My individual battle to pry information out of the CIA, the NTSB, and the NSA regarding TWA Flight 800 has been long, and lonely, and expensive. But at last I have achieved a favorable judgment from the federal court. Although Judge Matz emphasized that he is not expressing any opinions pertaining to the underlying premise of a missile, he has determined that I am entitled to most of the requested data and calculations pertaining to the zoom-climb.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT by Judge A. Howard Matz: Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shall produce to plaintiff the material set forth in Exhibit A and the National Transportation Safety Board shall produce to plaintiff the material set forth in Exhibit B.

Plaintiff may file a motion for award of attorneys fees and costs by not later than 11/15/06. Defendants' response shall be filed not later than 12/20/06. Plaintiff's reply shall be filed by not later than 1/8/07. Court will rule upon the papers without a hearing. Parties shall not be precluded by the fact that they have approved this judgment as to form from appealing any aspect of this judgment or of the orders dated 8/31/06 or 10/4/06 (See document for further details)(ir.)(Entered: 10/18/2006)

When and if I receive the requested information, I feel confident that it will show that false assumptions were made regarding the zoom-climb that was propounded in order to discredit the eyewitnesses who reported seeing a missile. Namely, when the nose was blown off, the CG moved 10 feet aft, the aircraft immediately pitched up into a stall, and the aircraft could never climb and then dive as depicted in the zoom-climb scenario. This may be some vindication for this ALPA statement which was included in the official NTSB TWA800 accident report:

"Furthermore, although ALPA does not doubt the technical capability of the NTSB, we are concerned that this analysis was essentially accomplished by only one individual at the Board, with little or no party input or participation. It is a well known and accepted tenet of engineering analysis that the output (results) can only be as accurate as the input data."

Thus far, that input data has never been revealed. If it is released and the zoom-climb is disproved, the government must then acknowledge the eyewitness missile reports. Then the government must determine who fired the missile.

Against all of the rules of evidence, the NTSB adopted the zoom- climb conclusion without providing any supporting data or calculations. It is unfortunate that the missile issue was avoided by this zoom-climb ruse. If the missile issue had been squarely faced, TWA might be flying today. Instead, TWA took the fall for allegedly operating an older aircraft with maintenance that didn't detect a potential spark. Nonsense, that accident wasn't TWA's fault. We can't role back the clock and reinstate TWA, but we can, at least, clear TWA's name.

We don't know who fired the missile. But if it was terrorist missile, and if that had become known, the country would have been alerted to the terrorist threat, and 9/11 might possibly have been averted.

The defendants may appeal this judgment, and if they do, it will delay the final decision. I would appreciate any support that ALPA might feel free to give. In my opinion, it has always been apparent to pilots that you can't blow apart the center section of the wing including the loss of nose and cockpit, and still have the unbalanced and critically damaged aircraft continue to fly and climb. There was no zoom-climb. Three airline crews saw the airplane explode and fall down to the ocean. Someday, the truth shall prevail.

Link to the Judge's Decision in PDF format. Windows users will need Adobe Acrobat Reader.

The blast was not a missile because a missile cannot destroy a plane without leaving a mark. It was not a bomb because high-explosive leaves unmistakeable traces on metal that aren't erased by a subsequent crash and fire. These traces are clear as day on metal recovered from PA103. There are no such traces on metal recovered from TWA800. Bombs and missiles cannot destroy aircraft without leaving physical evidence.

Red residue was found on seats transversing the cabin right at the location of the decapitation of TWA-800:

Seats with red residue in rows 17 through 19..

The NTSB explained the residue away with some sleight of hand.

"On page 9 of the NTSB Fire & Explosions Factual Report appears the following statement.

Selected seat back panels in rows 17, 19, 24, and 27 were damaged, exposing a brown to reddish brown colored material. This material was analyzed by infrared spectroscopy. Analysis showed the material to be consistent with a polychloroprene 3M Scotch-Grip 1357 High Performance contact adhesive. The report is attached in Appendix III-Tests and Analysis."

