Posted on 11/01/2006 6:26:07 PM PST by Swordmaker
Zoom Climb Lawsuit
October 31, 2006
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.
Sincerely, Ray Lahr
Link to the Judge's Decision in PDF format. Windows users will need Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Bolid.
The zoom climb must be real. I saw it on TV.
The truth WILL OUT.
Operation Clinton Cleanup takes one step forward...
What's a bolid?
If you mean "Bolide" then it had to have come through the Earth... triangulation of the eye witnesses show that it could not have come from beyond the horizon relative to any witness.
Silly peasant.
Strange case.
The eyewitnesses would perceive it as an object rising up from the Earth to hit something.
Ever been in an airplane struck by lightning? Happens with some frequency BTW. Every now and then lightning will take a plane out of operation.
Here we have a rock flying in from space and taking out a plane. Won't happen all that often, but it can't be ruled out.
After looking at all the available evidence in the months after it happened, it became evident to me that TWA 800 was almost certainly brought down by a missile.
There were two possible theories: that the missile was fired by American forces taking part in a naval exercise in the area; or that the missile was fired by Muslim terrorists in a small boat.
I think the naval hypothesis is almost impossible. Too many people would have known what happened, and leaks would have been inevitable. There have been no such leaks from the Navy.
Why would clinton have covered it up? Because he wanted to protect the Navy, or because he wanted to avoid having to do something about Arab terrorists? Frankly, I think he would have been far more worried about having to deal with the terrorists than he would have been concerned about the Navy's reputation. He and hillary (and Chelsea too) hated the military.
On the other hand, he had a long record of avoiding any need to deal with terrorism by looking the other way.
Ray Lahr deserves our thanks for following this up. The current administration has shown no interest in uncovering clinton's crimes. Indeed, Bush's chosen director of the FBI, Mueller, awarded a special medal and promotion to the FBI agent who was in charge of covering up TWA 800 for clinton.
As I stated triangulation of eye witnesses show that it could not have been a bolide. Only eye witnesses looking at a bolide ~180º from its direction of approach will see it rise from the horizon... others would see it approach horizontally across the sky. That was NOT the case. Ergo it was not a bolide.
Eye witnesses West of TWA800 saw it come from the surface. Others that were North saw it come from the surface. More from the South saw it rise from the surface. And yet others who were East of the plane saw the "missile" rise from the surface. If it were a bolide, only 1/4 of these would mis-perceive the object as coming from the surface.
Certainly some of the eye witnesses who were in the air, above TWA800, would not have described it as they did were it a bolide.
I agree re: missile. The fact is that center fuel tanks simply don't do what they said. Jet fuel is about as flammable as charcoal lighter stuff, it works well under pressure and controlled conditions in the engine, but propane or gasoline it ain't.
And the laws of large numbers argues against it. There have been tens of millions of aircraft flights, and this center tank thingy happens JUST ONCE???
Not to mention that Boeing is the greatest aircraft manufacturer ever and despite what some may say, pays alot of attention to quality and safety. They probably have thousands of terrabytes of flight data recording info.
That will be consistent with "government" management of evidence ever since the Kennedy assassination.
An engine tore off the port mounting of a DC-10 only once (Flight 191 in Chicago, 1979). A cargo hatch blew out on a DC-10 once (Turkish Airlines, Flight 881, 1974). The thrust reverse system deployed in flight on a 767 once (Lauda Air, Flight 004, 1991). A lot of things happen once, mainly because corrective actions are taken.
Good points, all. But I still think it does, as I said, argue against it.
In fact I should amend my position a bit because supposedely there was a Singapore Airlines 737 that went down in 1990 due to a fuel tank explosion.
Alot of good info here.
http://www.montereypeninsulaairport.com/800newsreports3.html
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.