TWA FLIGHT 800

3rd party | 11/27/01 | Fred Roberts

[sandydipper]

Today I had conversation with a commercial pilot who said that in July of 1996 just after the SHOOT DOWN of TWA800 a co-worker also a commercial pilot told him that he was sent to Paris to pick up the TWA president and fly him back to DC. The second pilot was a military pilot at the time and said that as soon as they returned to DC the TWA guy was helicoptered to the White House.

[barf]

Getting back to no evidence, what is the second radar return coming from the P3? The B747 had a singular return. US Air 217 had a singular return. TWA800 had a singular return. TWA900 had a singular return. Why would something show up one mile back and a half mile below the P3 consistently? If this is not evidence, please explain what it is. What is being towed behind and below the P3? It showed up on radar both in plan view and in elevation. Is it only a 'ghost'? We can see it descending from the P3 altitude early on and holding at or near 17,600 feet altitude while the P3 was slightly above 20,000 feet.

[Rokke]

Hmmmm. I can't decide if you are being serious or not. Based on your previous post, I'll guess you are. Let me give you a hint. Modern submarines go much faster underwater than they do on the surface. True, 25+ knots could in fact mean 30, 55 or even 100 knots. If that's what you want to argue, then you are entitled. But typically, you can cut submerged speeds about in half to get surfaced speeds, so unless your subs are doing greater than 60 knots underwater, they aren't doing 30 on the surface. I'm not sure how long the 30 knot track shows up but it takes about 1 minute for a sub to dive. The wake of a sub's sail is insignificant. Especially when viewed by a kid in an airliner at several thousand feet (another crappy source Acehai). If you stretch any harder, you'll snap.

[Rokke]

"Where did the pressure come from that 'supposedly' blew off the nose?"

You have the NTSB report. Read about the break-up sequence. It is very detailed and very clear, and Boeing concurs with it.

"How did seats become charred while no victims were charred?"

Here's a test. Flash a blowtorch on a thin piece of fabric or foam rubber. Now flash it on your skin. Which one burns better/faster?

"You write as though you may have taken part in the cover-up. Did you."

You write as though you live in a fantasy land. I think you do.

[barf]

When writing that cloth burns easier than skin, please show me the burned clothing that the eight victims were wearing when their skin was 'sunburned'. Since your friend has not answered my sled question, maybe you could, considering how smart you are. Relative to Boeing, they did not agree with the CWT explosion. They did not complain about paying off the survivors since they likely were given money from the feds to cover that. Have you heard of any inert gas charging of fuel tanks? You won't. Why bother if only a lie to start with?

[thatstan]

Sounds like bullsh*t to me.

[Rokke]

"When writing that cloth burns easier than skin, please show me the burned clothing that the eight victims were wearing when their skin was 'sunburned'."

I haven't seen their clothes. Could you tell me what parts of their bodies were burned?

"Since your friend has not answered my sled question, maybe you could, considering how smart you are."

Since you haven't posted a picture of what you are looking at, it's hard to know for sure, but without any other reference, I'll go along with the teams of radar experts who assessed it as nothing. And "sled" is not the right terminology for what you are implying. Airplanes don't tow sleds. Some mine sweeping helicopters do, but not (to the best of my knowledge) airplanes.

"Relative to Boeing, they did not agree with the CWT explosion."

You must have missed this from Boeing's addendum to the NTSB report "Based on a review of this information, Boeing believes that there was an ignition of the flammable vapors in the CWT resulting in a loss of structural integrity of the aircraft.

"They did not complain about paying off the survivors since they likely were given money from the feds to cover that."

I'm not certain, but I don't think they had to pay anything. I think TWA did.

"Have you heard of any inert gas charging of fuel tanks?"

Absolutely. The military is willing to pay for it, and does. I have a halon charging system in the airplane I fly. The airlines aren't willing to fork over the money to have it done. I guess they are willing to roll the dice.

[Rokke]

I'm heartbroken.

