TWA 800...FOIA battle yielding results

[btacon 1,817]

I've not posted on this topic for years. Not because I lost interest, but because it has taken years for new evidence to emerge from numerous FOIA requests, that until recently were being stonewalled by govt agencies.Capt Ray Lahr, a former Navy Pilot, a retired United Airlines Pilot and former Safety Representative for the Airline Pilots Association has been one of the key champions behind an ongoing FOIA suit asking for the evidence that drove the NTSB to the conclusion that TWA 800 was brought down by an explosion that initiated inside the center wing tank, not a bomb or a missile. Key to that conclusion was the "zoom climb" scenario that the CIA said was the reason for the 700+ eyewitness accounts of a missile streaking towards the aircraft. A multitude of experts, the Boeing Corporation, and many laymen including myself believe the "Zoom Climb" never happened, more importantly the laws of physics make it a complete impossibility. If that is true, just what did those hundreds of witnesses see?On September 18th of 1996, a federal court ruled there was enough evidence to support Lahr's claim of, at the least, incompetence in the investigation and subsequent explanation for the crash of TWA 800 and instructed the govt agencies to work with Lahr to satisfy his FOIA requests: http://twa800.com/news/nlj-9-18-06.htmIn his ruling, Matz recognized Lahr's numerous reasons for believing that the government participated in a massive cover-up, such as conflicting eyewitness testimony and the physically impossible "zoom-climb" theory on which the investigation is based. The judge said that "taken together, this evidence is sufficient to permit Plaintiff to proceed based on his claim that the government acted improperly in its investigation of Flight 800, or at least performed in a grossly negligent fashion. Accordingly, the public interest in ferreting out the truth would be compelling indeed."Since then Lahr has obtained some new evidence from the FBI files (apparently sent accidentally) that shows the govt knew of a test firing of a MANPAD Missle 5 days before the crash of TWA 800 just off of Long Island, in the same area as the reported missile of July 17th 1996."In this latest development, the FBI has released, apparently in error, a formerly totally redacted analysis of a video shot on L.I., New York on July 12, 1996. This was just 5 days before the July 17, 1996 disaster.The video, analyzed by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) on July 23, 1996 "advised that after a visual analysis of both the videotape as well as a number of still photographs taken from various portions of the tape, the phenomenon captured by (redacted) appeared to be consistent with the exhaust plume from a MANPAD missile." While the document indicates there were scanned images of the still photographs attached as an appendix, Capt. Lahr received no accompanying photographic images."http://twa800.com/news/fiorentino-8-24-07.htmFinally, on Aug 24th 2007, the documentary "Silenced...Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice" was placed on You Tube in it's entirety. This well done and compelling documentary details a very strong case which directly contradicts the official NTSB findings. The video relies on direct interviews with scores of witnesses and experts, and even the govt's own evidence and findings. If you have any interest in the tragedy of TWA 800, take 60 minutes of your time and watch the 6 segments in their entirety. Even if you don't agree with the conclusions of the documentary, you will have to agree it is a compelling case.http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...t&search=SearchI'll not post anything more on this topic, but I might just reply to this thread if appropriate.Cheers,bt

[Guest CRJ700FO]

kennedy shot by the second gunman. 9/11 caused by bush or israel. yadda yadda yadda. twa 800 sadly joins the list.you know FACTS get in the way of conspiracy theories. let's look at a typical MANPAD device, the FIM-92A "stinger" listed by Fiorentino in his "article". lets look at what he says:"Examples of lethality include 1) the Afghan mujahedeen killing of 269 Soviet aircraft with 340 such missiles, 2) Desert Storm evidence that IR missiles produced 56% of the kills and 79% of the Allied aircraft damaged, and 3) civil aircraft experiencing a 70% probability of a kill given a MANPADS hit."1) The Soviet aircraft he refers to are HELICOPTERS flying low and slow.2) Desert Storm hits from ground to air missiles have been proven now to be VASTLY OVERRATED (especially the Patriot system) by the government and Raytheon (so they could sell MORE missiles to us).3) Where is this 70% statistic from? A modern day Airbus taking off in Iraq being hit, again while it is LOW and SLOW.How about FACTS? What is the ceiling of our advanced Stinger? Oh yeah less than the altitude TWA 800 was at (and a lot less than what twa800.com reports it as). The SA-7 is even less. Cdr. Donaldson is simply no different than those misguided individuals (teenagers) who made Loose Change.If al Qaeda has these missiles why have no military a/c (other than helicopters) been shot down in Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan?The DIA has also claimed wmd's in iraq. The location of bin laden was easy to find. etc. But it's ok to believe one analysts opinion of video footage.For further proof of conspiracy nonsense simply look at the link to AA587 on twa800.com. So because of a poorly designed rudder section plus a first officer who flew a transport airplane improperly, that's too now suspect for Bin Laden.Here are some unadulterated facts, not opinionated ones, regarding the stinger.http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stinger.htm

