Posted on 11/27/2001 1:52:03 PM PST by 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.
http://www.news12.com/CDA/Articles/Transcript/0,2051,5-5-28341-78,00.html
1. A 30 knot surfaced sub (unproven)
2. A KKV missile launched the day of the TWA 800 disaster (unproven)
3. A target towing P-3 (unproven)
4. Exhibit 13E chart I-9 data that shows a P-3 or a "sled" (wrong)
5. A chaff emitting hybrid missile. Chaff is used to obscure radar targets, not "paint" them, and it drifts with the wind. It does not linger in place for 30 minutes (unless there is no wind) (wrong)
6. ATC primary radars track target altitudes (wrong)
7. The NTSB incorrectly plotted the radar data they were given (unproven)
8. Altitude data in Exhibit 13E was falsified by the USAF or NTSB (unproven)
I could probably go on, but what's the point. Your theory is already toast. You propose a theory (most of which is based on wrong information) and then defend it by saying you don't need to prove anything. Are you kidding me? Asking someone for proof isn't a "game". It is merely assuming that people wouldn't trash the reputations of countless people in several government and civilian organizations without some proof. I don't think that is too much to ask. So let me ask it again. To the list I just posted, where is your proof? If you don't have any, withdraw your completely unsupportable theory, and try another one.
FYI ;^)
Main Entry: cat·e·nary
Pronunciation: 'ka-t&-"ner-E, esp British k&-'tE-n&-rE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nar·ies
Etymology: New Latin catenaria, from Latin, feminine of
catenarius of a chain, from catena
Date: 1788
1 : the curve assumed by a cord of uniform density and cross section that is perfectly flexible but not capable of being stretched and that hangs freely from two fixed points
Has anybody proposed that it was the failure of the actual airframe/aircraft itself?And, actually, in all lilelyhood the most probable and rational reason -
- the failure in an older airframe with many hours and many T/L cycles as well in an area which has been problmatic in the past on OTHER 747's, and, caused one event which originally was thought to be a 'bomb' but turned out to be 'door' (door latches) instead ...
I realize all the snap, pizaz and sexiness lies with the very popular (amongst the tin-foil crowd especially) errant or intententional missile theory.
The more likely - and with precedent - theory is the Forward Cargo Bay Door theory.
Taking into account 1) the more reliable eye-witness accounts from pilots of aircraft in the area operating at altitude - as well as 2) RADAR data and 3) the physical location of recovered 'parts' belonging to TWA800, 4) #3 fodded engine (on rights side/same side as FCBD) AND 5) the history of that airframe series -
- THE single most likely cause was FCBD ...
Most of us just call that 'a transponder' now since, in reality, it isn't *used* for that 'IFF' function anymore (it's early *roots* may have been in that area - but that's been awhile now).
We used to have a poster self-identified as "FormerLurker" who would call it "IFF ..." all the time. Is there a connection here?
Bite you tongue. Absolutely no connection. Even bringing up his name usually results in a several page long cut and paste that bogs threads down to a thick cement even on the fastest systems.
Most military pilots still call it an IFF because that's the role it still performs for us.
Silly (addressing someone else): Why do you take advantage of people's tragic deaths to drag out conspiracy theories?Some do it given their technical backgrounds coupled with their propensity for pomposity and still others do it for the true, although misguided belief that an omni-potent government directed by the world's powerful banks are the instigation to tragedies like this.
The truth is that accidents of this nature occur for the very same reasons that accidents occurr everyday in our own backyards and on our very own city streets and highways - man build things that will occasionally, through a combination of factors, accidently kill people.
As a technical investigator myself I used to be entranced when reading the accounts of pilots of small and large planes alike who *lived* through harrowing circumstances where their aircraft failed or was subjected to forces that pushed it beyond it's design limits - and they, through a combination of shear luck and instinct through years of flying were able to 'recover' or otherwise make it back to terra firma in one piece ...
Little do these tin foil types realize just how slim those margins are between catastrophe and a normnal flight - when it comes to the combination of the physics of nature and the passage of time as those factors work against against the materials used (for an application) and the duality in man of ingenuity and fallibility as he crafts devices/machines that push the frontiers of his knowledge and the performance envelope all at the same time ...
... call it an IFF because that's the role it still performs for us.Oh yeah ... 'Identify Friend or Foe' ... oh yeah ... 'challenge and authenticate' ... oh yeah ... as opposed to a simple 'transpond' operation - listen on one freq and 'echo back' on another with a preset train of pulses selected by a thumb-wheel 'code' on a panel mounted radio ... oh yeah ... that's IFF alright ... oh yeah ...
