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
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.
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.
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.