[acehai]

Well, I worked with Permits but not with Seawolfs so I'm familiar with their performance.

How nice...You're familiar with a boat designed in 1963 but not with the Seawolf class. You're admitting prima facie that you're not familiar with a boat designed 25 years later, and you want me to make up for your ignorance? And now, instead of 30 kts, it's 30+? Now surfaced subs travel at one-half their submerged speed, huh? So the published speed of the surfaced Trepang (15 kts) is 50% of it's published submerged speed (25 kts)? What laughing academy did you say you matriculated from???

Y'know...I think I'll just let the shrill invectiveness of your and the alleged F-16 jock who believes the CIA "noseless zoom climb cartoon" speak to the reader as to the lengths a disinformationist is prepaired to go. By the way, what's your position on the CIA "cartoon"? Answer carefully, for you can't afford to make another faux paux where credibility is concerned

Whether you or Rokke accept anything is inconsequential...The information is out there and the reader can make up his mind. It seems you both have trouble with that concept. :^)

[acehai]

1. A Kenetic Kill Vehicle is designed to destroy theater ballistic missile warheads outside the Earth's atmosphere. It impacts its targets at hypersonic speeds (lets say about 6 miles per second). To test it, you use a target that simulates a ballistic missile warhead.

Try working on your reading comprehension, Rokke, the spelling leaves a little to be desired, also...Aww I'll overlook the Kenetic Kill Vehicle if you'll give Mike Sommers the benefit of the doubt on ol' Benton/Burton. The source I gave for the following statement that proves you are full of Bull $**T is a Department of Defense site. Try going there if you won't take my word for it. It's easy. Cut and paste, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/sm-2.htm or Click HERE The salient point in this case is underlined and bold. You should have no difficulty.

The SM-2 Block IVA upgrade is being developed to provide capability against theater ballistic missiles, although it is planned to retain capability against anti-air warfare threats.

2. The Standard Block IVA has been actually fired twice with the first test in 1997.

From the same article...

A System Design Review for SM-2 Block IVA was conducted in December 1993 and a Risk Reduction Flight Demonstration (RRFD) program was initiated in FY 1994. An Environmental Test Round (ETR-2A) was successfully launched in the summer 1996.

Gee...That's a coincidence. The summer of 1996...July, d'ya suppose?

Stan's "sailor story" said something about a Test Round, I believe...

[Non-Sequitur]

Oh wow, Ace. Hit a nerve, did I? Well calm down, wipe the foam off your mouth and take a deep breath. We don't want you throwing an aneurysm or anything.

It would have been a lot easier if you just admitted that you don't have any evidence of a U.S. or allied sub capable of doing either 30 knots or 30+ knots surfaced. Or any evidence that the P-3 was towing a target. Or any evidence of a test of a submarine launched surface-to-air missile system. But instead you have to throw out cracks about laughing academy and accusing me of 'shrill invectives' and question my credibility while clinging to you unsupportable theory. So be it. Like the short, bald, fat man with the bad skin and cheap toupee who thinks he looks like Tom Cruise you refuse to listen to those he try to tell you that you're making a fool out of yourself. Go ahead. I won't try to stop you any more.

[Darksheare]

There wasn't anything carrying SM-2's in the area.

[Darksheare]

The Government Did It Myth. Didn't you hear? Osama took credit for it. G. Stephanopolis said "Bombed" Get it?! Here, take this compass, and this magnet and go navigate through those trees over there. Don't stop till you find the wiseman.

[barf]

Neither you nor Rocky has explained what the second radar return coming from the P3 really is. Go to Exhibit 13A, p42, and magnify the P3 track. The symbols of BOSCTR radar are the inverted blue triangles. Note the spacing between and how lines connecting them align with the P3 track (long spans that is). This is my evidence. Please explain in terms that engineers might use rather than propaganda users might use. The evidence that the TWA800 was shot down is both accurate and cogent. The radar evidence in Exhibit 13E shows what 13A shows in plan, in elevation.

