BOEING RESPONDS TO FBI REPORT

*It is worthy to note that these "spheres" were recovered from the corpses of some TWA800 victims at autopsy) ...Authors note*

This item, one of 20 similar pieces.........was approx. 5mm in diameter and charcoal colored. The item was polished and then subjected to an energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS) analysis to determine its chemical composition.

Small charcoal colored particles (1 of -20 similar pieces) measuring ~5mm in diameter. On polishing the sample was orange colored and transparent.

SEM analysis indicated the material was multi-phase having a base matrix containing Al and Ti. The sample showed significant charging under the electron beam indicating that it is a very poor conductor - i.e.., not metallic. Three other distinct areas could be observed, two were similar to the matrix but contained significant amounts of Zr, the other was mostly Al with Ca, Ba and Ce.

Below is a response from the Boeing Co. re: the "spheres" alluded to in the (FBI report from Brookhaven National Labs, 1997) and just recently declassified. (note one sentence in the below transmission was a little skewed, however, that is the way it was received)

I am unaware of anything on a Boeing commercial airplane that would use those chemicals in a matrix (or other) form. We do not use Aluminium / Titanium matrix type metals since their differing thermal expansion rates will tend to tear a part fabricated from them apart when subjected to the rapid change in temperatures that jet aircraft encounter. We use a temperature differential of +180 degree F to -70 degrees F in 20 minutes as a design criteria. The +180 was a measured skin temperature of an airplane sitting in the sun in Saudi Arabia. Also, we try to limit the amount of Titanium we put into the airplanes because it costs so much. We use it where strength and fatigue requirements make Aluminium inappropriate.

I find it interesting you won't offer an opinion on the subjects being discussed in a thread you initiated.

With regard to the traces of PETN and RDX found on TWA 800...Yes, I certainly believe they could have found their way onto the aircraft during a dog-training exercise. Thousands of those exercises were/are conducted aboard commercial aircraft every year. I am fully aware of the reports suggesting the exercise that occurred on 10 June must have taken place on a 747 parked next to the future TWA 800 aircraft, so for the sake of argument, lets just say that particular dog-training event never took place. The shelf life of RDX and PETN falls somewhere between 30 and 50 years. What do you suppose the odds are that a dog-training exercise was conducted on the aircraft sometime in its service with TWA? Furthermore, theories suggesting the traces of RDX and PETN came from a bomb or missile must account for the fact that A. the samples weren't co-located, and B. there were no other signs of an explosion associated with the chemicals.

To tie things to the topic of this thread, how is it that if the pellets in question were part of some explosive device, they didn't contain traces of RDX and PETN?

Well, I can theorize anything I want re: some dog training exercise having taken place at some time during the life of TWA800, but that isn't the point. The point is the NTSB and FBI hung their respective hats on the erroneous assumption that the 6/10 exercise was conducted aboard 800. The evidence shows otherwise.

The "shelf-life" of RDX&PETN is irrelevant, UNLESS said explosive traces were IN FACT the result of some theorized prior explosives exercise, with the added caveat, that said exercise was conducted in such a manner as to leave residue behind.

It is also a known fact that immersion in salt water, QUICKLY eliminates traces of both these explosive by-products.

So, from an investigatory standpoint, the statements by NTSB and FBI are dubious at best. Schilliro's comments that the 6/10 exercise "took care of the PETN-RDX question" is NOT supported by the evidence. To state at this point, well, it may have come from ANOTHER exercise, or out of your grandmother's underwear is ludicrous. It's sloppy at best, and perhaps more ominous in a worse case scenario. The fact is the traces of explosives MAY in fact be a benign indicator. You can't get to that point however, by failing to identify the source. The suggestion that lack of proper source identity automatically defaults to a benign causation by some sort of factual attrition is unscientific.

The fact that the pellets didn't have PETN-RDX residue could be explained in a myriad of ways. Of course the first assumption which you have made is they should have had traces of explosives if they were from an explosive device. That was never stated here, nor is it accurate on it's face.

My purpose here, is not to prove one way or the other whether the spheres originated from an explosive device. Frankly, from the evidence as it is presented, I don't believe one could draw that conclusion with any degree of accuracy. However, neither can one rule it out.

You're welcome to respond, and then, if you wish, we could tackle some more questions.......I hope you will have the answers to those also.

