Posted on 12/23/2003 3:31:14 PM PST by CedarDave
Sunday, December 21, 2003
Trailing the Truth About TWA Tragedy
By Thomas J. Cole
Journal Investigative Reporter
LOS ANGELES— Much of Ray Lahr's life has been about serving his country.
He entered the Navy during World War II and became a fighter pilot. Later, as a pilot for United Airlines and a safety committee member for the Air Line Pilots Association, he assisted the National Transportation Safety Board in the investigations of eight airplane crashes.
But last Monday, in a federal courtroom in downtown Los Angeles, Lahr and his government sat at opposing tables.
Lahr, now retired and living in nearby Malibu, is suing the National Transportation Safety Board for documents related to the crash of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island, N.Y., shortly after takeoff in July 1996.
Lahr doesn't believe the safety board's finding that TWA 800 continued to climb for about 34 seconds and some 1,200 to 2,200 feet after an initial explosion.
The NTSB found that the streak of light reported by witnesses to the crash wasn't produced by a missile but was instead the result of burning fuel during the crippled flight.
In short, without the crippled-flight theory, the safety board has no explanation for the streak of light reported by at least 258 witnesses to the disaster.
Lahr believes a missile struck TWA 800 but isn't sure whether it was fired by terrorists or the U.S. military. Military aircraft and water craft were in the vicinity of the crash.
Olympics and Clinton
Lahr said a finding that a missile brought down TWA 800 would have affected the Olympics that summer in Atlanta and the presidential campaign.
"It would have killed the Olympics," he said. "It would have killed the re-election chances of President Clinton. I really think it was a cover-up."
The former pilot has been trying for more than three years to get the safety board to release more documents and data related to how it came up with the crippled-flight theory. He said he has spent more than $10,000 on the effort.
"I just feel like I owe it to my country to get to the truth," Lahr said.
His lawsuit against the NTSB is in its initial stages, and U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz ruled on only procedural issues at a brief hearing Monday morning.
But in a small and legally inconsequential victory for Lahr, Matz has noted that Lahr isn't alone in his skepticism in the safety board's finding that mechanical failure, not a missile, brought down TWA 800.
There are numerous books and Web sites alleging a government cover-up, and about 20 people showed at the court hearing to support Lahr.
One of those in the courtroom was Lisa Michelson of suburban Los Angeles, whose 19-year-son Yon Rojany died on TWA 800. He was on his way to Italy to try out for the Italian basketball league.
"People tend to look at you like a 'conspiracist' because you don't buy the accepted line," Michelson said. "But I've never been one to buy the accepted line if it's not right."
A $30 million inquiry
TWA Flight 800, a Boeing Co. 747-131, took off about 8:19 on the evening of July 17, 1996. It was en route from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City to Charles de Gaulle International Airport in Paris.
The plane had 212 passengers and a flight crew of 18. All were killed. The flight lasted just 12 minutes or so.
There was immediate speculation that TWA 800 may have been brought down by a missile or a bomb.
The NTSB spent more than $30 million investigating the accident, with some studies conducted by an Albuquerque company. It was the most extensive investigation in the history of the safety board.
The NTSB found that the probable cause of the crash was an explosion of the center wing fuel tank resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank.
The safety board said it couldn't determine the source of the ignition but said the source was most likely a short circuit.
The plane was at about 13,800 feet at the time of the explosion, according to the NTSB. A few seconds after the explosion, the nose portion of the plane— which weighed about 80,000 pounds— separated from the aircraft.
The safety board said the plane, with its wings still intact, pitched up while rolling to the left, climbing to about 15,000 to 16,000 feet. It then rolled into a falling turn and developed into a fireball, dropping into the Atlantic Ocean.
The NTSB said the fireball probably began developing about 34 seconds after the fuel tank explosion. That would be about the duration of the reported streak of light.
