Isn't your reply a sad (but accurate) commentary on the state of affairs? When there is no trusted public body, and therefore no trusted investigation, then all sorts of calumny can be inferred. On reflection, however, that may not be so sad--mistrust of government is healthy.

When you have the CIA producing cartoons of an accident that seem to defy the laws of physics then, maybe, simpler demonstrations are required. The specifications for petroleum products are available and he could have just referred to them but then only a knowledgeable engineer would have understood the volatility, flashpoint and ignition requirements that would cause the fuel to burn.

NASA conducted a test at White Sands where a B-707 was propelled into iron stakes which ripped open its wings and then the whole airframe struck a berm. They knew that most people who survived the crash usually succumbed to the resulting fire. they filmed this thing from many angles and drew significant results. I saw Kallstrom on a talk show, possibly O'Reilly, state categorically that the diesel fuel in the center fuel tank exploded!

The FBI interferred in every way to fowl up this investigation. So who do you believe? Boeing, The Aviation Mechanics Union, NASA, or the CIA and Kalstrom who may have been covering the whole thing up because of 1996 being an election year and nobody in the White House wanted to explain the "heat".

As the roots of 911 are being investigated there was too much going on in '96 that point to a mega policy failure by the Clinton Administration. Commander Donaldson reported on a Maryland State Police report of an abandoned French Man Portable Antiaircraft weapon system found on a rural road. How did it get there? Did the French leave it behind? Did a local order it from E-Bay? This system was larger then a shoulder fired version and had the range to bring down Flight 800. Why was it never reported? Go to the TWA 800 site and see a picture of this weapon and then know that other commercial aircraft have been brought down by terrorists. what's the odds?

Any idea if any Sea Sparrows are equipped with warheads that use ceramic balls?

From last year's discussions, we determined that the Sea Sparrow can use either a Continuous Rod (CR) warhead, or a Annular Blast Fragmentation warhead.

Brigadier General Benton K. Partin, who was instrumental in developing continuous-rod systems thinks that is was a CR warhead that destroyed TWA 800.

Accuracy in Media reports;

"Retired Brigadier General Benton Partin, who helped design missiles for the Air Force, has said that the Brookhaven Laboratory’s analysis of the composition of the mysterious pellets suggests to him that they came from a missile".

As far as General Partin's analysis of the damage to TWA 800, I'll post that below..

What destroyed TWA-800?

"I did the initial, design, development and test of the first several continuous-rod warheads for the BOMARC missile in the 1956-57 time period. This was done at the Ballistic Research Labs at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland...and Socorro, New Mexico.

A proximity fused, continuous-rod (CR) missile warhead is the only target destruction system I know that would be consistent with all damage assessment information I have seen in the open media.

The destrucitve mechanism is unique to that type of warhead. You would not see blast or blast-frag damage. Neither would you see residuals from explosives. The instantaneous kill is unique to that warhead type. The CR warhead is the most difficult to perfect even with many design iterations.

I would encourage you to have someone reassess the recovered structure who is familiar with the unique structural kill of a CR warhead."

- Brigadier General Benton K. Partin USAF (Ret)

Note: This letter faxed to the chief TWA-800 investigator in New York never received a reply.

Continuous-rod warhead functioning in a test arena - China Lake

Oversimplification of a "continuous-rod"
warhead expansion in progress

Set off by a proximity fuse before striking the plane, the rapidly expanding continuous-rod slices through the fuselage across its midsection

The plane splits in two in midair

The wreckage recovered is completely consistent with destruction by this type of weapon - a highly sophisticated missile

Any idea if any Sea Sparrows are equipped with warheads that use ceramic balls?

One more thought on that..

I'd have to wonder if a continuous rod warhead uses ball bearing assemblies to join the rods together.

Now there's a thought! Continuous rod warheads are not an amateur production, and tricked-out parts like ceramic bearings would not be unexpected (the material IS used in bearings). I was thinking ceramic shrapnel, but you may be closer to the truth. In fact, why balls if it is shrapnel? Very interesting.

Bump!

Your postings have been typical of those made by the skinhead wing of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats that routinely have included deliberate and deceitful spin, distortions and fabrications to obscure the issues coupled with Storm Trooper efforts to badger, bully and harass your targets.

Such shrill ad-hominems are the hallmarks of a losing argument.

Why do you like to take up Jim Robinson's server space and bandwidth by posting the same exact material from thread to thread? I'll limit my response to this duplicate post of yours by simply providing a link to my response to you on the other thread...

Get a clue Asmodeus.

My response to Asmodeus can be read by clicking on Retired Airline Pilot sues NTSB for "Zoom-climb" data - post#641

What goes up must come down (usually).