FM 101-5-1 Operational Terms and Graphics Appendix E Multiservice Tactical Brevity Codes ... PARROT IFF transponder ...
We have already established you are an expert in engineering domes. For that, I applaud you. But I have spent the last 12 years strapping myself to various ejection seats and training with the latest anti-air missiles. Give me credit where credit is due, and realize that you are wrong here.
Furthermore, as an engineer I assumed you would be capable of comprehending that returns separated by 4 seconds showing up 140 miles away from a radar with a 12 second sweep would be seperated by 240 miles. Therefore, the double returns depicted on page 42 are based on flawed data. On that point we agree. I assumed that given the fact that 8 radars track the P-3 and only 1 of those 8 indicate a double return, might lead a person to realize that perhaps that 1 oddball radar has some faulty data (proven by actually plotting the data provided which you are for some reason unable to do). The fact that the data from Boston Center is faulty, doesn't seem to phase you. You continue to use that very same faulty data as your only evidence that the P-3 appears to be dragging something. The fact that you are not bothered by balancing your whole flawed theory on faulty data convinces me to stay far far away from any dome you ever engineered.
Rather than spending most of your posts calling me brain dead and telling me to go back to school, why don't you offer proof of even one of the elements of your theory. I believe if you could, you would.
Likely this is what fodded the No. 3 engine.There were *3* other 747s that met their fate with *circumstances* TOO similar to TWA800 to be ignored - and *each* of those too had #3 fodded ... including a 747 that *survived* a FCBD event - in which #3 was heavily fodded ... WHAT is able to fod #3 engine with ease - blow the FCBD and eject luggage/luggage containers several seats with passengers (SEVERAL from this area have never been found/WEREN'T attached to the airframe, hence, they *must* have been sucked out - as happened on several other Boeing 747 'hull rupture' events (UA811, AI182, PA103) ...
As far as I can recall, the cargo door latches were intact.... as in "they were still ???" - what? Still attached? To what? The door or the airframe?
I'm going to have to post the following in it's entirety, unfortunately, to support a different position:
TWA 800 Cargo door area reconstruction showing rupture at aft midspan latch of forward cargo door inflight and destruction sequence description.
Outward opening skin indicates expansion from within, not outside pressure pushing inward. Red paint smears indicate metal below expanded upward and slammed into skin above transferring paint. (Witnessed on other aircraft who underwent similar event.)
Most of door missing indicates unable to claim it did not malfunction.
Right side of fuselage damage only and port side smooth indicates not center tank explosion which would give equal bilateral damage not the one sided damage shown above. 1 Nov 97
Projected description of destructive sequence when aft midspan latch ruptures in forward cargo door inflight on high time Boeing 747s, based upon NTSB AAR 92/02, NTSB wreckage reconstruction of TWA 800, CASB Aviation Occurrence VT-EFO, Indian Report of Court Investigation "Kanishka", UK AAIB Aviation Accident Report 2/90, FAA ADs, and UK Comet accident reports:
Sequence of Destruction for TWA Flight 800
Aft Midspan Latch Rupture in Forward Cargo Door
Wire bundle gets chafed by continuous door openings and closings on it. Sheath around bundle gets worn through to insulation. Insulation gets worn through to bare wire. Bare wire shorts against metal powering on door motor which turns cam sectors to unlocked position. On TWA 800, at 13700 feet MSL and 300 KCAS, the eight lower cam sectors were prevented from unlocking because of the strengthened locking sectors which now have steel doublers as per AD 88-12-04. However, the two midspan latches have no locking sectors at all. The slack in bellcranks, torque tubes, and high time worn cam latches allowed the aft midspan latch to rotate just past center allowing the 3.5 PSI internal pressure to rupture the forward cargo door at the aft midspan latch.
The nine foot by nine foot squarish door burst open at midspan latch sending the latch and door material spinning away in the setting sun which reflected upon the shiny metal and appeared as streak to ground observers. The aft door frame was clean of attachment to door and bulged outward. The door fractured at midline and shattered. The bottom eight latches held tight to the bottom eight latch pins on sill while bottom external skin of door blew away. The top piece of red door slammed out and up smashing into the white fuselage skin above leaving the red paint on the door on the white paint between passenger windows above. The top piece of the door took the hinge with it and fuselage skin as it is tore away. The hinge appears to be working normally while having overtravel impression marks on the opposite hinge when door overextended to slam on fuselage above.