"Therefore, the safety board concludes that the witness observations of a streak of light were not related to a missile and that the streak of light reported by most of these witnesses was burning fuel from the accident airplane in crippled flight during some portion of the postexplosion, preimpact breakup sequence," the NTSB said.
The safety board acknowledged, however, that the crippled-fight theory didn't explain the recollections of 18 witnesses who reported that the streak of light originated at the surface or from the horizon.
Fighting a theory
The NTSB said the recollections of those witnesses may have been affected by bad interview techniques or by errors in memory or perception.
The safety board also said that nearly all of the body of the plane was recovered from the ocean and that there was no damage typically associated with a missile.
Lahr, 78, a father and grandfather, brought his lawsuit against the NTSB under the Freedom of Information Act.
He is not only trying to obtain more documents and data but is waging a campaign against the crippled-flight theory.
His latest document filed in the case includes some two dozen affidavits from experts and others that Lahr said support his belief that there was no crippled flight.
"The (NTSB) records at issue were conceived and tailored to explain away the eyewitnesses," Lahr said in the document. "The NTSB's science is junk."
Lahr, who has a degree in engineering in addition to his experience as a pilot and crash investigator, said he believes the left wing of TWA 800 came off after the explosion and that the plane couldn't have continued to climb without the wing.
Even if the wing didn't separate, Lahr said, the plane would have pitched up and stalled— at best, ascending a few hundred more feet.
Michelson likens the flight of TWA 800 to a duck that has its head shot off by a hunter. The duck falls; it doesn't continue to climb, she said.
"I know from common sense that just doesn't make sense," Michelson said. "If it didn't go up, what were the streaks of light?"
A war over documents
Michelson said the FBI initially told victims' families that the plane was brought down by a missile. "I believe they were told to turn it into a mechanical failure," she said.
The NTSB has made many of the documents related to TWA 800 available to the public.
Lahr is seeking records that would show how the safety board reached some of the conclusions outlined in the public documents. For example, he is seeking the computer program and data used in a NTSB video animation of TWA 800 in crippled flight.
The safety board, in response to Lahr's requests for additional documents and data, provided him with some records in their entirety and some documents with redactions.
The board also withheld some documents entirely, arguing that they didn't have to be disclosed because they contained information that was proprietary or information that was related to internal agency deliberations or personnel.
Boeing, the maker of the 747 that crashed, has also intervened in the case to protect what it says is proprietary information about its aircraft.
If the lawsuit proceeds, a judge will determine what, if any, documents withheld by the NTSB must be released to Lahr. That could take months, if not years.
A government lawyer said the lawsuit is about a request under the Freedom of Information Act, not about what caused TWA 800 to fall into the Atlantic Ocean.
"It is not a case to review the findings of the NTSB," said Jan Luymes, an assistant U.S. attorney representing the safety board.
John Clarke, a Washington lawyer representing Lahr, acknowledged that the lawsuit has its limits. "The judge can't order the NTSB back to the drawing board," he said.
That can be accomplished only by public pressure resulting from publicity about the lawsuit and the evidence of a government cover-up, Clarke said.
"We're not hurting for evidence," the lawyer said. "We've already proved it."
Copyright 2003 Albuquerque Journal
Just what I was about to say. One of the new paradigms of terrorism is that, unlike terrorism of the past, the perps don't require or seek credit. (Another of terror's new paradigms is that the perps don't care if they themselves survive the terror act.) These are examples of what makes this fight against terrorism different and daunting.
I'll bet that it was Al Qaeda, because it's not their style to claim credit. They never officially claimed credit for the WTC, except through the insinuaitons of Bin Laden on video after the whole world accused them of 9/11.
At the same time, it's quite obvious now that Al Queda has the means and cold bloodedness to murder mass numbers of people.
You could NEVER get 300+ American GIs to "cover up" a shootdown of a civilian airline.
If the Navy were so stupid to try to intimidate that many men/women to cover up a crime of this nature we, and most lucid people, know they would never suceed.
