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.

[Asmodeus]

Please review Reply #279 to Acehai and provide the readers with a sequential timeline for your sled towing P-3 accidental U.S. Navy shootdown hypothesis - if you can.

[barf]

Please tell the jury what is flying at or around 17,600 feet. And what is flying at or around 20,000 feet. Radar shows something with a primary rather than a secondary return. What are they? Ghosts?

[barf]

Elmer Fudd: What is your theory on the downing of TWA800? You don't appear bright enough to have one. You know how to bad mouth others but what exactly is your's? All of the forums that you have been in has been only to bad mouth. How much money do you expect to eventually earn in your effort?

[Asmodeus]

According to your Reply #280, your partial sequential timeline for your sled towing P-3 accidental U.S. Navy shootdown appears to be approximately as follows:

20:31:12 U.S. Navy hybrid SM-2 missile with dual mode homing impacts TWA 800 at 13,800 feet.

20:31:47 Massive Fireball explodes in the falling wreckage at 7500 feet.

20:31:43 Wreckage begins hitting the surface.

What was the approximate Flight time of the U.S. Navy hybrid SM-2 missile with dual mode homing from launch until impact with Flight 800 at 13,800 feet at 8:31:12? A meaningful answer from you will clarify the approximate launch time you are contending in the sequential timeline of your hypothesis.

You earlier alleged that at least one witness saw a fiery streak from that alleged U.S. Navy hybrid SM-2 missile with dual mode homing missile during that flight time so a meaningful answer from you to that question will also clarify for the readers approximately how long any such witness would have had to make that alleged fiery streak observation.

Then, of course, there's the slight matter of proving that there was any such witness by your providing the readers with the his/her name and the specific reference source URL you are supposedly relying on. It should go without saying that any such witness report has to be sufficiently detailed to rule out the fiery streak dramatized by witness Meyer in his own press graphic that also includes the Massive Fireball explosion you have acknowledged did not occur until long after the alleged shootdown of the 747 by the alleged U.S. Navy hybrid SM-2 missile with dual mode homing at 13,800 feet at 8:31:12.

Witness Meyer's Press Graphic

[barf]

Elmer Fudd: Your time for the fireball is possibly garbage. McClaine stated that the illumination from the fireball showed debris hitting the water. Therefore the fireball time should precede the earliest time for heavy debris to impact the water. Fireball should approximate 20:31:40 plus or minus. This would be 28 seconds after the IE. The wing debris may have spun similar to a Chinese Elm tree seed. Some noted that the spikes coming from the fireball did spin. Ignition of the fireball likely came from the fire in the cabin debris. Whatever attachment of the wings to one another likely separated during the fireball if not sooner. If the wing elements did spin similar to Elm seeds, that would explain why the wing descent was slower than other debris. Your question on the time for the SM-2 hybrid ascent could be answered by yourself since I haven't a clue. I recognize that a change in direction took place and do not know how much that could have attenuated the total time. Is it true that the mystery plane was a drone acting as a backup target in case the missile missed the sled? An accident such as this one was not caused due to bad planning rather bad luck in that the TWA800 happened to be running late and the entry of the P3 prevented it from climbing to FL190 as originally intended. Murphy seems to fuck things up at the worst possible time. It was a collection of all sorts of things happening at the wrong time. The P3 may have lit the burner on the sled early and that contributed but the total test may have been too complex for all to stay in sync. At one time, I felt that the sled was let down too early but it had to be let down early and the only variable would be when the burner came on. If that occurred 12 minutes later, at the mid point of the mystery plane flight, the TWA flight could have cleared the area and we would not be discussing the crash. It appears that the P3 arrived on the scene 12 minutes early and presented a lit burner to the missile shooter and it fired 12 minutes early as well. This is the best scenario that I can come up with. I have to guess that the test was to occur southwest of where it did occur. 12 minutes at 5+ miles per minute could place the test area 60 miles away. But the 12 minutes is only a conjecture. Maybe 6 minutes could be the differential. A 30 mile measure from the actual site could be more reasonable. Flip a coin.

[Rokke]

"Please tell the jury what is flying at or around 17,600 feet. And what is flying at or around 20,000 feet. Radar shows something with a primary rather than a secondary return. What are they? Ghosts?"

As explained in exhibit 13E (and repeated in post #259 by me) the radar reporting the altitudes varies in accuracy by +/-3000ft when the contact is within 100 miles. Its inaccuracy increases significantly outside of 100 miles. The P-3 was roughly 140 miles away. If you match the times of the contacts you will see that they occur 12 seconds apart throughout the sequence whether their reported alitude is 20,000ft or 17,600ft. Secondary returns are purely the result of IFF transmissions. Those altitude reports should be accurate. Since the P-3's IFF didn't work, the only returns are primary (actual radar returns bouncing off the airframe). Primary returns vary in accuracy each sweep. You are supposed to be the aeronautical engineer. Why do I have to explain this to "the jury"?

Incidently, you still haven't told me whether or not I'm looking at the right data on pg 42.

[barf]

The inaccuracy bit is pure bullsh*t. The primary returns at 14,800 were repeated time after time. Do you understand how the BOSCTR radar works? It likely uses a solid state antenna to gauge the elevation angle and then multiples the sine and cosine times the range to get both the surface straight line range and elevation. Why it got the P3 only sporatically and not continuously is highly suspect. It died when the sled was descending and then again it died when the second object dropped away from the P3. How handy?

[barf]

Doesn't it embarrass you to lie so much? That inaccuracy bit was rather lame. The NTSB pulled that crap and you only parroted it. Why would they bother to use it if it truly were that bad. The military uses that principal for mortar location radars. What good would they be if as bad as you state? The repeatability was pretty damn good when they didn't screw it up intentionally. Electronics is not like throwing a string out and seeing where it lands. How would ATC operate if the system worked as badly as you state? Not everybody uses secondary radar and they have to warn others of their proximity. The inaccuracy applies to ground clutter only. At points above the horizon it is accurate.