[barf]

The missile used was a test version of the SM-2 without a warhead making it effectively a KKV. Repeat: test version. Your statement bleeds with weasel wording. Typical for the Bill Clinton supporters, no doubt.

[barf]

Your initial post is likely true that TWA knew early on that FLT800 was shot down. TWA president Erickson was rather upset to say the least at his first press exposures. His later departure was undoubtedly connected. Since both TWA and Boeing must operate with the government's blessing, they have to show agreement to stay in business. Any threats of showing favor to Airbus have been discarded lately with the A300 falling apart in flight. One principal conclusion is that OUR NTSB IS EITHER INCOMPETENT OR UNTRUTHFUL. There is no other way to put it. The public gets the government that they are willing to put up with. There is no time like the present to stop putting up with either incompetence or untruthfulness.

[Rokke]

"the spelling leaves a little to be desired"

Note to self...run spell check before responding to Acehai...naahh.

"proves you are full of Bull $**T"

First, your link is not a DoD site. But I'll give you partial credit for not linking me to something done by Salinger/Sommers. Second, the anti-air capability of the Block IV was never resolved, so no one is really sure what it's capability is against non-TBM air threats. The Block IV A was designed as an anti-TBM missile. That is all it has been tested against.
Third, don't get too excited about ETR-2A. Environmental Test flights are usually conducted at one of the primary missile test centers (most likely White Sands in New Mexico). I'd bet a steak dinner ETR-2A was not launched from a ship (or sub) and highly doubt it was even launched at a target.

But, if your (and Barf's) theory hinges on TWA800 being shotdown by the ETR-2A missile, then a simple verification of where or even when that test took place ought to clarify things. I'll find that out for you.

[Rokke]

OK. I finally found a source for the NTSB exhibits you keep referencing. Now, could you explain in detail what leads you to believe the P-3 is towing something? Also, where are you getting your altitude information from? Thanks in advance.

[barf]

Exhibit 13A, page 42, P3 track, inverted blue triangles. Exhibit 10A, last block contains FDR anomalies unless removed by NTSB. Exhibit 13E, page I-9, above and below 20,000 feet.

[Rokke]

"Exhibit 13A, page 42, P3 track, inverted blue triangles. Exhibit 10A, last block contains FDR anomalies unless removed by NTSB. Exhibit 13E, page I-9, above and below 20,000 feet."

OK. I think I see what you are refering to from Exhibit 13A. Is it the two primary returns at grid -8.2/20.6 and -6.5/22.8?
I don't understand what you mean by "last block" in Exhibit 10A.
Exhibit 13E page I-9 is radar sensed altitude data of TWA 800. It is giving it's best estimate of where the 747 is. The chart has nothing to do with the Navy P-3. Even if the NOR Radar antenna was recording P-3 altitude data, the information given says the altitude read estimation is only accurate to +/- 3000ft but "the error can increase significantly when range of the radar to the target increases beyond 100 nautical miles." TWA800 never got within 136 miles of the NOR site, and the P-3 was further out than that.

Am I missing something?

[barf]

My last block of the FDR data consists of the anomalies. The NTSB later removed that so one could not see the anomalies. In I-9 of 13E, the black triangles are the secondary radar returns from TWA800. The primary, only, returns are from the P3 above 20,000 feet and the sled at around 17,600 feet. You can see where the sled is descending at the left and you can also see something else descending shortly after the 200 second index. I don't know what it is because the NTSB put 102000 data in that area. The also put 102000 data where the sled is descending but one can figure out what it is. Quite possibly the exhibits which are still available are prostituted but my stuff came before the NTSB could prostitute it. In Exhibit 10A clean data was in the block marked 20:31:11 and anomalies fell in block marked 20:31:12. Block 20:31:12 has been removed in later copies of Exhibit 10A. Anyone who has not been researching this crash for a long time would be out of luck. In Exhibit 13B, extra data was placed in the P3 track to make it difficult to read the double images. They must have superimposed all returns from all radars. The NTSB is pretty sneaky.