You say the NTSB's assumption the 6/10 exercise was conducted aboard 800 is erroneous. What do you base that on? An "investigative" report by a reporter with very questionable motives (Hendrix)? As is reported by both the NTSB and conspiracy reporters "investigating" the exercise, there was almost no documentation of the exercise, and the officer concerned was relying on his memory of something he had conducted 70 days before his interview.

The shelf life of PETN and RDX certainly is relevent, as is the manner the exercises are conducted because it changes the timeline required for such an incident to have taken place from 6/10/96 to any day 30 years prior to the crash. From the officer's recollection of the exercise, it is a sloppy procedure. He recalls det cord dust visibly escaping some of his packages, and he recalls his training aids were stored in direct contact with other military type explosives. Clearly, it isn't beyond the realm of possiblity for PETN and RDX to have been introduced into TWA 800 by one of those exercises. In fact, it would be surprising if it wasn't. Does the specific date matter? Only if your motive is to cast doubt on parts of the NTSB investigation. Not if your goal is to identify how explosive elements made it onto the aircraft.

I'll agree that there is a descrepancy between the NTSB account and subsequent accounts published in tabloids, but it is your choice to believe who you want. You rest your hat on reporters who make their living generating news, and I'll rest mine on sworn testimony presented to Congress. I'm not going to argue that people don't lie to Congress, but at least the penalties for doing so are a lot higher.

With regard to PETN and RDX dissolving in salt water, that would certainly imply the explosive elements were introduced after the crash. Apparently that isn't always true, or somehow the pieces of wreckage containing the microscopic trace elements weren't exposed completely to salt water. A common problem with folks unfamiliar with aircraft accident investigation is they insist everything must be black and white. It is or it isn't. There can be no ambiguity. Well, they are wrong, and unfortunately there is a whole industry developed to take advantage of their ignorance in the form of tabloid reporting, investigative novels and documentary films.

If your purpose in this thread is to provide evidence of controversy in the TWA 800 incident, then I'm afraid you are a bit redundant. I do appreciate the fact that you can present your questions in a generally civil and mature manner. That makes you unique in debate full of dead horses.

Why did the Justice Department write off a dozen... A dozen? I know of three.

...as being contaminated from a dog handling exercise done 10 June 1996 in St. Louis when no written record of such training exists You don't believe an interview with the officer who conducted the exercise can be considered sufficient?

Why would the FBI find the recollection of the dog trainer credible.... Because the manner in which bomb training exercises are conducted explains very well how different types of explosive could be dispersed throughout an aircraft without leaving any signs of an explosion. Despite his inability to recall with complete precision his exercise on 10 June, he has conducted countless similar exercises and knows exactly what he is talking about. His testimony about the nature of his exercise matters more than the timing of it. Especially considering the length of time evidence of the explosives can remain in an aircraft once they've been deposited there. If this were the only bomb sniffing exercise to be carried out in 1996, than maybe his recollection of the timing of his exercise would be more relevant, but with several thousands of these exercises being conducted annually, I think there is a very good chance that the TWA 800 aircraft experienced just what he described at some point in its career.

I don't believe I've ever said your questions have no merit. Now you are the one leaping to conclusions. In fact, I complimented you for the civil nature in which you asked them.

I must say, you continue for some reason, to miss the point. I have done and continue to do investigations for a living. If for example I wanted to present exculpatory evidence in a bombing of an aircraft for instance, and used the reports and documents generated by NTSB, FAA and FBI in the TWA800 case, the prosecution would tear me to pieces. The issue is not whether the dog-trainer was competent, whether he had performed previous exercises, whether those types of exercises are in fact performed on wide body civilian airliners. None of that is relevant. The issue is, was IN FACT the 6/10 exercise performed on the airplane that would be TWA800. Based on the evidence, it appears the answer to that question is no. One can conjecture, guess, or hypothesize ad infinitum, but there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. The facts show the trainer FAILED to write down the tail number of the aircraft, he stated he conducted an exercise that day, and true, there is no reason to doubt him. But was it conducted on Fl800? His statement in NO WAY corroborates the FAA contention. What he did do, was write down the time of the exercise, from that information, it can be deduced that he wasn't on Fl800.