But is the red residue really consistent with 3M 1357 Adhesive?

THE TESTS ON RED RESIDUE, SEAT GLUE, AND SEAT MATERIAL.

SEAT RESIDUE TEST RESULTS

TEST ONE RESULTS from samples of the red residue visible on 15 seats of the reconstructed TWA 800 in Calverton Hangar. The test was performed at Santa Fe Lab in California at the request of James Sanders.

TEST TWO RESULTS for polychloroprene 3M Scotch-Grip 1357 High Performance contact adhesive from an UNSOAKED sample provided by 3M, performed by Coffey Labs, Portland Oregon. FBI and NTSB claimed that the "red residue" on the seats was the 3M 1357 Adhesive either in native form or after soaking in sea water. 3M 1357 Adhesive is normally green in color.

TEST THREE RESULTS From fabric samples taken from a 747-200 sister ship to TWA 800 soaked for 22 days in water taken from the Atlantic Ocean. Tests were performed under the direction of PhD candidate/researcher Thomas Stalcup.

ELEMENT	TEST ONE	TEST TWO	TEST THREE
Magnesium	18%	2.5%	.007%
Silicon	15%	.0005%	.0004%
Calcium	12%	.0020%	.0011%
Zinc	3.6 %	.043%	.0002%
Iron	3.1%	.0041%	.001%
Aluminum	2.8%	.0065%	.0018%
Lead	2.4%	NONE	NONE
Titanium	1.7%	.00012%	.0002%
Antimony	.53%	NONE	NONE
Nickel	.38%	NONE	NONE
Manganese	.21%	NONE	NONE
Boron	.081%	.0016%	.001%
Copper	.053%	NONE	NONE
Silver	.032%	NONE	NONE
Chromium	.032%	NONE	NONE

The test results, revealing [in the red residue] a mixture of metals consistant with materials found in military missiles, was then published in the Riverside [CA] Press-Enterprise and in James Sanders' book.

Source

The U.S. Navy denied, for months, it even had ships in the area that night.

OK, this is a factual accusation. What is your source? The NAVY was conducting a submarine exercise many, many miles away from the accident scene.

Then, the Navy finally admitted that there were a number of ships in the area which steamed away from the area just after the downing of TWA 800.

Where and when? You are accusing the Navy of murder. You made the charge. Back it up.

The ships were, of course, ordered to depart the scene to hide their role in the airliner's crash.

Once again, you are making an extremely inflammatory charge with nothing but your attitude to back it up. In classical logic, and in court, the one making the allegation has to prove it.

I subscribe to the theory there was a secret missile test to see if a missile intercept could distinguish between friend or foe in the busy airspace.

Your "theory" has several problems. The most serious of them:

There's no such missile intercept device, period. While some specific capabilities are classified for sensible reasons, the broad capabilities of antimissile systems are well publicised, because (a) the technology and its reliability has been at the center of a contentious national debate for 20+ years and (b) all such systems require approval of Congress, including members of both parties.
There is absolutely no pathway by which a missile or missile fragment could have gotten from outside the aircraft skin to inside the tank where the explosion began, that contains any evidence of a missile or fragment strike (you know, like a hole), or is missing. So what you postulate is a missile that comes from outside the airplane to inside the airplane without penetrating the airplane. In Newtonian physics this is impossible. (The interesting thing is that the scientists who calculated this were working to test a pet theory that some of you nutballs had, that a meteorite did the plane. But proving that a meteorite had no pathway in proves that nothing else did either -- and yes, once they started their analysis they went through all three dimensions in 360º. It's in the report, I want to say appendix XVII).
The operators of 747s (the legal and FAA term for the airlines that fly them) have been stuck with bills that run literally into the billions of dollars for remediation of fuel-tank risks. These lines employ battalions of sharkshin-suited legal sharks. Do you think for a New York minute that they would let the Navy stick them with this bill, if there was any way on God's green earth that they could shift these costs? Do you think that they would accept these ADs quietly, if there was, not even proof, but enough evidence to support even a marginally credible charge that these weaknesses in Boeing transport aircraft design were not responsible for TWA800 and didn't have to be remediated? (The same goes double for Boeing, which had to eat both the costs of designing and manufacturing some of the materials for AD compliance, but also loss of sales to Airbus, whose planes are less susceptible to fuel tank explosions for technical reasons).