[btacon 1,817]

Hello Captain:Well I don't know about Kennedy, nor does Congress apparently. From the House Select Committee on Assassinationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Select_...K_assassination1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President.2. The third shot he fired killed the President. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations. 3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.As for 9/11...I'm no truther, so please don't put me in that category. I saw the second plane hit, and I observed the towers fall. As far as the Stingers range goes, it does indeed have a rated ceiling of 12,500 feet and an engagement range of 15,700 feet. Those numbers are the nominal ranges, and I agree it would be improbable (but not impossible) for a Stinger to contact a target at the altitude TWA 800 was reporting at the timehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinger_missile#See_alsoAt the same time, there is no reason that a missile, if used to down TWA 800 would be a US made Stinger. The Soviets have developed MANPADS including the IGLA and IGLA-1 more than capable of striking an aircraft at 13,700 feet.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-18_Grouse#...o_other_MANPADSFinally, what if it was a tragic screw up? There were military exercises going on at the time. Some people have proposed that perhaps it was a result of a mistake being made during Naval exercises that were going on in the area. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/C...SE_AGAINST.htmlOne compelling argument made by the above linked author is striking in it's simplicity and logic. Immediately following the accident:* Lots of reliable folks, pilots (and purportedly RADAR data) reported a "missile"* Logic would have that in the face of that unknown, a full-scale search would be launched for the source of the missile.* Not knowing if another missile may be in the area, logic would have diversion of aviation traffic until such time that it would be reasonable to call an "all-clear"* But none of this happened...why? Perhaps we knew the source of the missile all along, therefore there was no need to search any further, no need to divert civil aviation.Regardless...none of this is "fact", including the NTSB conclusion of an air/fuel explosion in the center wing tank. All of these possibilities are nothing more than theories. I say view the documentary if you wish, look at the evidence, and make up your own mind. We may never know the real truth, especialy in light of recent revelations around the FBI's lack of truthfullness in releasing information requested under FOIA.http://flight800.org/pr_rel_11_03.htmhttp://flight800.org/ruling_10_24_03.htmhttp://flight800.org/release_7_04.htmhttp://flight800.org/secret_documents.htmhttp://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchiv.../900745447.htmlBut that does not mean we should stop asking questions.Peace...bt

[btacon 1,817]

An analysis based upon NTSB and Boeing datahttp://www.scientificblogging.com/johnfior...ible_zoom_climbbt

[Tabs 2,790]

So the government (the Clinton administration no less, not the current secrecy minded one) can cover up the accidental shootdown of a fully loaded 747 leaving KJFK but they weren't able to (and admitted to the accident almost immediately) when the USS Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iranian A300 in the Persian Gulf?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655How many times have we all seen interviews on CNN or whatever where people who witnessed aircraft accidents say things that we trained observers and aircraft enthusiasts immediately know are false? Like "I heard the engine quit" or "The plane was on fire" when there's photos or video clearly showing that to not be the case. I clearly remember someone saying that AAL587 was on fire before it crashed on the day that happened and the real cause was the separated tail fin, no fire until it hit the ground. You also have the power of suggestion at play with TWA800 I think - one or two people start talking about missiles and streaks going up from the water and next thing you know there's a bunch of people saying they saw that. This is proven psychological science, they've done tests on it with other traumatic events like witnessing crimes or terrible road accidents. People who were all there and saw it disagree on what happened and can believe something that didn't happen did, all via suggestion.This is all before we even get to the logistical nightmare that such a coverup would entail? No one blew the whistle anywhere? There would be people on the ship that launched it, NTSB investigators, people in the Pentagon and other parts of the government etc... I find that very hard to believe that absolutely no one would talk or provide evidence.

[Guest CRJ700FO]

research fuel tank explosions from arcing wiring. its happened lots before. as far as the government committee on assasinations, lots of drugs were done in the 70's by congressman. :) government committees are for political purposes and not for getting the facts, remember it was a government committee that originally came up with the magic bullet theory.pilots reports ufo's but that still doesn't mean its true. i see lots of stuff up there, but 99.9999% of it is in my mind. EVERY HUMAN has this, this is how illusionists make a living.as someone else mentioned, the us navy sailors wouldn't keep it a secret that they shot down a 747. heck they leaked a video of the vincennes and them cheering as the iran air airbus was shot down (at 8,000'). you are simply adding another conspiracy on top of another one.i know a fair amount of TWA folks, i will get the comments of perhaps the most famous TWA pilot still out there, Barry Schiff, and report back what his thoughts are.

