TWA FLIGHT 800

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.

Ahh. Please note that your reference says "The Air Training Command has equipped some of its aircraft". I suppose someone thought it was a good idea to highlight the area a student punched out in. I don't believe they still do that. I'll find out for you tommorrow. As for what is in my seat, the ACES II, (which is the same seat flown in almost every USAF combat aircraft today and for decades) I challange you to find chaff anywhere near it. Nice classless comment about stupid pilots though, which brings me to "painting" objects with chaff.

Chaff is to radars what a smoke screen is to the human eyeball. It is not easy to control, it obscures whatever it surrounds and prohibits any useful observation of what it is used around. You have correctly stated that it is made up of fine, hair like particles coated with radar reflective material. Those fine particles disperse in a cloud and drift with the wind. Chaff clouds are completely at the mercy of the wind, and any chaff used anywhere near TWA800 would have shown up as a large 17-19 knot track (the speed of the wind at the altitude TWA 800 blew up). You cannot "paint" something with chaff any more than you can "paint" something with smoke. A kinetic kill vehicle is designed to be used above 100,000 feet. It is an incredibly complex device that has undergone years of testing. To mark its impact with a cloud of chaff would be like marking a point of brain surgery with a paint bomb. You would obliterate any useful info from the impact, and as I've previously stated, both the warhead and the target are already being tracked by other sensors.

You will have to draw me a picture of your radar analysis. I used to work on military gun laying radar and can't understand the stuff that you describe with the funny returns that are four seconds apart. My stupid background told me that radar traveled at the speed of light and other stupid stuff like that. I never realized that a four second differential could be so important. It was a twelve second differential between the P3 returns and a twelve second differential between the 'sled' returns. The sled return had one mile less to travel than the P3 return. Is this where the four seconds comes in? This technical stuff is too much for me to comprehend.

Did you go to school to learn how to write with stupid logic? If I screw up, I will gladly take my lumps and admit it. When you screw up, you blame me. How does that calibrate? You are reinforcing my claim that you are truly funny. You asked me to give only ONE example and I gave you one example and you can't admit that I was correct. What I wrote is too tangent to the norm therefore my truth was a lie. What nonsense! You and I agreed with the double radar return and you claim that the radar was not working correctly. Yeah! Right! Tell me what time that you are in the air and I will head for the nearest bomb shelter. You are a real case. I admire that. Watching the nuts in action does brighten my day.

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) ...

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.

Lessee now, _Jim...Pan Am 103 was determined to have been destroyed by a terrorist BOMB by the Brits who investigated the incident. I'll have to research the other two before commenting, but the rest of the article has John Barry Smith making a pretty good case for the unlikely CWT ullage overheat/phantom spark scenario being just exactly what it was; a fantasy...As was the "cargo door failure" scenario he so unsuccesfully tried to find everlasting glory in

Which only indicates that the NTSB/FBI were, and are still, lying about the cause of the crash.

Is it possible that you believe the NTSB/FBI would pass up the opportunity to be able to point to an actual, verifiable, believable mechanical problem in favor of the CWT fairy-tale? One where they had to make liars and drunks out of credible, sober citizens and produce a multi-million dollar "cartoon" to cover their own lies and ineptness?

_Jim, that hound won't hunt. They would have jumped on a cargo door failure like ugly on an ape, without having a bit of problem selling it to the populance.

Therein lies the question John Barry Smith couldn't answer, and the reason that his work is not accepted by logical people with the intelligence to pound sand...WHY DIDN'T THEY?

You need to find yourself another hero...Fast!

What do ejection seats carry to locate where to look for a downed pilot?

UHF radio beacons.

What do test missiles without warheads use to locate where the intercept occurred?

Telemetry transceivers.

Never had any chaff in my ejection seats. Martin-Baker GRU-7C from 1972-1982.

Never had any chaff in any of my test missiles. SM-2 Blk II/III, 1999-2001.

Think you have gotten bum gouge on the chaff employment as a missile spotting device.

"My stupid background told me that radar traveled at the speed of light and other stupid stuff like that. I never realized that a four second differential could be so important. "

I'm going to prove this to you, and then I'll prove something else. First the radar thing:

Picture a dome with a 60 mile radius at its base. Put a radar right at the center. Imagine that the radar sweeps the circumfrence of the dome in 12 seconds. That means that it sweeps 360 degrees in 12 seconds. In 4 seconds it sweeps 120 degrees. Are you with me so far. Now, using a simple little rule of thumb called the 60 to 1 rule, we can say that the distance between 2 radials at 60 miles (the edge of our dome in this case) is 1 mile, and that as the radar completes a 360 degree sweep, its beam actually covers a distance of 360 miles. In 4 seconds, that same beam covers 120 miles. But our P-3 wasn't 60 miles away from the radar. It was 140 miles away. That means that you can double the distance between each radial (and then some) to 2 miles per radial. The radar sweeping through 120 degrees in four seconds therefore covers 240 miles. Did I lose you? It is therefore impossible to show your all important "double returns" using data points that are seperated by 4 seconds of radar sweep. If you want to argue that only the radar returns seperated by 12 seconds count, you're going to have to show how you are able to determine which return is the P-3, and which is the object it is supposedly towing. Also, you're going to have to explain the amazing coincidence that places a towed target at exactly the correct range despite its towline's similarity to a "catenary" to show up at exactly one radar sweep distance behind the P-3.