I am puzzled by the failure to analyze the many probable trajectories of missile warhead parts and pieces, and missile body parts and pieces --- after the moment of explosion --- and which parts and pieces DID NOT project from the center of that explosion, radiating toward areas of the airframe.

The NTSB, the FBI, and especially the metallurgist, Mr. Tobin (not to mention the others at the Senate hearings, see doc.: S. Hrg. 106-534, May 10, 1999) --- nobody mentions then, nor in what I have managed to read so far (quite a lot of the NTSB and ARAP material, their 1998 interim report; also Ian Goddard's three part journal), the following.

In particular, the parts and pieces --- the OTHER projectiles --- which would have been "launched" from the explosion of the missle warhead and body, radiating forward along the path of the aircraft, in the fashion of "golf ball" trajectories.

Pick any from among your golf clubs, to view the many possible arcs ... upwards ... forwards ... and then down ... at the drag-induced "lower velocity" speeds which the NTSB has dismissed ... striking the airframe's remnants from above.

I'm referring to the various round holes as in Ian Goddard's Journal I:

"according to Exhibit 15B, two small holes found in the horizontal pressure deck above the wing landing-gear bay"
[NTSB Exhibit 15B]

[and the other two holes]
"holes through fuselage ceiling roughly over cwt"
[which are no.'s 1 and 2 w orange paint in the illustration].

TWA 800 very probably traveled into at least some of the descending parts and pieces from the missile warhead and body explosion.

Where all these "little missiles" came down and impacted the airframe and its remnants, may help to understand more of the sequence of airframe de-construction.

You may be impressed by the accuracy of Mr. Paul J. Angelides' statement, at the ARAP.

The further information is appreciated. There is much to learn from these posts for those willing to sift through them.

Thanks.

You might be interested in post #204 and #205..

I am puzzled by the failure to analyze the many probable trajectories of missile warhead parts and pieces, and missile body parts and pieces --- after the moment of explosion --- and which parts and pieces DID NOT project from the center of that explosion, radiating toward areas of the airframe.

There IS some analysis of the missile parts by Commander Donalson on his website, although that page is currently unavailable for some reason..

I'll post a link in case it reappears, and post the pertinant section of the analysis.

From Radar Analysis:

Evidence of a Missile

A Sweep by Sweep analysis of the radar data clearly depicts a plume of very high velocity metal exploding out of the aircraft's right side at approximately 20:31:13. The lead ejecta almost certainly has to be a missile body! With the aircraft on a heading of 071 degrees True, this radar contact separated laterally from the aircraft track on a ballistic trajectory of 190 degrees True, traveling about 3,200 feet in less than 7 seconds. This 119 degree change of direction and high velocity could not possibly have been the result of a Center Wing Tank explosion.

This is not theory or speculation, but hard physical evidence. It takes almost 2 seconds for a bullet fired from a military sniper rifle to travel that distance. Only a missile body, with it's hundreds of thousands of foot pounds (ft/lbs)* of kinetic energy would have the inertia to perform this way on radar. It only takes 6,000 ft/lbs of energy for a 50 caliber heavy machine gun bullet to punch through 3/8 inch thick steel plate. Boeing 747's are constructed of various aluminum alloys and rarely in thickness' exceeding 1/2 inch.

With this much energy, the missile body would slice through the aircraft "like a bullet through a tin can", just as I stated in my April 24, 1997 letter to the Wall Street Journal, in response to Chairman Hall's "It wasn't a missile" letter to the same paper. It is startling to note also that the trajectory of the ejecta (missile body & other parts) is on a direct line from an unidentified boat, 2.9 nautical miles to the Northeast of Flight 800 when it exploded.

* [ 15lb missile body @ 1500 ft/sec, apply 1/2 MV squared = 524,720 ft/lbs of energy ]

I have to disagree with Commander Donaldson's analysis here a bit, as his math is a bit off..

He states that the ejected object traveled at 3200 feet in about 7 seconds, yet he states the speed as 1500 feet/sec. That's obviously wrong. He also neglects to convert the weight of the missle body from pounds to the unit of mass in the foot-pound-second system, which is a slug.

So the velocity should be;
v = 3200/7 = 457 feet/sec

The equation for kinetic energy is;
E = (m * v²)/2, where;
E = Energy (foot pounds)
m = mass (slugs)
v = velocity (feet/sec)

A slug = 32.17 pounds, so we'll add that to the equation to convert from pounds to slugs..

E = (m * v²)/64.34

Solving for E, we have;
E = (15 * 457²)/64.34 = 48,690 foot pounds

I'd say that value would ALSO suggest a missile, as its energy is still extremely high..

As the muzzle energy of a .50 BMG rifle round is a little over 12,000 foot pounds, I'd say that 48,690 foot pounds is A LOT of energy. In comparison, a .308 rifle bullet has a muzzle energy of about 2520 foot pounds, and IT can pass through a telephone pole or a tree....