The now uncompressed air molecules rushed out of the nine foot by thirty foot hole equalizing high pressure inside to low pressure outside. The sudden rushing air was recorded on the Cockpit Voice Recorder as a sudden loud sound. The explosive decompression of the forward cargo hold disrupted the nearby main equipment compartment and abruptly shut off power to the Flight Data Recorder.
The door hole was now at least nine feet by thirty feet large. At least nine passengers were blown out of the hole into the nearby number three engine which mulched them up into tiny bone fragments. The number three engine also ingested metal in baggage and started on fire from inefficient burning of fuel. Then the number three engine with pylon started to vibrate and soon detached from wing as designed.
The floor beams were bent, fractured and broken. The main structural members of door and frame were gone and compromised. The flight attitude of the aircraft was askew to the left from reaction of explosive decompression to the right. Air rushed into the hole and weakened other skin and frame peeling skin outward. The 300 knots of air pressed upon the weakened nose and crumpled it into the large hole. The nose tore off and fell and landed in a dense heap before the rest of the plane.
Pieces of baggage and fuselage skin flew backward and left more severe damage on starboard side, such as right wing fillet, of TWA 800 fuselage than port side.
The port side forward of the wing was smooth and unshattered while the starboard side forward of the wing is shattered, torn, and frayed at ruptured cargo door area.
The rest of the plane without the nose suddenly decelerated from 300 knots and caused whiplash injuries to passengers. Passengers inside fuselage had baro-trauma to eardrums which ruptured trying to equalize middle ear pressure. The plane maneuvered with huge gaping wound in front increasing drag. The wind force disintegrated the fuselage and wings. Fuel poured out of ruptured tanks. The broken fuselage, the ruptured wings, the fuel cloud, the center tank, and the spinning, on fire engine number three met at 7500 feet and exploded into a bright loud fireball putting singe marks on the fuselage skin while leaving the nose burn free. Center tank exploded/caught fire as well as other nearby fuel tanks. The debris falls and spreads out from 7500 feet to sea level.
Ground observers hear the fireball explosion of the center tank and other fuel and look up. Noise of fireball to observers is about 50 seconds for the ten mile distance. They see the still falling shiny pieces of the forward cargo door as it is still falling from 13700 feet to the sea in about 60 seconds.
The detached burnt engine number three and pylon fall apart from the other three engines which fall together.
Explosive decompression at the forward cargo hold led to suspicion of bomb in cargo compartment but bomb later ruled out.
Streak of shiny metal object spinning away reflecting evening sun to ground observers led to suspicion of missile but later ruled out.
Fire/explosion of center tank into fireball leads to suspicion of center tank explosion as initial event but difficulty arises in determining ignition source, fuel volatility, unheard of explosion sound, unilateral damage, and weakness of tank needed for such an initial explosion.
Fuselage rupture at aft midspan latch of forward cargo door inflight is initially rejected because most of latches are found latched around locking pins.
Further investigation reveals door rupture at aft midspan latch in forward cargo door possible with bottom latches latched and midspan latches missing.
Questions about center tank explosion as initial event which
evidence raises.
1. Sudden loud sound on Cockpit Voice Recorder is described as start of aircraft breakup but not sound of explosion. How can an explosion in the center tank be powerful enough to start the aircraft breakup and blow off nose of Boeing 747 and not be heard on CVR?
2. Center tank explosion would be spherical, not directed, and would either give no damage forward of the wing or about equal damage on both sides of the fuselage of TWA 800. The wreckage reconstruction shows smooth skin with little damage forward of the wing on the port/left side yet severe, shattered, torn, and frayed damage on the starboard/right side of the fuselage in the cargo door area. How can a center tank explosion cause unilateral damage only on starboard side?
3. TWA 800 wreckage reconstruction shows outward peeled skin, outward rupture hole, and paint transfers. Water impact damage would be inward, not outward. How could water impact damage produce outward peeled skin, outward rupture hole, and paint transfers?
4. TWA 800 wreckage reconstruction shows red paints smears only above the forward cargo door area and nowhere else on both side of the Boeing 747 fuselage. This indicates that the red painted door below ruptured/opened outward, slammed upward, and smashed into the white painted area above and transferred red paint from door onto white paint between windows. How did red paint smears get where they are?
5. A center tank explosion would be far enough away from power cables to allow the Flight Data Recorder to record longer than the abrupt power cut it suffered. How can a center tank explosion which is not loud enough to be heard on the CVR and some distance away be strong enough to abruptly cease power to the FDR?