[barf]

Maybe we should go back to the beginning. Do you agree that a double radar return is coming from the P3 track on page 42 of Exhibit 13A. Yes or No? If No, please do not bother me with anymore lies.

[barf]

To get back to ground clutter messing up radar returns, where would ground clutter come from over the ocean?

[Rokke]

Barf, I'm trying to maintain my patience here, so bear with me. You asked me: "Do you understand how the BOSCTR radar works?". Let me clarify something you are obviously unaware of. BOSCTR RADAR CAN NOT PROVIDE ELEVATION DATA ON PRIMARY RETURNS. No matter who you want accuse of lying, the facts don't change. The ATC system relies on secondary returns (IFF Transponder Transmissions) for altitude data. That is why all aircraft flying on IFR flightplans must have an IFF.

It never ceases to amaze me that the most vocal critics of the NTSB and the TWA800 investigation know the least about what they are talking about. It's no wonder you think the NTSB is lying. You can't even interpret a simple data chart! The sad thing is, you blame the NTSB for you lack of analytical skill. The elevation cuts on I-9 don't even come from Boston Center. They come from an Air Route Surveillance Radar. Not even surveillance radars on AWACS have the kind of elevation accuracy you insist the NTSB is lying about. Sporadic P-3 primary returns?!!? Heck, I'm surprised they saw it at all.

If you are truly serious about your ridiculous theory, you owe it to yourself to do some research into our countries ATC system and the capability of its radars. You have got a lot of nerve to accuse me of lying about a subject you cannot even talk intelligently about.

Finally, you STILL haven't told me if I'm looking at the right thing on page 42. Are you afraid of your information?

[Rokke]

You still haven't told me exactly what you are looking at. Give me some coordinates.

[Rokke]

The surface of the ocean is a terrible radar environment, depending on the sea state. Waves reflect radar energy (as does temperature inversions and many other kinds of weather anomolies). The radar I use has a special "SEA" mode we use to find targets on the water that specifically blanks out the intereference caused by waves.

[barf]

Where did the altitudes in I-5 come from? The P3 and whatever it was towing did not have IFF as you put it. Is this just one more lie from you? That is total B.S. that altitudes and coordinates can't come from primary radar. I was an electronics officer in Korea before going into engineering. The technology has been around for a long time. You may not be aware of it but it exists. How does mortar locating radar work if mortar shells do not use IFF? You need to go back to school.

[Rokke]

"Where did the altitudes in I-5 come from? The P3 and whatever it was towing did not have IFF as you put it."

Please read pages 2-5 of exhibit 13E. You will find that all the primary altitude data depicted in the exhibit came from the same source: The radar antenna at North Truro, Mass (NOR).

"Is this just one more lie from you?"

Again, you accuse me of lying. Lying about what? I take that very personally. Believe me, I've got much better things to do in life than make up stories to tell Barf.

"That is total B.S. that altitudes and coordinates can't come from primary radar. I was an electronics officer in Korea before going into engineering. The technology has been around for a long time. You may not be aware of it but it exists. How does mortar locating radar work if mortar shells do not use IFF? You need to go back to school."

I'm going to do you a favor. I'm going to give you a link you can go to to read about our country's ATC radar system and what its capabilities are. Your electronics and engineering background should equip you to understand something you are obviously not familiar with. If you honestly believe your theory, you owe it to yourself to read the link I am giving you.

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/Chap1/aim0102.html

[Rokke]

By the way....anything yet on Page 42???

[barf]

It is a good thing that playing stupid about page 42 won't earn you a living. You give disinformationalism a bad name. You should watch Elmer Fudd more. He is an expert at being a disinformationlist. But maybe you do not really play being stupid but are truly stupid. You may have a perfect excuse. What Elmer Fudd does is keep his own bad information out of an argument by only repeating what others say. You, though, have a fatal flaw. You write stuff which is total garbage. Elmer doesn't do this. He is only redundant in repeating and repeating and repeating.

[Rokke]

Can you answer this simple question:
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 asked it in post #259. I didn't think it was that difficult. Why all the abusive comments. Maybe if you could identify which of my comments are "total garbage" I could agree or provide outside sources to back me up.

[barf]

To get back to page 42 of Exhibit 13A, the P3 and whatever it is towing is repeated sweep after sweep. It is not just two points, it is many points. I can understand your reluctance in admitting that the P3 is towing something. This would cause your total argument to fall apart. That would hurt a disinformationalist. You might have to leave this forum and go into another one to tell lies. You do really need at least one lie to fall back on and I may end up destroying that one lie. Does this calibrate? Elmer Fudd occasionally gets angry when people counter his disinformation and leaves but he always comes back. After awhile you begin to love Elmer because he is fun to laugh at. It would be so disappointing if Elmer left and now if you left because you are one more person to laugh at. As long as you both do nothing but supply disinformation it is to some credit to you both due to the laughter. So, keep us laughing.

[Rokke]

Sigh. I can only assume you are unable to plot simple x/y grid coordinates. Otherwise, you would have answered my question by now. A quick review of the last 10 or so posts indicates who is more interested in discussing the issue. I have provided you links to information, specific grid coordinates, relevant background information on radar and our ATC system, and you keep bringing up Elmer Fudd. I don't think anyone is laughing at this point. Let me try a different approach.

True or False - BOSCTR primary radar can plot target altitudes
True or False - All altitude information in Exhibit 13E is from the NOR site
True or False - The pertainent data on page 42 is at the following grid coordinates: -8.2/20.6 and -6.5/22.8