[btacon 1,817]

"i know a fair amount of TWA folks, i will get the comments of perhaps the most famous TWA pilot still out there, Barry Schiff, and report back what his thoughts are"http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/wndarchive/25379.htmlBut Barry did have this to say about AA 587"If wind turbulence caused that accident, I'll never fly again," said Barry Schiff, who flew 747s for TWA."Cheers,bt

[Tabs 2,790]

That article is ridiculous. It's the same sort of false argument a bunch of the 9/11 truth folks use - because something has never happened before, it is impossible.It wasn't "wind turbulence" that the NTSB blamed, but the overuse of the rudder during the crossing of the 747's wake turbulence. Should this happen to a normal airliner under normal operation? No, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. The only thing that says it shouldn't is the FAA certification on the aircraft. Does anyone seriously believe that such certifications are absolutely infallible right up to the edges of the flight envelope and when performing very aggressive control inputs? Did the FAA take an A300 up and violently jam the rudder back and forth when coming up with this certification?You're not supposed to be able to lose all 3 hydraulic systems and thus all control surfaces in a DC-10 either, but that too happened with the United 232 accident. I didn't see anyone saying that one was a conspiracy and cover up. Funny how that doesn't happen when people on board who dealt with the malfunction survive the crash...And let's get this straight - so a terrorist sabotages an airliner just weeks after 9/11 happened. The public is already more than aware that the country is vulnerable to attack from terrorists, and yet apparently the government would cover this up rather than tell the truth and use it as another justification for the developing war plans? This does not make sense, especially considering the evil-genius level intelligence many of the same people accuse this administration of having. If they'd blamed terrorism for the crash, those same people would probably be alleging THAT was the cover up.

[KevinAu 441]

If you're going to drag the memory of AA587 into this insane discussion, at least use current information. The investigation results found that AA587 did not crash because of turbulence, but because of a design peculiarity of the A300 rudder system and the pilot flying's use of the rudder pedals. In the A300, and as in most other jet aircraft, the rudder maximum travel gets limited as the plane goes faster so as to prevent excessive forces. However, on most other aircraft, the rudder pedal's full travel will correspond to the rudder's current full travel at current speed. But in the A300, this is not the case. At high speed, there is no corresponding reduction in pedal input, so that in this case, 1/4 throw of the pedals commanded a full throw of the rudder. (Even simpilots probably will realize this is not a good situation and will attempt to make it behave otherwise with fsuipc calibration functions.) The flying pilot's rapid and large rudder reversals in response to flying through some wake turbulence induced stresses on the tail that no aircraft are certified to withstand. The tailfin ripped off and the tumble out of the sky ripped off the engine pods. If you want to make a conspiracy out of this one, these are the facts you will need to debunk.

[Guest PARADISE]

I agree, there is no way that all the navy personel involved with a training exercise , which literaly numbers in the thousands , could keep an incident like accidentally shooting down an airliner secret.A lot of those sailors are probably retired from the navy by now and just think of the money one could make by writing a book about such an incident and cover up.John M

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>"i know a fair amount of TWA folks, i will get the>comments of perhaps the most famous TWA pilot still out there,>Barry Schiff, and report back what his thoughts are">>http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/wndarchive/25379.htmlyou use an article written right after the accident by some ex military idiot as PROOF of AA587 sabotage. no NTSB investigation needed, Geoff Metcalf knows all! ask Geoff if the Canadian Airbus 300 that had the rudder fall off in the Caribbean was sabotage. ask Geoff why AA's Advance Maneuvering Program, of which I have seen, was edited and a visibly older CA Van Sant (sp?) was reedited not stressing rudder movement. AA trained their pilots to fly an A300 like an F15 with aggressive rudder and it tore the tail off of a weakly designed airplane. The only reason not a lot of attention was paid to this was:a) mostly dominicans died in the crash.:( it is right after 9/11 and frankly the country was a bit numbc) the war in afghanistan had just started.>But Barry did have this to say about AA 587>>"If wind turbulence caused that accident, I'll never fly>again," said Barry Schiff, who flew 747s for TWA."Barry's opinions are in check on the air. Ask him in private about the flying "skills" of AA pilots and he will give you his personal opinion. There is no love lost between TWA folks and AA folks after what AA did to the airline they loved.