It would have been much more believable if the NTSB had offered such an exercise as a POSSIBILITY, which rightly can be stated as you have, there is that possibility. But that is not what was done. The emphatic statement was made that the 6/10 exercise was performed aboard the questioned aircraft without any verifiable supporting evidence. The resulting "conclusion" coupled with claims of no evidence of any impulsive loading, pitting, etc. was used to categorically rule out a bomb or missile. The fact that traces of PETN-RDX remained after immersion in saltwater IS NOT necessarily an indication that said chemicals were placed on the aircraft after recovery, as you contend, or intimated that I contend. If in fact that were the case, then the dog training scenario would carry even less weight. And in fact, would be contradictory. What it does seem to indicate to me, is that there may have been a rather substantial amount of these chemicals present, before salt water immersion. Lending even more strength to the argument that said residue was in fact not the result of any training exercise, unless you believe it is standard operating procedure to contaminate passenger aircraft with large amounts of hazardous chemicals.

Let's move on shall we?......Reproduced below are excerpts from an investigative piece I wrote....You tell me why NTSB couldn't id this aircraft. (And thank you for the compliment)

The NTSB "Investigation"
"A Shot in the Dark?"
(excerpts)

Inspector Clouseau beware---the NTSB is gaining on you!

The NTSB, under the direction of it's then director, Jim Hall was apparently unable to identify an aircraft on an ATC, (air traffic control) tape despite the fact that the pilot radioed it's tail number to the control tower!

On the evening of July 17, 1996 a pilot of a private aircraft radioed Gabreski Tower on Long Island that he had witnessed a "boat leaving in a Westerly direction" from the TWA 800 crash scene. The report appears on the Gabreski ATC tape--the pilot gives his tail number as "N776." Although it would turn out this tail number was incomplete, the pilot nonetheless made other statements which would aid any competent investigator in determining the identity of his aircraft. Apparently the NTSB employed no such competent personnel.

The following are from official NTSB documents:
This is from exhibit 3A:
> > >
> > > >>At 0041:27 UTC and again at 0041:37 UTC, an Emergency
Locator
> > Transmitter
> > > signal was
> > > heard on the New York Flight Service Station frequency.
> > >
> > > The tape from Gabreski Tower (FOK) was barely readable.
However, the
> ATC
> > > group was able
> > > to discern a report on the tape of a pilot who reported a
power boat
> > > proceeding west from the
> > > vicinity of the impact site. The identification of the
aircraft was
> not
> > > clear

From exhibit 3E:
> > >
> > > 010545 125.3 N776
> > > 776 I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU HAVE ANY REPORTS
> > > ABOUT THIS THING OUT THERE BUT *** THERE'S
> > > SOMETHING BURNING AND WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THERE
> > > WAS A BOAT LEAVING IT *** TO THE WESTERLY DIRECTION.

During his several communications with Gabreski Tower the pilot of N776 indicated to the Tower--"Skyhawk 776"--another identifier. A "Skyhawk" is a Cessna 172P, fixed wing -- propeller driven, 4-seat aircraft.

In the initial investigation into this anomaly performed by ARAP, (Associated Retired Aviation Professionals, a group headed by Cmdr. William S. Donaldson, USN/Ret) which has been independently looking into Flight 800, the search for N776 was once again unproductive. This search yielded erroneous information which this author quickly refuted. The aircraft was initially traced to an individual in Texas, who did not own a Cessna, his tail number though was indeed N776. The total time spent tracking down ARAP's lead and discovering their mistake was approximately 3 hours. Subsequent investigation and searches of FAA databases have now uncovered the true identity of "N776." The total time expended was several days, at the cost of only several dollars.

Why is it that the NTSB---which expended many millions of dollars and several years---was unable to discover the identity of this aircraft? More importantly, what did the pilot of "N776" actually see? Why is it so important?

This aircraft's pilot is perhaps the only adult individual to view what has now been coined the "30-knot track." What was the 30-knot track? Simply stated, it is a radar return indicative of a surface vessel travelling at 30-knots away from the TWA 800 crash scene. It is the only vessel in the area, which the FBI says it was unable to identify. This radar return also falls within an area established by the FBI from which they postulated the launch of a portable shoulder fired missile or (Manpad) may have taken place.

The information presented here is still being investigated. Will it yield any new clues as to what may have happened to TWA Flight 800?...........

John Fiorentino, is an independent researcher and paralegal investigator, who has been looking into the tragic crash of TWA Flight 800. He is the author of a forthcoming book on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Mr. Fiorentino has also produced several independent musical releases. He is currently employed at a law firm in New Jersey.

It is too bad you aren't representing Boeing and TWA as they are both paying out millions of dollars to families of the victims who are suing them on the basis of the conclusions published in the NTSB final report. Apparently, the parties involved don't share your pessimism over the quality of the NTSB's investigation.