Having said that, there are people on this forum - and this thread - that drop their common sense and logic to believe this could actually happen in this day and age.
And they should know better.
AQ never "claimed" the WTC '93 bombing. Nor the Cole. Nor Arrow Air, if you find that crash suspicious (or the prominent role of the 101st in Afgansitan), nor AA587, if that was a successful show bomber or a baggage bomb. Throughout history, terror/sabotage attacks were not "claimed" and were also covered up to keep them from damaging morale.
One of the most popular theories is that it was a Stinger, SA-7, or some other IR man portable SAM. Well, the problem with that theory is that these missiles track IR sources. In other words they go after heat and the hottest thing on a 747 would be the aircraft's JT9D engines. If a missile such as a Stinger/SA-7 hit a 747 on its engine, the worst possible outcome out be the engine falling away from the aircraft. Almost all aircraft are designed to have the engine break free from the pylon in the event of a major fire. This will keep the burning engine from causing damage to the wing and igniting the wing's fuel tanks. The aircraft can continue to fly with one engine missing and TWA 800 could have easily returned to JFK with this kind of damage.
Secondly, N93119 (the 747's registration) was well out of the range of a land fired man portable SAM. Also, it was nearing the maximum effective range of the older generation man portable SAM's (the kind terrorists use) if they were fired from directly below it.
Third, others claim it was a U.S. Navy ship that shot down the 747. Well, lets look @ it this way. If it was an U.S. Navy ship, we must assume it was either an SM-1 or SM-2 missile. Other Surface to Air missiles (i.e. Sea Sparrow) are usually carried on aircraft carriers, or non front line ships. That would mean the ship must be an Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate, Spruance class destroyer, or one of the Aegis Guided Missile ships, the Ticonderoga class cruiser or the Arleigh Burke class destroyer.
Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigate:187-287
Now when these ships fire their SM-1 or SM-2 missiles, not only does everyone on the ship know it but if you don't clear that area of the ship before firing, someone will eat missile exhaust for dinner. Given today’s climate, I don't think the U.S. government could keep that many people quite, even if the person only spoke anonymously. I've spoken @ length with a professor @ my university who is an expert in U.S. Naval history as well as most naval weapons. (If anyone needs proof of his credentials, I’ll post a list of books he has written or contributed to.) He is also of the opinion it would be impossible to hide the fact that a U.S. warship fired a missile @ the same time TWA800 crashed. Someone on that ship would figure it out and blow the whistle.
Some people say “Why would an airliner just blow up in midair?”. Well, two other aircraft have blown up for no good reason. A Philippine Airlines 737-300 suffered a center fuel tank explosion in 1990 and on March 3, 2001, a Thai Airways 737-400 also succumbed to a similar fate. Despite the fact that early evidence pointed to a bomb on the Thai 737, no conclusive evidence to that fact has been found.
N93119 was one of the oldest 747's still in service. Problems with wiring in older aircraft was already well known but no one expected it could lead to a disaster. Also, N93119 sat on the tarmac @ JFK and baked for hours. That day, the center fuel tank only contained a small amount of fuel. Also, the center fuel tank on a 747 sits above the aircraft's air conditioners. The heat from the air conditioning units and from sitting out on the tarmac baking in the summer sun would have resulted in the fuel going from liquid to vapor. Now anyone who has a clue knows that fuel vapor is far more explosive than liquid. Put jet fuel in a bucket and drop a match in and the match goes out. Take a container of fuel vapor and put a match in it and there will be a loud BOOM. It is well within the realm of possibility for an aging, damaged wire to arch and ignite the fuel vapors. The result would be an explosion powerful enough to destroy any commercial airliner.
Then we get into the "eyewitnesses". Eyewitnesses are notorious unreliable when it comes to air crashes. I remember right after USAir 427 crashed how many different stories the eyewitnesses had that were being played on CNN. One claimed the aircraft was on fire. Another claimed the engines exploded, while still another said the engines "popped" and then stopped running. The last one was my favorite. A young woman claimed the aircraft simply stopped in mid air and fell straight down. Now we all know what happened to the aircraft. It suffered an un-commanded rudder deflection, not engine failure, fire, or a total stall. Still, the eyewitnesses claimed this was the case.
