leave unexplained parts of itself embedded in the plane. Again people notice things like pieces of a warhead, the fins of a missle and so forth and probably realize they don't belong.
I suspect like many other conspiracy theories, this one will live on forever even if it could be shown that every atom of that plane had been recovered and was gone over by ten thousand experts all concluding the same thing. I think there was no missile. I think, and the latest crash in the Pacific just convinces me more that the airlines are trying to push their equipment too far without doing proper maintenance and upgrade. I don't care what area you talk about. You try that trick once too often and anything can and will happen. The airlines are simply trying to squeek by and time and an aging fleet is catching up with them.
(continued)
The following demonstrates how McClaine’s actual observations became tainted by later input:
0033:48 BBE507 and center for stinger bee ah five oh seven we are directly over the site with that airplane or whatever it was just exploded and went into the water [EB: emphasis added]
[snip]
0037:05 BBE507 thirty three oh five so long stinger five oh seven anything we can do for ya before we go 0037:11 R32 well i just wanna confirm that ah that you saw the ah splash in the water approximately ah twenty southwest of hampton is that right 0037:20 BBE507 ah yes sir it just blew up in the air and then we saw two fireballs go down to the to the water and there was a big small ah smoke *(from) ah coming up from that also ah there seemed to be a light i i thought it was a landing light *(eye) and it was coming right at us at about i don't know about fifteen thousand feet or something like that and i pushed on my landing lights ah you know so i saw him and then it blew 0037:40 R32 roger that sir ah that was a seven forty seven out there you had a visual on that anything else in the area when it happened [EB: The tainting is in progress. Now he knows it was an airplane - even what kind of airplane.]
0037:47 BBE507 i didn't see anything he seemed to be *(alone) i thought it had a landing light on maybe it was a fire i don't know
0037:51 R32 stinger bee five oh seven ah roger that and anything else comes to your mind ah you can use your other radio come back to this frequency and tell me about it
0037:58 BBE507 that's all i can think of at this time
Note that the Kennedy Air Traffic Controller has erroneously assumed Flight 800 "blew up" at 13,800 feet and that McClaine saw it do so - and told him that the yellowish light was the "747". That’s how the earlier mentioned inevitable tainting process takes place - other input, often erroneous, added to what the witness actually saw. Where before McClaine wasn’t even sure from his own observations that an airplane was involved, he’s now been advised it was a 747. The rest of the transcript includes Kennedy ATC calls to the then missing TWA 800 and an I think it was them comment, reportedly from McClaine. There was likely much more other input from people at the airport and he reportedly had a long drive home during which he likely listened to the radio reports about the disaster. He also reportedly had the TV on while he is said to have completed the following report for his airline employer late that night. If the TV was on, guess what it most likely was tuned into. More input.
TWA 800 Explosion Report
Flt. No. BBE507
07/17/96
Eastwind Airlines
Destination: KTTN
B-737-200
N22IUS
O/O Time: 1951/2010L
O/I time:2101/2103L
Capt D. McClaine #203
F/O: V. Fuschetti 215
Domicile:GSO
Occurence Location: Hampton 236 Radial 20 DME
Ocurrence Time: About 2030 Local
Wx Conditions: High Cirrus Clouds, Dusk, 40 vis
Report: Flying over the sandy point VOR we asked for the 247 radial off Sandy Point to intercept the Hampton 236 Radial (V-139), and were denied because of traffic. So we proceeded to Hampton as we were filed and on the way were told to decend from FL 240 to FL 200. Just prior to the descent; I spotted TWA 800 which appeared to have either one landing light ON , or two very close together ON. It was a very bright light and was moving somewhat toward us, but still crossing our path from right to left. The light was a little off color for a landing light so at first I thought it might be a fire, but didn't see any smoke trail which still should have been visible at the time if there were one. So I passed it off as a landing light from a very large aircraft such as a B-747 which appeared to be just out of JFK. It was definitely the brightest light in the sky.
Just as we were about to level off at FL200 we were told to descend to 16,000 MSL with a good rate through FL180. Passing through FL180 we turned over Hampton to intercept the 236 Radial. Passing 17,000 feet I flicked ON my left inboard landing light to signal the other aircraft, (TWA 800) that I had him in sight. The aircraft appeared then to be slightly left of our 12:00 position (about on the Hampton 236 Radial) and at about 15,000 to 13,000 feet MSLat about 15-19 DME. 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.)
Note that the title is TWA 800 explosion report and that McClaine now indicates the altitude of the explosion he saw was at about 15,000 to 13,000 feet.
The following article is of related interest:
newsday.com / Long Island / Crash of TWA Flight 800