6. How could forward cargo door rupture/open when bottom eight latches are latched and locked in TWA reconstruction?
7. How could forward cargo door rupture cause center tank explosion?
Answers of forward cargo door rupture to questions which
evidence raises:
1. Sudden loud sound is sound of explosive decompression which gives a sudden loud sound when forward cargo door ruptures/opens in flight. The TWA 800 sudden loud sound was linked to PA 103 sudden loud sound on CVR which was linked to AI 182 sudden loud sound on CVR which was linked to DC-10 cargo door explosive decompression on CVR. UAL 811 had a cargo door rupture/open in flight and recorded a sudden loud sound on the CVR. The sound is the sudden rushing of air molecules which were compressed now moving fast outward to equalize with the lower pressure outside air.
2. Explosive decompression and rupture of forward cargo door area when aft midspan latch ruptures would give shattered, torn and frayed, damage to cargo door area while leaving port/left/opposite side smooth and light damage. Cargo door rupture would give the unilateral damage on starboard side as shown by TWA 800 wreckage. UAL 811 also had unilateral cargo door area damage when its door opened in flight.
3. Explosive decompression in nose of TWA 800 would give outward peeled skin in nose, outward rupture hole, and paint transfers as internal high pressure rushes outward to equalize with the low outside pressure.
4. After the rupture at aft midspan latch the door fractured and upper piece of the red painted door was pushed outward, rotated on its hinge, slammed upward and smashed into the white painted fuselage skin above, transferring red paint to the white painted area between the passengers windows, as shown by the TWA 800 reconstruction. UAL 811 also had paint transfer from door to fuselage when its door opened in flight.
5. The explosive decompression in the cargo compartment would severely disrupt the cargo hold floor and the adjacent main equipment compartment in which the FDR and power cables are located. The severe disruption would abruptly cease power to the FDR. UAL 811 also had abrupt power cut when its cargo door opened in flight.
6. The forward cargo door of Boeing 747s is over nine feet by nine feet square. It has a hinge on the top and eight cam latches on the bottom. On each nine foot side is one midspan latch. The bottom eight cam latches go around eight latching pins. Over each cam latch is a locking sector. The two midspan latches have no locking sectors. The forward cargo door could rupture at the midspan latch and the hinge and bottom eight latches could still be attached to fuselage skin. The top of the door with hinge attached would tear off with the fuselage skin and spin away. The bottom eight latches could stay attached to bottom sill and continue down to the sea with the nose. The middle of the large door can still be ruptured/opened while the lower part stays attached to airframe. Doors can open/rupture with most or all latches latched. TWA 800 reconstruction shows aft mid span latch missing which implies it became unlatched. The aft door frame sill is smooth and not attached to door which implies door opened in that area.
7. When cargo door ruptures in flight a huge hole is created in nose which the 300 knot slipstream tears off. The falling, noseless, structurally compromised aircraft disintegrated into wings of rupturing fuel tanks, fuselage pieces including center tank, and spinning hot on fire jet engine. When falling debris reached about 7500 feet, the fodded on fire engine number three ignited the fuel cloud and center fuel tank into a fireball. Center tank fire/explosion occurred but later and lower than forward cargo door rupture initial event.
Yahoo twa800 - barf
Date: Sun Dec 16, 2001 5:15 pm
Subject: Re: [twa800] TWA 800 Coverup Is Finally Complete
I believe that any drone debris is purely ancillary and not directly causal. The back and forth vehicle was likely a drone. It flew as if programmed for 45 minutes. I am saddened if the entry point was destroyed along with other debris.
I still contend that Fritz Meyer did not see ordnance. There would be no reason to kick a dead horse. A missile which Meyer did not see had already done the dirty deed. It is likely that someone would have had to have been looking directly at the missile impact to have seen anything of value.
The guilty missile broke up the plane without any HE, only brute force. A drone could not have had the necessary mass or velocity to destroy the plane as an SM-2 hybrid would have. A drone impact should have allowed the crew to issue a Mayday. Even in the recent Russian crash, the crew spoke and was recorded after their fatal missile strike. Unless the CVR record had been doctored, TWA's crew did not have that opportunity. The TWA missile strike was too violent and likely killed all on board at the same time.
What happened was what I expected to have happen when it was announced that the reconstruction was going to a crash investigation school. The guilty have a need to destroy the evidence and they did it.
But people have memories and hopefully will need to relieve their own guilt and talk. We need to keep pressuring people like Loeb and Hall. Eventually their charade will crack. There must be others who are vulnerable. A small crack can lead to a large crack.
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.