The same thing happened with American 587 back on 11-12-01. Eyewitnesses said that the left, right, both, and neither engines were on fire. Some said they heard an explosion while others said they did not. Other people said the right engine fell first from the aircraft while others said the left engine broke loose first. Obviously everyone saw the same event but interpreted it differently.
With the exception of the people who saw a "streak of light" in the sky, there is ZERO proof of a missile. What the people saw was an aircraft explode @ a good distance from their position. Now anyone with ½ a brain will tell you that perception can be distorted by distance. The thing that makes most people who are in the aviation field wary of the conspiracy theories that surround TWA 800 is the fact that all of the so called "evidence" is very weak and almost always can be refuted without much effort.
Those who are skeptical of the conspiracies that surround TWA 800 are that way because most of the theories are so far out there that it is beyond the realm of logic. Some people imply that Klintoon had it shot down because there was someone on board he wanted dead. Others have said it was done because certain foreign military personal were onboard. Why is it so hard to believe that maybe it was simply a mechanical failure that brought down the aircraft?
It is what is called a mystery.
I do know that anyone who believes over 300 crewmembers of a missile frigate could actually be silenced to cover up the shootdown of an airliner does not have a firm grasp of reality.
In your dreams, pal. The main evidence comes from a photograph, and the eyewitness accounts of 258 people. These people said they saw an object come from the water and strike the plane. If anyone with half a brain does not realize 1) light travels faster than sound, and 2) unless all 258 witnesses were standing on their heads, debris does not fall up, regardless of what the government told them, you have to wonder which half they have, because it obviously is not the thinking half.
Oh, and that so called "picture" of the missile shows something that looks more like a TLAM or ALCM than a SAM. SAM's do not fly straight and level along the surface of the water and then magically turn straight up at the last moment.
Eyewitnesses are not reliable sources no matter how many there may be. Go back and study several dozen aircraft accidents that have eyewitnesses and you will see each person's story is different and only agree on the general points and rarely on anything specific.
The photo shows a missile in flight near a populated area. Last time I checked, doing something like that is a big no-no, as it endangers the lives of civilians. It does not matter what kind it was.
Eyewitnesses are not reliable sources no matter how many there may be.
Gosh, it did not take too long to unload the biggest pile of poppycock, did it? Sorry, guy, but there were 258 people who reported the same thing. This was not some rape in the subway, this was an object coming from below and striking the plane.
If you wish to either call these witnesses liars or believe in your heart of hearts that debris fall up, you can be my guest. But that does not make it reality.
:Thinking: Trying to talk aviation with 99% of the population is like trying to discuss religion with an atheist.
Also, the 747 does not resemble the flight profile of any target we would shoot at in an exercise firing. Our targets simulate small radar cross section anti-ship cruise missiles. They either come in very low, nearly skimming the wave tops, low at supersonic speed, or in a steep dive at supersonic speed. Both missiles and targets are expensive, so we have extensive coordination with the range. The ship knows where the target is coming from and we are kept advised of target status. A missile shot is not a test of the crew, to see how they perform tactically. We can practice tactics by placing the system in training. The missile shot is to test the weapons system, either against a new threat, a specific missile against a specific threat or just verifying proper system operation.
As far as an accidental launch, there are two sets of keys (Firing Inhibit Switch and Remote Launch Enable Panel) that must be inserted and turned, as well as a safety switch on each missile canister. I can assure you we are not cruising around US coastal waters with all of these safeties bypassed.
And still, if disaster struck by some unimaginable chain of events, how do you get 300 sailors to ignore what they know is right and lie? It's been over 6 years. Many of these sailors would be civilians now, but no one talks?
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.