Then again, there IS that pesky inertia of the plane that we need to consider. One thing becomes obvious after staring at the radar graphic long enough. The trajectory of the possible missile doesn't match up with the supposed time of the initiating event which allegedly occured at 20:31:12. I'd say the missle trajectory is just a little off, as it should appear as going slightly more to the west and then south, striking TWA 800 at exactly 20:31:12. If you look at the ejecta from the missile strike in THAT respect, you can see that the debris fell with a vector consistent with debris being ejected at high speed in the direction of the blast and retaining some of it's original velocity at the original course...

As I mentioned if you look at the trajectory of the missile as going more towards the west and then straight south to impact at 20:31:12, you can see how the debris is ejected at a vector which would suggest a high speed ejection towards the south with a small component of TWA800's original course summed into it, and then fragments of TWA 800 falling towards the sum of the ejecta's velocity (direction and speed) and the TWA800's original velocity.

Of furthur interest is the nose and related debris, along with many objects southwest of the nose debris which apparently aren't given much attention on the above image. Now THAT is another story as far as where and when the SECOND missile hit and where it came from....

Noted. Thank you.

I'll be back.

A four-engine aircraft leaking fuel from airframe failure, leaves a larger "squiggly" or "cigar roll" of white smoke trailing it, than it does during the normal circumstances of "dumping fuel. A normal fuel dump is a sight to behold, even still. A plane leaving a contrail, and then dumping from all vents, looks like, well, "an aerial stunt." It makes a really significant cloud.

Some of the witnesses to the after - missile - impact - flight - trajectories of the 747 airframe (that's plural, because there are a series of them, connected end-to-end as the remaining aircraft movement was uncontrolled) ... do not provide enough of a description of the vertical rise of a missile launch; they only cover the possible arch of a missile.

If they were northeast of TWA 800's location, the "flight" of the stricken aircraft could have appeared to be a rising, depending upon when they were looking at it, some of them would have seen an "orange" -like something, arching up, trailing white smoke, and then down (paraphrasing). The aircraft has already had its first explosion(s), thus the trails behind the "orange."

Even setting aside those witnesses, there are definitely plenty of witnesses who do describe a missile launch: the near vertical rise, etc. Some of these witnesses, depending upon their distance to the launch, detected literally the telltale "squiggle" of smoke from the missile's exhaust; while others of them might not have detected that "squiggle."

What a person would see, what they could see, what registers of what they would see, and what registers of what they could see, and why things register or do not, are all to be looked for in their statements and their backgrounds.

I would give Maj. Meyer much credit; not because of his past in terms of his service to our country, but because of this:

How a witness responds, is not only by what they are watching, yet it is also by what is in their registers already, and what such information triggers as the forms of their response.

Maj. Meyer's remarks do respond to his registers, though portions of his description are about an "arching" but no vertical launching.

What get's your attention is not what you first report, on many occasions of watching something happening at high speed. In fact, quite often, some thing "out of the ordinary" occurs to trigger your reflexes to "swing around" and "take notice."

We have, as humans, various recorder systems. That triggering event, registers, but is not so easy to recall --- that ability varies from person to person. The "start the tape" portion tends to be filled with description and is substantially reported over a series of interviews, as well as challenged.

Yet there is much value in the "trigger."

Maj. Meyer is a worthy witness, and there is a good probability that the in-shore missile's launch "got his attention." His time away from the combat theatre, would have helped to stall his "start tape" because his having "been there, done that" would challenge "the here and now."

For example, many men have difficulty with pistol target shooting, at the start, while women are better shots at the start. The women are perhaps more nervous, but they have not a lot of pre-conceived notions about the sense of the pistol; they react actually, somewhat more naturally. While the men tend to over-control; they have more baggage in the registers which comes to bear.

Maj. Meyer had to sort out the conflict of, "that's a launch," as such registered many times in Southeast Asia ... versus "what is going on here." There's a delay, as things get sorted out, before "start the tape" is a command finally issued, and so he records. His memories of Vietnam overcontrolled the present, long enough to delay the "tape start" until after the missile had begun to "arch over" on high.

Furthermore, his description of the first explosive signatures in the air, were literally "dead on." He describes aerial bursts, "hard," high-velocity type explosions which are typical for warheads.

Those remarks are his first, regarding any explosions --- it is not until later that he remarks about the fireball.

I believe he saw the in-shore missile launch. It brough back quite alot from his registers, and that required some fast sorting of the material, before he got things under control. Notably, being the veteran that he is, he still managed to comport himself to the emergency and usher the HH-60 out to the pending crash scene.

They arrived their rapidly enough to encounter still-descending debris, and they so-warned a nearby C-130 flight's crew, which then held off for a short while.