You criticize the assumptions made by the NTSB in reaching their conclusions, but apparently find no fault with those of Sanders and Cashill as they attempt to discredit the NTSB investigation (and sell copies of their books and advertise their movie). Do you realize their interaction with the officer involved in the bomb exercise was via some volunteer retired homicide detective. They never even actually talked to the guy. So this retired New Jersey homicide detective tells them that the officer told him blah blah blah. I am NOT a lawyer, but isn't that type of hearsay evidence not usually very reliable? But based on the fact that you linked me to their article, I can only assume that is where you find your evidence to make this statement; "His statement in NO WAY corroborates the FAA contention."

I also believe you overstate the significance of the PETN, RDX portion of the NTSB's final report. Your statement "The resulting "conclusion" coupled with claims of no evidence of any impulsive loading, pitting, etc. was used to categorically rule out a bomb or missile." is a gross mischaracterization of the total investigation that included countless tests, simulations and investigations by several different agencies to rule out the possiblity of a bomb or a missile. I don't know the basis of your contention that the fact that some PETN/RDX residue remained on the wreckage must mean there was a lot to begin with, but after condemning the entire NTSB investigation for making what you believe are faulty assumptions, I'd think you'd be a little more careful about tossing your own around.

Your contentions here are absolutely ludicrous. Your argument, what little there is....is circular. Your statement investigators were "looking at other causes" is patently absurd on it's face.

What you are saying in effect is, that in hindsight-- since you assert there is no evidence of foul play --it didn't matter that NTSB could not identify a potential witness, who was flying a plane over the TWA800 crash site. Even though that witness identified his plane by it's tail number.

It's not only important if you believe TWA800 was hit with a missile. It is tantamount for every lead to be investigated. Perhaps if every lead was IN FACT checked out we might have a much different official "conclusion" today.

The FBI seemed quite interested in the 30-knot track didn't they? So what justification could you possibly give to the fact that NTSB stated it couldn't id this aircraft?

Your assertions re: a shoulder fired missile are simply wrong.

Whoops. My mistake. I was thinking of this article TWA 800 - St. Louis Dog Exercise Exposed As Red Herring which I found after reading the article you linked me to. The article I was reading was part 1, and your article was part 2, but they weren't from the same series. I didn't catch that until you pitched your fit this morning.

Glad to hear you don't trust Cashill and Sanders. In this case, however, I think you would be in full agreement with their article, as it is almost a mirror of the article you linked me to. Both ominously suggest that if the bomb sniffing exercise took place on the 747 next to the TWA 800 aircraft then the whole NTSB investigation is flawed and needs to be reevaluated. Apparently, they too believe it is impossible that a similar exercise ever took place on TWA 800, and there must be a better explaination for the otherwise unexplainable dispersion of trace elements of PETN and RDX at different points throughout the aircraft.

Your statement investigators were "looking at other causes" is patently absurd on it's face. Really?!? Are you saying they weren't looking into other causes than a bomb or missile by February of 1997?

What you are saying in effect is, that in hindsight-- since you assert there is no evidence of foul play --it didn't matter that NTSB could not identify a potential witness, who was flying a plane over the TWA800 crash site.Not only do I assert there was no evidence of foul play, but so does the NTSB, the FBI, Boeing, ALPA, and TWA. Not a bad line up. And yes, you are correct. It did not matter that the NTSB couldn't track down the witness who was flying the plane. I don't have access to Exhibit 3E, and I don't know what effort was made to find the pilot. In the course of your investigation, did you discover whether or not the NTSB made any effort to track down the pilot of that aircraft?

Since you brought up circular arguments...if there is no evidence of foul play on the TWA 800 aircraft, why is it important to determine what the 30 knot track was. All the agencies I previously listed stated no evidence of a bomb or missile was found on the aircraft, and all concluded the break up sequence initiated in the CWT. It therefore doesn't matter if the 30 knot track was a rubber dingy or a Klingon warship. It didn't have anything to do with the destruction of TWA 800. I believe the only reason the FBI was interested in identifying the 30 knot track was because it was the only track they couldn't identify, and they wanted to be 100% on their ID's instead of 99%.

Finally, my assertions on the shoulder launched missile are exactly right. Read this TWA Flight 800 Missile Impact Analysis for additional info.

