Missile Witnesses Needed Now

What prompts this column is an e-mail I received last week from a retired USNR commander and former TWA pilot, with whom I had had no prior contact.

He recounted a conversation that he had shortly after the mid-air destruction of TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996, off the coast of Long Island. He had a particular interest in the plane's demise for two reasons. One is that he was a qualified accident investigator. The second is that he had flown that very same flight a week earlier.

"It had to be a bloody missile, probably an un-armed Tomahawk, going for center-of-mass," he said to a senior flight manager of his acquaintance. "They were most likely going for a target drone and testing their capability to go-through normal aircraft traffic to get at the target."

The flight manager agreed and recounted what he had been told by a maintenance foreman at the investigation hangar on Long Island.

"They had this curtained area over in the corner with Marine armed guards in front," the foreman had told him. "But, I did see one of the right mainmounts that had a crease out of it, as if something round had passed through it. And, to me, it sure looked like an 'entry' and 'exit' hole in the fuselage."

I cite this e-mail for two reasons. One is that the accepted wisdom among many TWA pilots immediately after the crash matches closely the detailed account of what transpired, at least as reported in an extraordinarily comprehensive anonymous review that I and investigator Ray Lahr received a few months ago.

The second reason is that all of the best eyewitness accounts that I have received that might verify this scenario are second-hand. In fact, no one that I know has talked to anyone who witnessed the firing of the fatal missiles.

My partner in this investigation, James Sanders, had developed any number of discreet first-hand sources in 1996-1997, but all of these sources "went away after we were indicted." The "we" refers to James and his wife, Elizabeth, at the time a TWA trainer, both of whom eventually were convicted of the bogus charge of conspiracy to steal airplane parts.

If an eyewitness were to come forward, now would be a good time, a safer time as well. The true story might derail the ambitions of a candidate or two – Al Gore for sure, Hillary probably – but the major media would be more willing to listen before either became the party's nominee. If either is elected president, the story dies.

I can be contacted through my website, cashill.com, and Ray Lahr through his, raylahr.com.

I have sent "The Review" to perhaps 100 people with more technical expertise than I, and it has impressed everyone that I have heard from. Unlike the subjunctive dithering of the NTSB report, The Review is declarative and confident and tells its tale with the dense technical poetry of a Patrick O'Brian novel.

According to The Review's author, the first missile, the one that destroyed the plane, was large and, if not un-armed, at least failed to explode. The missile shot above TWA Flight 800, found its mark and descended on it from the rear.

"The missile's momentum was high enough to pitch the nose of the aircraft sharply upward when it landed on the top of the stabilizer," claims the author, "and alter its heading to the right when it hit the body. The missile's supersonic speed caused these changes to occur nearly simultaneously."

The stabilizer is the horizontal part of the tail. The elevator is the movable control on the stabilizer. A hydraulically driven device called the "jackscrew," located in front of the tail, changes the stabilizer's pitch angle, which causes the plane to pitch up or down.

So much information is loaded into the recovered jackscrew that author and Air Force vet Tom Kovach calls it the "Rosetta Stone" of the disaster, "the one piece of the aircraft that proves the high-speed action events that brought down Flight 800."

Apparently, the missile smashed into the stabilizer with more force than the jackscrew could handle, so much force in fact that it ripped the forearm-thick steel of the jackscrew in half. This same force pushed the tail violently down and the nose up and wrenched the plane into an aerodynamic stall. Unable to take the extra stress from the aircraft's sudden up-pitch, the wing tips fractured simultaneously.

The violent upward pitch of the plane whipsawed the fuselage and snapped the rigid keel beam, which runs under the length of the fuselage. The missile meanwhile skipped off the stabilizer and into the right side of the fuselage, which had flipped up nearly vertically and to the right.

The savage force of this combined action ripped the cockpit off of the plane, which, along with the front of the keel beam and the air conditioning units, plunged into the sea before the rest of the plane did the same.

The Review author deduced this in large part from the debris field and physical evidence, like the fractured jackscrew, but there is more evidence, of course, namely the testimony of the eyewitnesses.

From her Fire Island deck, FBI witness No. 150 watched a shiny, cylindrical wingless object move at high speed from north to south. She then noticed the object head toward "a large commercial airliner" traveling east at the same altitude. The airliner "simply 'stopped' at that moment," she told the FBI.