OK, now to the second thing I'm going to prove to you. Let me start by saying I have accused you of proving nothing. That actually isn't entirely correct. You've proven you're not an aeronautical engineer. You've proven you know little to nothing about radar, chaff, and military operations. You've proven you can't read a simple chart or plot X/Y coordinates on a chart. You've proven that in order for a theory to be valid in your mind, it requires no proof. But most of all, you've proven that you are a colossal ass, and would rather call people names then argue the merits of your own theory. So to help you understand that anyone can be an asshole, and that it doesn't do anything to convince anyone your theory holds any water, I'm going to put myself in your shoes and respond in kind.

Before you actually kick the bucket, there are a few things you should know. Do you realize that the plaque you got after 16 years of working for a firm was their way of telling you that you are an anal retentive, nitnoid obsessed with minutia, more suitable for interacting with a zillion zeroes, than human beings. Maybe the reason they knew how long you'd been with the company down to the zillionth decimal point is because each one of them was counting every second until the day you left. Hey, at least you know you had a hand in engineering some domes. Of course, no one else ever will, unless you tell them. Ever walk up to a cool building and see a plaque that says "This Building Engineered By Barf"? But since you've spent an entire life without getting any recognition for your brilliance (yeah, you told us how you designed a cool orange box, and a ramjet and a "chaff-type" of corner reflector) maybe you can use a tragedy like TWA 800 to gin up a name for yourself. After all, most of the people you correspond with on the subject have no idea what they are talking about either. All you have to do is push a theory like it's a proven fact, and most people will believe you. Heck, it worked for Micheal Rivero. Why not Barf? If someone with more knowledge on the subject gets in your way, you can just call them a lot of names and accuse them of being a government shill. In the meantime, you can completely avoid providing any proof for your theory, because everyone knows the government lies, but why would a guy who spent time in the Air Force rising to the grand rank of Captain, make anything up?

There. Do you now believe everything I say? Did I improve the credibility of my argument? I didn't think so. It doesn't work for you either.

First, change your terminology. Write hemisphere in place of dome. Now explain why the two returns showed up in plan view in Exhibit 13A. You have already writen that two returns were there within a twelve second period. The place where the two returns were was a rectangular plot, not a compressed polar plot as I suspect that you are attempting to foist on us. You can't change the facts by throwing in a bunch of words that are nonsense. The plot was not a time versus rotation plot. Using solid state, they could have used a fixed antenna location and pulsed it every twelve seconds and give the same result. There are time versus altitude plots in the report. They could represent data which could have come any place within a 360 degree antenna rotation but were limited to the objects in question. Since you agree that two returns were one mile apart within a 12 second interval, please engage your memory bank before writing something totally opposite. You can't agree one minute and then disagree later on if your thought process is functioning properly. You need a break before you endanger yourself getting into aircraft that leave solid ground.

"Now explain why the two returns showed up in plan view in Exhibit 13A. You have already writen that two returns were there within a twelve second period."

As I've said several times previously, the data is flawed. What I've written is that the two returns are not possible, and based on faulty data. I posted some of the data way back in post #311. You are greatly over complicating something that is actually very simple. The data provided to the NTSB from Boston Center gives an X coeffecient, a Y coeffecient and the time they appeared on the radar. That's it. Within those three parameters, there is an error. Either the X/Y coeffecients are wrong, or the time is. Either way, correcting the wrong data eliminates your "double return" and blows your theory. I do agree the returns are seperated by 12 seconds. That only makes sense, considering there was a P-3 and the radar has a 12 second sweep rate. What doesn't make sense, and could not have happened, are the "double returns" recorded on each twelve second sweep.

Why don’t you two take a break from Science class and consider this.

In order for barf’s theory to be operative, we will have to believe that the Navy was developing a capability to launch an exo-atmospheric KKV missile from a SEAWOLF submarine and that they chose a towed target, moving tangentially at (best) 300 knots at approximately 20,000 feet as a replication of the threat vehicle.

I can neither begin to count the tactical, operational, strategic and doctrinal tenets that would be violated nor imagine how funding such a boondoggle could be justified.

Maybe it’s just me and my 30+ years of Navy related experience, but I can’t accept the premise that is vainly searching for data to support it.

I can almost see tears in your eyes due to frustration. I am truly sorry to have hurt your feelings. I was not aware that you are so sensitive. You and Elmer are somewhat alike. He saves every post ever written. I had forgotten much of what you wrote due to lack of importance. Secretly, I feel that Elmer is one person whom I've met in forums whom I would like to know socially. He and I have much in common and could hoist a few together. I abuse Elmer so much but I am sure that he knows that this is a game where we kid one another. It is just one old fart against another 'older' old fart. Elmer has good qualities that I ignore. But seriously, you should not take what we write to heart. No one is going to jail over what we put into a forum. This is a fun break for me away from writing editorials which may give me an income periodically. But, you should lean back and close your eyes and think of being broadsided by another plane. (I almost ran into a C-54 over Japan from the rear quarters of a T-33 while doing aerobatics) I don't know how I have lived so long on this giant billiard table called Earth. This was nearly 50 years ago and without your mentioning flying, I likely would have erased it from my memory. But in closing, I didn't know how sensitive you were and I apologize for hurting your feelings. Nothing we write should be taken too seriously. But if one cannot stand the heat, he should stay out of the kitchen.

Though it likely is not within your own scope of duties, please explain why so many Naval assets were on location if not to have a test of some kind. Tests are performed at the wrong location all the time. Murphy comes into play every so often. The missile did not have an exploding warhead. A backup target, a drone, was in place. Chaff was dispensed. A large commercial jet was hit in error. The FDR record cannot be ignored. Try, but it can't. The rader record cannot be ignored as well. Try, but it can't. Dreaming may give you enjoyment but the facts cannot be ignored.

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.