It failed and a horrible tragedy resulted.

Once again you are making what a judge would call "an assertion without evidence" and order stricken from the record. A less judicious temperament would call it a lie.

The White House ordered the cover-up of that August fiasco as Clinton was running for reelection in November and would surely have been blamed for the reckless murder of innocents aboard TWA 800 at his authorizing the secret test.

Not only is there no evidence for this loopy belief on your part, it's not even logical. The Clinton crowd would have absolutely no problem blaming such an event, if it occurred, on the military. His civilian oversight appointees to the DOD included people like Les "cut Special Forces, they'll just get us into a war" Aspin and Sara "Marines are all extremists" Lister.

Further, the military has absolutely no compunction about investigating its own. During the Clinton years, the Navy actually did strike a Japanese research vessel with a sub. Not only did they hang the captain out to dry when it was over, but the captain crash-surfaced and rendered what assistance he could. Remember the scores of Naval Aviators hosed by Tailhook during the Clinton years?

In more recent years, we've seen thorough investigations of Abu Ghraib (Army), prisoner abuses in Afghanistan (Army/CIA), various shootings (Marines and Army), and several service academy rape charges (which have, in some cases, led to courts-martial and acquittals, and have, in all cases of which I am aware, turned out to be based on false accusations. Yet the military investigates).

In every case, the investigation got underway because a service member with a conscience came forward to commanders or to other command authorities (CID, chaplains). there are many routes by which a military member with concerns can circumvent the chain of command and elevate his or her concerns to a higher level (including, FWIW, direct contact with members of Congress). I have been personally involved in the three types of investigation that military authorities conduct (accident, preliminary (art 15-6) and criminal. I can say with confidence that these investigations are independent and have never even heard of one that had a charge from commanders other than, "get me the truth and let the chips fall where they may."

In other words, even assuming that the Clinton White House was so morally bankrupt that they would conceal the murder of hundreds to avoid dealing with a political problem that they could easily have dealt with, they would never have been able to sell a cover-up to the uniformed military. Not. Gonna. Happen.

I have done a lot of research on TWA 800.

You need to expand your research resources beyond The National Enquirer and equivalent websites, and books from the scam-the-widows industry. Start by getting a pilot's licence and an education in aeronautical engineering, and call me back when you catch up.

The FBI completely commandeered the investigation of the crash in violation of federal law which requires the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) to conduct such investigations.

Here, you are making an absolutely false statement. NTSB investigates accidents but has always ceded authority in criminal cases since before there was an NTSB (for example, the CAB accident board ceded authority to the FBI In a 1955 bomb case which turned out to be a guy killing his mother for the insurance). NTSB resources are made available to FBI as required. If the FBI discovers that a crash was not, after all, criminal, they should cede authority back. In this case there was some disagreement between FBI and NTSB over the case, and since then they've modified their procedures for working together, but the law is what the law was. See NTSB reg 830 among others. (Every pilot has a copy on his shelf... it's in his FAR/AIM book).

The laughable animation... a violation of all laws of physics and no serious scientist could agree with the conclusions of the presentation.... animation was created by the CIA

It's been well documented that a CIA expert volunteered to do the animation because he had the computer tools and expertise to do so. Conspiracy tools love the "CIA animation," because in their small TV-stunted brains they hate and fear the CIA, and they think the animation is weak science. The NTSB ultimately did not use the animation.