I will offer this to you. I will not be intentionly misleading or argumentative in my posts to you. This whole TWA 800 debacle has become a hobby of mine after reading fruit loop conspiracy threads that show up on FreeRepublic periodically. I have spent considerable time reading the NTSB report and most of the alternate theories on various conspiracy sites. I have been in the military since 1985 and have served in the Navy, the Air Force and the Air National Guard. I am not a "government shill" but that doesn't prevent me from agreeing with some of the products produced by our government. My biggest problem with the TWA 800 investigation was the over-eager and generally misguided inputs by the FBI, who interfered with the professional accident investigation team of the NTSB. Despite that interference, I think the final report produced by the NTSB is the closest anyone could come to identifying what happened to TWA 800.

You seem like a relatively intelligent fellow, with slight leanings towards the MO of one Elmer Asmodeous Barr, whose main defense of the NTSB debacle seems to be calling people tin-foil hats, missile huggers and quoting the testimony of William Tobin ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

You seem to have little conception of what is involved in an unbiased, professional investigation. You make constant references to the official conclusions, which you use to justify the fact that NTSB was less than thorough in it's efforts. You can't say, because the official line is no evidence of foul play, that the 30-knot track, or the id of N776 is irrelevant, that IS circular. Until you see this main flaw in your reasoning, it will be difficult, time consuming, and most likely fruitless to continue our discussions.

I for one would like to continue. I have an initial impression of you at least, as being someone who has a reasonably open mind.

Let me state for the record my position, for what it is worth.

I don't buy the "official position".......I don't believe the investigation was thorough, I don't believe a "spark" of unknown origin was the causal factor. That being said, maybe we can continue?

You stated you have spent much time reading the NTSB report, then you say you don't have access to Ex. 3-E, can you explain that to me?

After you do that, can answer this?.......Do you have access to exhibit 18-A or text portions of the MSSG Report?

If you do, I will point you to an "interesting" anomaly.

You seem to have little conception of what is involved in an unbiased, professional investigation. That is an ironic statement as I have actually participated in several and have even completed military accident investigation training. Conversally, most of the characters (note: this doesn't mean you) who insist there is a grand conspiracy within the TWA 800 investigation rely on reports from the likes of FIRO, WND, Donaldson, et al, who have a clear agenda and are typically immersed in "investigations" into everything from JFK to "chem trails". During my time on FreeRepublic I have become very familiar with Asmodeous. He is obviously well known in other places as well, as everyone seems to eventually ask him if he is Elmer Barr. I don't know who Elmer Barr is, but it does make me wonder if the circle of folks who follow this TWA 800 stuff aren't a rather small and dedicated group. They seem to drift into FreeRepublic, stir up a few threads, and then disappear. I notice already that you have two threads in the "Breaking News" column. No offense, but I don't really consider your "Shot in the Dark" article to be "Breaking News".

The reason I don't have access to Exhibit 3E is because the NTSB hasn't published it on its website. I did a Google search and couldn't find it anywhere on the web. As I said before, this is a hobby, not an obsession, and I don't really care to order the CD. I do have access to 18A so let me know what your anomoly is.

Whats the latest line to explain the 'cocktail party' tape?
- I saw it the night of the incident, on network tv. - A short video camera shot from a party, looking out over the ocean, with a rising 'missle' track out to sea, ending in a flash from above camera range, and resulting confusion from the guests.

Never saw it played again, with no further explanation of what happened to the tape, or any eyewitness accounts to explain the incident.
--- Anyone have a clue, or were my lying eyes imagining things that night?

Well, first you make mention of people who investigate the Kennedy assassination. You may have noticed at the bottom of the article I posted today that I have a forthcoming book on the subject. Just to sooth your tortured brow, it SUPPORTS the Warren Commission conclusion.....so you may say, I am FAR from a conspiracy nut.

In any event, below is posted the 18-A information. After you digest it, we may wish to discuss it's importance.

Alterations to NTSB Exhibit 18-A
Section 4.11 Dated 1/24/97 (excerpts)

"The forward sides of the bottles did not display obvious impact marks from contact with the cargo floor structure."

Has been replaced with: "The forward side of the right bottle contained impact marks and fractures roughly corresponding to cargo floor structure." (Exhibit 18-A April 8, 1997)

The following from Exhibit 18-A Dated 1/24/97 has been omitted from Section 4.11 "The lack of damage to the forward sides of the bottles indicates that the front spar rotated less than 10 degrees before the cargo floor structure had begun departing the airplane."

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.