"As the plane came apart, its nose turned up and to the right," her FBI 302 continues. "She could see windows on the top right side of front of the plane, even though she had previously been able to see only along its spine."

"The front was carried forward and arced down with its momentum," the 302 adds. "The right wing seemed to stay with the plane."

Six days after the crash, weeks before any of this information became public, witness No. 150 described the break-up sequence of TWA Flight 800 almost perfectly. She was one of more than 750 eyewitnesses that the FBI interviewed.

Another such witness, No. 551, tracked TWA Flight from his window seat on US Air 217 overhead. He watched the 747 for 30-40 seconds as it flew eastward, its cabin lights still on. Then he saw the front of the plane explode. "The plane seemed to stop in mid air like a bus running into a stone wall – no forward motion," he told the FBI.

The Review author believes that No. 551 was describing the same dramatic stall, a result of the missile impact that No. 150 described, likely the first blow of three. The author does not try to guess the missile's provenance, but he rules out a Stinger or similar shoulder-fired missile. One can infer from what he writes that the lethal missile was likely a product of the U.S. Navy or a NATO ally.

Dwight Brumley, a retired 25-year United States Navy master chief, also watched the incident from US Air 217. He is among those Navy people who believes that if this missile had come off of a sub or a cruiser, "Somebody would talk to somebody about what they knew (or at least suspected)."

Brumley thinks it possible that there was a test of a defensive missile system by a black ops team that went awry. More likely, he speculates, "We were completely caught with our pants down and TWA 800 was just flat out shot down by an unknown missile."

"I just know," Brumley tells me, "that I saw something streaking up toward TWA 800 and that after the initial explosion she never climbed anymore. No 'zoom climb.'"

"I am intrigued by all your questions about the sounds the witnesses heard because I think these are probably additional evidence that the government's story is BS."

The only questions I've asked are in an effort to figure out which witness you are talking about. Not much of a grand conspiracy there. It's really just a simple question. Which witness(es) are you talking about?

"The fact that you "agree" that their recollections point to a prior event is somewhat surprising to me."

It would probably be even more surprising for you to know the CIA agrees with us as well. As does the NTSB, and NASA, who did a very detailed investigation into the whole noise thing. Just a warning...it's pretty dry reading.

NASA REPORT: “AUDIBILITY OF THE CENTER FUEL TANK EXPLOSION OF TWA FLIGHT 800”

"reviewing what I have reviewed in the past couple of days indicates that others haven't either."

It was one of the first things the CIA considered. And then there's that little NASA study....

"this would be additional conformation, that the witnesses are really accurately describing an event that occurred before the visible fireball."

Then you agree with the NTSB. The fireball was secondary to the initial explosion that tore the nose of TWA 800 off. According to NASA's studies, the initial explosion was easily loud enough to be heard on the ground despite not creating a visible fireball.

This is such a crock!

Here's an excerpt from the McClaine statement:

Passing through FL 180 we turned over Hampton to intercept the 236 Radial. Passing 17,000 feet I flicked ON my left inboard landing light to signal the other aircraft. (TWA 800) that I had him in sight. The aircraft appeared then to be slightly left of our 12:OO position (about on the Hampton 236 Radial) and at about 15,000-l3,000 feet MSL at about 15- 19 DME. As I flicked on the light the other aircraft exploded into a very large ball of flames. Almost immediately two flaming objects, with flames trailing about 4000 feet behind them, fell out of the bottom of the ball of flame.

So McClain saw nothing unusual until he saw the fireball, the TWA 800 landing light stayed on, yet you think there was an internal explosion on the plane that separated the cockpit many seconds before the fireball erupted? And you say you are a pilot?

You asked me a couple of times what witness report I'm referring to. I wasn't referring to any specific witness report, but since you asked I scanned a few. Why don't you tell me what you think of #88 who clearly heard an explosion way before he saw the fireball. (You might also explain what it was he saw ascending into the sky.)

ML/NJ

"So McClain saw nothing unusual until he saw the fireball, the TWA 800 landing light stayed on, yet you think there was an internal explosion on the plane that separated the cockpit many seconds before the fireball erupted?"

You are either not being honest here, or you haven't read his whole statement. He describes in great detail, several times that there was something wrong with the appearance of TWA 800's "landing lights". I will quote his statements for you (I already linked the site previously):

"I still think it was a landing light I saw that was ON the other the aircraft.(TWA 800) but can’t rule out that it may have been an engine or wing fire due to the color of the light and its brightness. I’m not that familiar with a B-747 landing lights." (initial witness statement)

"But it had a real bright light on its left side and I thought it was a little bit off color." (interview)

"And I was still watching TWA 800 off and on, and I said previously that it was sort of off color, like a yellowish tint to it. So at first I thought maybe possibly might be a fire on board. And I saw no smoke trail or anything and so I sort of ruled that out, and plus through the length of time. I said if there would have been a fire somebody would have known, would have said something on board the airplane, so I ruled that out. I thought it was a just slightly off-color landing light, but it was really, really bright. It would have been either one light or two really close together from the distance, the angle like that. I thought it was probably a landing light and a turn off light. And it was really bright, so I was following him, I was interested." (interview)

"It was the brightest object in the sky. I thought it was really, really bright. Boy did he have a pair of landing lights. That thing was bright. The others lifting off didn't seem to be quite as bright." (interview)

I could go on and on. The point is, he very definitely "saw something unusual". That is what attracted him to watch TWA 800 in the first place. Why do you play these kind of games? You should know by now that I actually read all the evidence.

"And you say you are a pilot?"

Which is exactly why I understand what I'm reading in this evidence. I'm not sure what you are, but I certainly hope it is nothing that requires rational, logical, consistent thought.

"Why don't you tell me what you think of #88 who clearly heard an explosion way before he saw the fireball. (You might also explain what it was he saw ascending into the sky.)"

Great, let's take a look at his statement and compare it to known facts. Here's a link to the site I found his statement:

DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO WITNESSES 1-99

First, some known facts:
Witness #88 only describes hearing a single explosion that takes place before he witnesses any explosion. He hears no explosion after witnessing the airplane he sees plummet into the ocean. The NASA study demonstrates he was clearly within hearing range of the center wing fuel tank explosion that took place just before TWA 800 broke up. And witness #88 says he only heard one explosion that took place 15 seconds before he witnessed any visual explosion. He says the entire time from when he heard an explosion to the aircraft hitting the water was 30 seconds.
We know his location ("The boat was anchored approximately twenty feet to the west of the jetty on the eastern side of the (Moriches) inlet.")
We know the location and altitude of TWA 800 at the time of the initiating event.
From those two pieces of data we can say witness #88 was about 10 miles away and to the northwest of TWA 800. We can also say that TWA 800 would have appeared roughly 14 degrees above the horizon.
He describes the red flame device as originating 6 miles and to the southest of his position.
Assuming no affects from drag, an object dropped from the last reported altitude of TWA 800 would take roughly 30 seconds to hit the ground.

So I'll do some evaluating, and you can correct me where you think I'm wrong.
A. Witness #88 was close enough to hear TWA 800 explode.
B. Witness #88 describes the aircraft he saw as"very high up and many miles from his location." TWA 800 was ten miles away, but only 14 degrees above the horizon from his vantage point. That would not place it "very high up". It would place it relatively close to the horizon and make its descending flightpath a relatively flat arc. (it only had to descend 14 degrees)
C. He estimates the entire time of the incident from the time he watched his bright red device to the aircraft hitting the water to be 30 seconds. As stated, that is just enough time for an object at TWA 800's altitude to free fall to the ground. Not enough time for a missile to complete its time of flight, hit an aircraft at 13,800 feet and allow time for that aircraft to hit the water.
D. Based on that information, I would suggest the witness heard the initial internal explosion that ruptured the fuselage of TWA 800. He then witnessed its descent and subsequent break up including the explosion that occurred when the fuel in its wings exploded. His red flaming device was in the same direction from his position as TWA 800 and was most likely the fuselage of the aircraft after it started its break up and descent to the water, and prior to its wing tanks rupturing and exploding.

Now tell me what you think I've gotten wrong so far.

Let's take a closer look at the Timestamped ATC recording:

0030:53 BBE507 okay three zero zero seven down to sixteen thousand any chance of a shortcut

0030:58 R32 stinger bee five oh seven ah well you're just about to about to turn down the airway now i really can't take you off the airway

0031:04 BBE507 all right

0031:04 ZNY hampton camm? thirty nine line

[The initial event reportedly took place at approximately 00:31:12 at about 13,800 feet]

0031:17 R32 piedmont thirty one twelve new york approach on one three two point two five

0031:21 PDT3112 one three two two five thirty three thirty one twelve

0031:32 R32 jet ex sixteen descend and maintain one five thousand the ah providence altimeter three zero zero four

0031:38 JEX18 ah i think that was one five thousand for jet express eighteen is that correct

0031:41 R32 that's correct thank you

0031:50 BBE507 we just saw an explosion out here stinger bee five oh seven

0031:57 R32 stinger bee five oh seven i'm sorry i missed it ah you're out of eighteen did you say something else

0032:01 BBE507 ah we just saw an explosion up ahead of us here *(somewhere's about) about sixteen thousand feet or something like that, it just went down - in the water

Note that McClaine's radio report of the huge fireball at 0031:50 was 38 seconds after the initial event wrecked the 747 at about 8:31:12 at approximtely 13,800 feet - long after the wreckage began falling. It's accordingly obvious that the odd landing light(s) McClaine had been watching right up to the explosion of that huge fireball was not TWA 800.

It's accordingly also obvious that when McClaine flicked on his own landing lights switch, he diverted his gaze momentarily from the odd landing light(s) to his own landing lights switch.

So I'll do some evaluating, and you can correct me where you think I'm wrong.

A. Witness #88 was close enough to hear TWA 800 explode.

Not necessarily. I got to see one of the Space Shuttle launches from the base at Cape Canaveral, from across the lagoon just under five miles from the launch pad. Other folks who had seen launches previously led me to expect to hear an enormous roar. (I even brought a tape recorder with me, hoping to catch the sound of the launch.) I guessed it would take about 25 seconds after liftoff, and I waited. And I waited. At 60 seconds there was still nothing. Nothing! Eventually I did hear a low gurgle for a while, but that was it.

So I don't think one can say for certain that any of the witnesses had to hear anything; and if you look at enough of the witness reports you will see that many reported hearing nothing.

B. Witness #88 describes the aircraft he saw as"very high up and many miles from his location." TWA 800 was ten miles away, but only 14 degrees above the horizon from his vantage point. That would not place it "very high up". It would place it relatively close to the horizon and make its descending flightpath a relatively flat arc. (it only had to descend 14 degrees)

To me "very high up" means lots of altitude. I'm not sure what it means to a boater who is watching something he thinks is some sort of firework ascend; and ascend. If his point of reference is how high a normal firework ascends, then this indeed was very high up.

C. He estimates the entire time of the incident from the time he watched his bright red device to the aircraft hitting the water to be 30 seconds. As stated, that is just enough time for an object at TWA 800's altitude to free fall to the ground. Not enough time for a missile to complete its time of flight, hit an aircraft at 13,800 feet and allow time for that aircraft to hit the water.

Obviously the guy did not estimate the actual time between events well. I would guess that the fireball eventually accelerated to terminal velocity (~120 mph, I seem to recall) and so it would have taken more than a minute to fall to the surface. As for rising to the plane, something traveling near Mach 1 could get up there within 15 seconds or so.

D. Based on that information, I would suggest the witness heard the initial internal explosion that ruptured the fuselage of TWA 800. He then witnessed its descent and subsequent break up including the explosion that occurred when the fuel in its wings exploded. His red flaming device was in the same direction from his position as TWA 800 and was most likely the fuselage of the aircraft after it started its break up and descent to the water, and prior to its wing tanks rupturing and exploding.

Here's an excerpt from #88's interview report:

All of a sudden he heard an explosion. He glanced over to the southeast and saw what he thought was a firework ascending into the sky. ... He stated that he continued to watch the firework ascend, expecting to see an explosion in the sky. ... About midway through its flight ... the object turned a bright red color. ... He observed an airplane come into the field of view. ... He stated that bright red object ran into the airplane and upon doing so both the airplane and the object turned a real bright red and then exploded into a huge plume of flame.

So because he cannot properly estimate the time all of this took place, or the interviewer misunderstood him, you seem to think he cannot remember the order in which these unfolding major events happened: noise from explosion -> flare -> -> sees airplane -> collision -> fireball. You also think he cannot distinguish between a flare going up and a flare coming down. If he were the only one who reported such a sequence, maybe you could reasonably think he was confused, but he isn't the only one - by a long shot. You think all these people were on drugs or something. I take their reports at face value.

ML/NJ

"You forgot to quote the part where McClaine says he observed the unusual landing light when his aircraft was still at 24,000 feet."

Not sure what that has to do with my honesty. I never claimed anything to the contrary while you specifically stated "McClain saw nothing unusual until he saw the fireball." That clearly is not true.
With regard McClaine's recollection of altitudes and the events of that night, there seems to be some rather large discrepancies. That isn't surprising, as he had no reason to make mental notes of anything until after TWA 800 exploded. And as has been pointed out, McClaine radioed his explosion report 38 seconds after the initial event on TWA 800. In his witness statement he says he first noticed TWA 800's landing light just prior to departing FL240. The ATC radar data listed at this site: Witness Group Recorded Radar Study shows McClaine departed FL240 just over one minute before the initial event on TWA 800. But in his interview he states he watched TWA 800 take off from JFK (which was over 130 miles away from his position over the Sandy Point VOR) and that was 10 minutes before he departed FL240. In his witness statement he says he witnessed TWA 800 explode as he passed through 17,000'. The ATC radar data shows he was just over FL200 when the initial event happened and at 17,500' when he made his call reporting the explosion to Boston Center.

"Are you suggesting that the mythical center fuel tank explosion which supposedly separated the nose from the rest of the aircraft occurred two minutes before the visible fireball, and McClaine didn't notice this?"

Nope. I'm suggesting that it happened at 00:31:12z, and that McClaine witnessed and reported the fuel exploding as TWA 800's wings ripped off 38 seconds later. And incidentally, the same ATC radar data that shows McClaine was still above FL200 at the initial event shows he was 25 miles away from TWA 800 when it happened. He was between 15-19 miles when TWA 800's wings tore off the fuselage as it descended toward the water.

"I got to see one of the Space Shuttle launches from the base at Cape Canaveral...."

That isn't really relevant to TWA 800. There were over 250 witnesses to the event who reported hearing an explosion. Many of them were up to twice as far away from TWA 800 as witness #88. Both the NASA study, and several witnesses near (and farther away) from his position confirm he should have heard TWA 800 explode.

"I'm not sure what it means to a boater who is watching something he thinks is some sort of firework ascend"

That is a good point, and one of the key problems with witness statements. They leave a LOT of room for interpretation which is not useful in an accident investigation. That is why I put an actual value to his description. TWA 800 was 14 degrees above the horizon from his vantage point. You can do a quick experiment to assess how "high" in the sky that is. Walk outside and point your arm straight up. That's 90 degrees. Drop your arm halfway and that's 45 degrees. Drop it halfway again and that's 22 degrees. Drop it nearly halfway again and you hit 14 degrees. After doing that, I think you'll see your hand isn't pointing "very high" in the sky by anyone's definition. Fireworks (which you usually have to tilt your head back to see) or not.

"Obviously the guy did not estimate the actual time between events well."

Whoa whoa whoa. Hey now. You aren't discounting the words of a man who was there are you?!!? You aren't saying a witness observation was something other than accurate are you?!?!

"I would guess that the fireball eventually accelerated to terminal velocity (~120 mph, I seem to recall) and so it would have taken more than a minute to fall to the surface."

And you base that on...? And if it did take more than a minute to fall, witness #88 is even more inaccurate than you accuse him of being.

"So because he cannot properly estimate the time all of this took place, or the interviewer misunderstood him, you seem to think he cannot remember the order in which these unfolding major events happened:"

Consider his statement again. He says he watched a firework rise into the air. Elsewhere in his statement he says the first place he sees the firework is 6 miles to the southeast. 10 miles to the southeast of his position we know TWA 800 is flying 14 degrees above the horizon. Two objects at that distance in the same cardinal direction are in the same field of view. But let's re-examine the missile and aircraft he describes. All he sees at first is something leaving a white, whispy smoke trail (after the initial event TWA 800 was not on fire). The object is "ascending" but remember that at its height it doesn't ascend higher than 14 degrees above the horizon. (before and after the initial event TWA 800 was also ascending). The firework stops smoking and turns bright red at its top. (the fire that started on TWA 800 started just aft of its missing forward third). At that point the firework reaches the top of its arc and an airplane comes into view (at the top of its climb TWA 800 began a right hand roll into a descent). The red light and the airplane come together and the aircraft explodes into two distinct pieces reported by several witnesses as it descends into the ocean. From the initial event to TWA 800's impact with the water took just under one minute. Since it was the sound of an explosion that caught his attention in the first place, we can assume he missed the initial event and several seconds thereafter. Putting him much closer to his 30 second timeline.

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.