As far as the laws of physics are concerned, most of the "dropped like a rock" theories don't take into account two things: the ultimate resting places of the parts of wreckage, which have been GPS plotted to within a couple meters, and (rather critically) the inertia of the main body of aircraft wreckage. Lahr attempts to do this when he says the loss of forward structure would produce a CG shift that would produce an instant stall. In fact, inertia can delay stalls, as any sportsman-level acro pilot can show you. An aircraft can be completely stalled, out of control, and still go up... just not indefinitely. A 747 has significantly more inertia than an Extra 300 or Pitts.

Finally, the burden of proof rests on the individual (or tool, in this case) making the accusation. Ray Lahr and his happy band of widow-soaking tools have been making accusations for over ten years. The burden of proof is, as it has ever been, on them. Yet all they can do is drum, drum, drum on tangential imperfections in the data (this whole court case in this thread is about the input data that were used in the computer animation, that looms large in loon-dom but was not used in the official findings of cause).

All in service of a theory which postulates a cover-up of mass murder going from the President through the lowliest $40k/year investigator at NTSB, including just about the whole Navy (400,000 officers and men), and the whole FBI, and everyone at Boeing and all the airlines that operate and have operated the Boeing 747 since 1970.

Dude, you are in no position to toss the word "laughable" around. Believing in this loopy theory requires a two-year-old's command of logic.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

Your source is a website run by Michael Rivero, banned from FR after insisting that the WTC was brought down by Bush and the Jews -- immediately afterward. You can believe Rivero if you want. The ultimate source of the "red residue" claim was James "felonious stewardess" Sanders, who arranged to steal wreckage and have it tested in support of his antigovernment theories. he was convicted and is now and for all time a felon.

But I won't just bash your theory for the authors of same -- that's an ad hominem attack. I just want to make sure everyone in this thread knows that the conspiracy tools include plenty of people boiling with hate and racism (Rivero) and with gutter morals (Sanders).

So I'll address your "red residue" directly. It was... bottom sediment. Here is the relevant excerpt from the alt.disasters.aviation FAQ.

2.1.5) What was that "red residue?" Should I believe the Sanders sample results?
Contributed by Dr. George O. Bizzigotti
     Author James Sanders has made a significant argument based on a red
     residue found on certain seat cushions in the TWA wreckage. Sanders
     clandestinely obtained a sample of that residue, and submitted it for
     elemental analysis. The composition of the residue was reported as
     follows:
     Magnesium         18%
     Silicon                15%
     Calcium              12%
     Zinc                    3.6%
     Iron                    3.1%
     Aluminum           2.8%
     Lead                 2.4%
     Titanium             1.7%
     Antimony           0.53%
     Nickel               0.38%
     Manganese        0.21%
     Boron                0.081%
     Copper              0.053%
     Silver                 0.032
     Chromium          0.032%
     Sanders asserted that this analysis is consistent with solid rocket
     fuel; his assertion is supported primarily by quotes from an
     anonymous "retired Hughes Missiles engineer and propellants
     specialist." However, there is abundant technical literature that
     indicates that solid rocket fuels fall into two general categories:
     nitrocellulose-based fuels and composite fuels containing aluminum,
     ammonium perchlorate, and a polymeric binder, typically butadiene or
     polysulfide rubber. Sanders arguments concern composite fuels, so
     I'll concentrate on that. Kirk-Othmer's Encyclopedia of Chemical
     Technology (4th ed., Vol 10, p. 72) indicates that composite rocket
     fuel is typically 70 percent ammonium perchlorate, 18 percent
     aluminum, and 12 percent polymeric binder; if the binder is
     polybutadiene, one would expect the fuel to have a composition of
     18.00% aluminum, 10.66% carbon, 3.74% hydrogen, 21.12% chlorine,
     8.35% nitrogen, and 38.13% oxygen. Other compositions are possible, but
     none come any closer to matching Sanders' result. Sanders results account
     for 63% of the elemental composition, so any carbon, hydrogen, chlorine,
     nitrogen, and oxygen can account for no more than 37% of his material
     versus the 82% expected based on the technical literature's
     composition. The aluminum value is lower than expected by a factor of
     six. Clearly, the measured composition does not match (typical
     criteria are measured = expected plus or minus 0.4%) the expected
     composition.
     I begin as a skeptic because Sanders source is a "retired Hughes
     Missiles engineer and propellants specialist." Hughes doesn't make
     rocket motors; they buy them from subcontractors (e.g., Aerojet,
     Alliant Techsystems, Morton Thiokol) that formulate the propellant.
     This is roughly equivalent to "a retired Delta Airlines aircraft
     designer" giving an opinion on the composition of materials in the
     777; its not completely ridiculous, but one might be quicker to
     accept at face value if he or she had worked for Boeing. The
     anonymous source argues away most of the discrepancies, but on
     closer inspection, he or she is wrong on several counts. Magnesium
     (at 18 percent in the sample) has been used experimentally as an
     igniter or to increase combustion temperatures, but in much smaller
     proportions. The silicon (at 15 percent) is described as a "possible
     binder component."
     However, no one has ever reported using a silicone rubber binder in a
     rocket propellant, probably because silicone does not provide
     sufficient energy when burned (much of the energy in solid rocket
     propellants come from the organic rubber binder). Sanders also
     asserts that calcium (at 12 percent) is used as a "heat or shock
     sensitive explosive." That's a curious assertion; calcium nitrate
     might be found in small amounts in some explosives, but it is not
     found in rocket propellant. Rocket propellants are designed
     specifically not to be sensitive explosives; they burn rather than
     detonate (implied by the term "sensitive"). The silicon and calcium
     are telling; they make up 27 percent of the sample by weight, but
     they are not used in anywhere near those proportions in any rocket
     propellant reported in the technical literature. Neither Sanders nor
     any of the proponents of the missile theory have been able to explain
     convincingly how these high levels of silicon and calcium could be
     found in rocket propellant.
     So what could the residue be? I would note that seafloor sediments in
     general are high in elements such as magnesium, calcium, silicon,
     zinc, iron, and aluminum, with smaller amounts of many other metallic
     elements. The exact values found in a sample are variable, i.e.,
     samples taken from within feet of one another will vary by + or - 25
     percent (which is why analyzing a control sample from the crash site
     would not be terribly useful), but the general pattern has been
     observed in many different samples (I've personally seen this pattern
     in hundreds of samples over more than a decade). What I (and others)
     have pointed out is that the Sanders result matches that general
     pattern pretty well. The argument actually was never intended to
     "prove" that the residue is sediment, but it rationalizes how a piece
     of cloth that sat on the sea floor for several weeks could produce
     the observed analysis. Nonetheless, the key factor for Sanders'
     credibility is not whether or not he might have analyzed sediment, it
     is whether the result is consistent with any known rocket propellant.
     Sanders and others simply assert that the elements found in the
     sample are typical of rocket fuel.
     Sanders credibility is also affected because he did the wrong test.
     There are other tests, most notably infrared spectroscopy, that allow
     the nondestructive, conclusive identification of materials. In
     contrast, Sanders elected to do a destructive test that can never
     conclusively prove the identity of the material, i.e., one could
     prepare a mixture of totally innocuous materials that would have the
     identical elemental composition. A demonstrably poor choice of
     analytical procedure and an unsupportable explanation for the amounts
     of the elements present are what discredit Sanders' lab analysis.
     That the sample, which sat on the sea floor, matches reasonably well
     with what one would expect for sediment is suggestive, but it is not
     necessary to discredit Sanders' argument.

Sorry for the long excerpt, all. But I thought it best to give it verbatim.

To recap: Sanders stole the material, had the wrong tests done on it, then makes false assertions about what the material is based on an anonymous source known only to him. Swordmaker's message to us is, "trust Sanders" (via Rivero), and Sanders's message is, "trust me." That's the evidence; what do you think the jury will say? (We know what the jury did say about bottom-sand-man Sanders, who tried to raise this in his criminal trial: "Guilty!" [Actually, I think he pled guilty, so a jury never saw him -- it was many years ago -- but a guilty plea would show how he judges his own credibility, yes?)

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

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.