[KevinAu 441]

>Hello Captain:>>>>As far as the Stingers range goes, it does indeed have a rated>ceiling of 12,500 feet and an engagement range of 15,700 feet.> Those numbers are the nominal ranges, and I agree it would be>improbable (but not impossible) for a Stinger to>contact a target at the altitude TWA 800 was reporting at the>time>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinger_missile#See_also>>At the same time, there is no reason that a missile, if used>to down TWA 800 would be a US made Stinger. The Soviets have>developed MANPADS including the IGLA and IGLA-1 more than>capable of striking an aircraft at 13,700 feet.>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-18_Grouse#...o_other_MANPADS>>Finally, what if it was a tragic screw up? There were>military exercises going on at the time. Some people have>proposed that perhaps it was a result of a mistake being made>during Naval exercises that were going on in the area. >>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/C...SE_AGAINST.html>>One compelling argument made by the above linked author is>striking in it's simplicity and logic. Immediately following>the accident:>>* Lots of reliable folks, pilots (and purportedly RADAR data)>reported a "missile">* Logic would have that in the face of that unknown, a>full-scale search would be launched for the source of the>missile.>* Not knowing if another missile may be in the area, logic>would have diversion of aviation traffic until such time that>it would be reasonable to call an "all-clear">* But none of this happened...why? Perhaps we knew the>source of the missile all along, therefore there was no need>to search any further, no need to divert civil aviation.>>>bt>Here is the problem with what you are proposing. The points that you make there remind me of somebody looking at a mysterious object, putting the pieces together and saying, "well it could be a train or a plane." Two very different things that have entirely different characteristics that have conflicting and excluding characteristics.If a missile was fired by terrorists it would be a manpad. A manpad is a very small missile. The biggest problem with calling this a terrorist manpad attack is that the witnesses claim they see a missile. From the distances these witnesses are watching it from, you would not see a missile if it was a manpad. At that altitude, the motor would have burned out long, long ago, all these witnesses would have been able to see would be a five foot long, 6 inch diameter, green or gray pole coasting towards the 747 from twenty miles away and 13,000' up.If a missile was fired by an AEGIS cruiser, it would be an SM2 missile that would be perfectly capable of hitting the 747 at that altitude. If it was an SM2, then you could have witnesses from miles away saying they saw a missile since a SM2 is pretty big, white, and would still be burning at these altitudes.If a missile was fired by a US submarine, with a classified and unacknowledged system to fire a SAM from underwater, it would most likely have been a Stinger, and not some big a$$ed bird like the SM2. But refer back to the other paragraph about terrorist manpads for the problems with this situation.So what is it? Did they see a missile or did they not see a missile? You're proposing these theories here but they have such disparate characteristics that something, somewhere about the "facts" that are being cited cannot be true.

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>If you're going to drag the memory of AA587 into this insane>discussion, at least use current information. The>investigation results found that AA587 did not crash because>of turbulence, but because of a design peculiarity of the A300>rudder system and the pilot flying's use of the rudder pedals.> In the A300, and as in most other jet aircraft, the rudder>maximum travel gets limited as the plane goes faster so as to>prevent excessive forces. However, on most other aircraft,>the rudder pedal's full travel will correspond to the rudder's>current full travel at current speed. But in the A300, this>is not the case. At high speed, there is no corresponding>reduction in pedal input, so that in this case, 1/4 throw of>the pedals commanded a full throw of the rudder. (Even>simpilots probably will realize this is not a good situation>and will attempt to make it behave otherwise with fsuipc>calibration functions.) The flying pilot's rapid and large>rudder reversals in response to flying through some wake>turbulence induced stresses on the tail that no aircraft are>certified to withstand. The tailfin ripped off and the tumble>out of the sky ripped off the engine pods. If you want to>make a conspiracy out of this one, these are the facts you>will need to debunk.actually the A300 was below Va. conventional wisdom BEFORE AA587 was full movement of controls below Va was acceptable. the difference is AFTER AA587 the phrase ", but not repeated or full reversal of controls," is added into the flight manuals of transport aircraft. AA587 changed the pilot's interpretations of Va.just rewatched the NTSB animation, 240kts was the speed of the a/c at the accident.

[Guest CRJ700FO]

some details on the SM2 (and not from wikipedia).http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...ns/sm-specs.htmif it can shoot down a ballistic missile, then yes a 747 would be fairly easy. however the lack of video, statements, and documentation from the bridge crew of an AEGIS cruiser i think satisfactorily eliminates the USN as the culprit of TWA 800. besides i think there were no AEGIS cruisers in the area, rather 3 submarines (an older Sturgeon, an LA class attack sub, and an Ohio boomer).

[KevinAu 441]

>>actually the A300 was below Va. conventional wisdom BEFORE>AA587 was full movement of controls below Va was acceptable.>the difference is AFTER AA587 the phrase ", but not repeated>or full reversal of controls," is added into the flight>manuals of transport aircraft. AA587 changed the pilot's>interpretations of Va.Va has nothing to do with the crash and I don't believe I mentioned it in my post either. But one of the issues that arised from this accident is what exactly is Va? Va is built on the intersection of stall speed and load limit. You stall before you break the plane. I know you know that. What does the rudder have to do with pulling G's? Nothing. The forces associated with rudder reversals will break a plane well below published Va. This was something that has always been known by manufacturers but never made an issue of or clarified to operators before this accident. The phrase you quote added to the manual is mild and will not serve to prevent this from happening again.