Skip to comments.
BOEING RESPONDS TO FBI REPORT
7/10/02
| John E. Fiorentino
Posted on 07/10/2002 9:42:12 AM PDT by JohnFiorentino
*It is worthy to note that these "spheres" were recovered from the corpses of some TWA800 victims at autopsy) ...Authors note*
(FBI report from Brookhaven National Labs, 1997) (excerpts)
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)
Thanks for your inquiry John.
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.
Hope this helps.
Thanks,
(redacted) Associate Technical Fellow Service Engineering The Boeing Company
Copyright 2002, J.E. Fiorentino - All rights reserved.
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 800; aviation; boeing; fbi; investigation; news; twa; twa800list
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 next last
To: Rokke
What do you mean when you say "a flash from above camera range".
Above the field of view.
As I remember it was a very short tape, shot from a fixed position, maybe a tripod, FOV centered on the horizon.
Cocktail chatter at first, people moving about, then the missle track up from the sea, the flash above, then peoples reaction, rushing to the railing etc.
I saw the loop played a couple of different times late on the night of the incident. Millions of us must have, - as it was either CNN or a major network that played it. I'm surprized you've never heard of it, considering all the controversy surrounding eyewitness accounts from shore being ignored.
61
posted on
07/27/2002 11:16:37 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: JohnFiorentino
OK, I've looked at your Exhibit 18A exhibit. I'm responding on this thread because it is a little more calm over here. As I have previously said, I only have access to what the NTSB has posted on the web, so I'll take your word on what was in the report dated 1/24/97. Any idea on why there is more than one date for the report? As you have indicated in other threads, it isn't wise to publish parts of an investigation or theory until you are done with it. Has anyone asked the NTSB or anyone in the Sequencing Study about the changes? Obviously, there were a lot more folks than just NTSB agents making up the Sequencing Study. Boeing is very proud of their involvement in the study, and said so in their submission dated April 28, 2000. You'd think they'd object to anything that wasn't accurate given three years to review the study. Instead they say "The Boeing Structures representatives agree that while there may be unexplained aspects with regard to certain observations, the facts and data on the whole support the sequence documented in the Sequence Group Report."
62
posted on
07/28/2002 8:36:39 PM PDT
by
Rokke
To: Rokke
To: JohnFiorentino
To: JohnFiorentino
To: JohnFiorentino
It's been brought to my attention by some that another of my articles dealing with TWA800 is just "too unbelievable" or "way-out" to be taken seriously. I have decided to post here and on other threads the source verification for that article. The article in question is here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/727674/posts
Below you will find verification:
THE NEW YORK STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE
AFTER ACTION REPORT
THE CRASH OF TWA FLIGHT 800
17 July 1996 OFF THE COAST OF LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........
(excerpts)
One of the missions the Guard accepted was controlling all flight operations at East Moriches as of 6:00 a.m. Sunday, July 21. Helicopter traffic grew heavier at the small Coast Guard station as the recovery operations at sea expanded. Divers were ferried out to the local-state-federal flotilla at sea and investigators, dignitaries and families were being transported to the Coast Guard station for briefings, etc. The need for tighter control over air operations became evident after it was learned that for the first 2 ½ days, a man claiming to be a U.S. Army Reserve lieutenant colonel bluffed his way onto the Coast Guard site -- wearing a U.S. Army Reserve green flight suit and flashing official-looking identification cards -- directed landings and takeoffs. It was later determined that he was an imposter. On Sunday, the Coast Guard requested, through SEMO, a grader to improve the landing strip. On Monday, July 22, a new asphalt landing strip was constructed by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works with assistance from equipment provided by the DMNA task force.
FULL TEXT HERE
http://www.nysemo.state.ny.us/TWA/SUMMARY.HTM
To: JohnFiorentino
bump
67
posted on
01/06/2003 5:18:28 AM PST
by
timestax
To: tpaine
bump for newbies to see
68
posted on
01/06/2003 11:29:15 PM PST
by
timestax
To: JohnFiorentino
bump for newbies to see
69
posted on
01/08/2003 11:02:01 AM PST
by
timestax
To: timestax
bump
70
posted on
01/21/2003 4:23:45 PM PST
by
timestax
To: r9etb
bump
71
posted on
01/21/2003 4:25:53 PM PST
by
timestax
To: eno_
SAM shrapnel is considerably larger than 5MM diameter, because something that small would bleed its kinetic energy away very quickly.
72
posted on
01/21/2003 4:29:48 PM PST
by
Poohbah
(Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
To: Poohbah
I believe you are correct. Moreover, exotic ceramics have little value as shrapnel. Steel will do fine.
If this stuff is from a missile, I think it is from the joints of a continuous rod warhead. However I have no source that indicates that such materials are used in continuous rod warheads. I'm still working on that (not very actively).
But, if this is a correct inference, it takes us away from MANPADs, which are too small to carry that type of warhead. This is something I long believed: If it was terrorists, they used a boat. If they used a boat, they were not limited to a MANPAD missile. So the whole Stinger thing seemed like a red herring. On the other hand, if it was a friendly-fire incident, it would, of course, be a high-tech warhad on a larger missile.
Also, a continuous rod warhead would cut or break a plane in two. A Stinger might fatally damage a 747, but I think it would be unlikely to cause it to fail so totally before a single word could be uttered by the crew as to what had happened. It would be a perfect shot with a Stinger at the limits of its range.
If terrorists could acquire a SAM with a continuous rod wardhead at the time of TWA800, I think that is the probable answer. If not, I'd be forced to look at a friendly-fire incident.
73
posted on
01/21/2003 6:42:45 PM PST
by
eno_
To: eno_
I think it is from the joints of a continuous rod warhead.Probably not--it would cause bimetallic corrosion.
74
posted on
01/22/2003 8:53:46 AM PST
by
Poohbah
(Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
To: Poohbah
I USED to know a thing or two about solid state chemistry, but ceramics were never my main thing. I have, however, never heard of metals used in ceramics causing bimetallic corrosion. Such ceramics are used often enough as bearings (not, notably in any 747 of TWA800's vintage) to make such problems widely known if they exist.
The only things I can find on the topic indicate use of cermaic call bearings helps with corrosion control.
75
posted on
01/22/2003 10:10:27 AM PST
by
eno_
To: eno_
The titanium and aluminum would cause the bimetallic corrosion in the expanding rod warhead.
The rod joints are made of the same metal as the rest of the rod.
76
posted on
01/22/2003 10:12:10 AM PST
by
Poohbah
(Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
To: Blood of Tyrants
Exactly. Kind of like a shotgun.
77
posted on
01/22/2003 10:27:35 AM PST
by
dljordan
To: eno_
bump
78
posted on
01/26/2003 9:50:46 PM PST
by
timestax
To: timestax
bump for truth
79
posted on
01/27/2003 8:09:22 AM PST
by
timestax
To: Poohbah
While you may be correct that the joints of a continuous rod used in a SAM warhead are made of the same material as the rod ( I still don't have a good source on continuous rod design), it is not possible for atoms of metal (or any other element) used as an additive in a ceramic to cause bimetallic corrosion. This has to do with how ceramic additives work. To sum it up, once they are in the ceramic, they ain't going anywhere, and they ain't reacting with nuthin'.
I still think that if it is found that a SAM of the TWA800 vintage had a warhead that incorporated such ceramic balls - in a continuous rod or other component - there is the smoking gun in TWA800. The parts described would have been cutting edge technology at the time, and would probably uniquely identify the type or class of missile used.
80
posted on
01/27/2003 11:39:02 AM PST
by
eno_
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson