TWA 800: Pilots speak out

After my most recent trip to Washington last weekend, I have come to one sorry conclusion: The only people who believe that a fuel-tank problem destroyed TWA Flight 800 sit in America's major media newsrooms.

They certainly don't sit in the cockpits of America's airliners. After some 200 radio and TV interviews and a score of live appearances, I have talked to at least 100 airline pilots. Of those, exactly one supported the government thesis.

What follows are some of the unsolicited e-mails I have recently received from pilots and my comments on the same. I have edited them only for length and for spelling. Not all of the pilots agree with James Sanders and me on every point in our book, "First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America," but they uniformly reject the government thesis.

Each of these individuals identified themselves to me. I have chosen, however, to shield their identities lest there be repercussions.

I loved the book. I am an ex-Air Force combat pilot, functional check flight pilot and standardization and evaluation pilot. I flew 145 combat missions. From the first announcement of TWA 800 I believed the plane was brought down by a missile. To me the strongest evidence of the government cover-up is the lack of satellite photo releases to back up the claim that there was no missile. No part of the earth is probably more under satellite surveillance than the mid-Atlantic from New York City to Washington, D.C. If the satellite photos backed up the "no missile" theory, the photos would be everywhere.

There are other interesting questions: Why, if it was mechanical failure, was the entire 747 fleet not grounded? While there were corrective mechanical changes, anything this catastrophic would have deserved far more severe reaction. Why has Boeing never protested this conclusion? Anyway, great book.

As a pilot for 33 years, I have flown many of the different Boeing A/C, all with a center tank, many times empty, with the pumps running, and guess what? Nothing happened. Even after the TWA incident when the FAA required checks of the wiring in all Boeing A/C, even when insulation was found missing from wires, even with empty tanks … nothing happened.

None of the pilots or maintenance persons I ever talked with believed that tank explosion was caused by faulty wiring shorting out because the pumps were on with an empty tank.

The item "Probe's conclusion built on faked interview" is flawed, as is the NTSB conclusions it tries to refute.

First of all, there were not 736 witnesses who saw the missile. There were 736 witness's to the explosion, but only a small fraction, something like 80 or so, saw a streak of some sort. The majority saw no such streak.

Of those who saw the streak, some said it went straight up, a few said it went down from the aircraft, others saw more than one streak, streaks were from several directions. Wire's missile was climbing at a 40 degree angle, etc.

Assuming this "missile" was a heat seeker such as the Stinger which we gave to bin Laden, it would have homed in on the hottest part of the target, the nearest tailpipe, not the fuselage. The aircraft was under climb thrust and putting out a lot of heat.

I don't know what to make of the 3,000 degree climb of the wreckage. The "video" shown alongside this article shows all four engines leaving contrails. At 13,000 degree? Ridiculous.

I don't believe the NTSB conclusions. Of 1,108 B-747s built, only one experienced this problem? Hardly. I think it was a bomb.

When the wreckage of TWA 800 was raised from the bottom and placed on a barge, I noticed the nose section was blown cleanly off. I went around and searched for the wreckage of PAA 103 at Lockerbie. The nose was blown off at the same frame!

PAA was brought down by a bomb. I think that's what happened to TWA 800. BTW, the aircraft was the same one I flew for my ATP rating in September 1972. I knew many of the crew who perished.

Note: Of the 700-plus eyewitnesses that the FBI interviewed, some 270 (FBI's figure) saw streaks of lights ascending or arcing over before the crash. Roughly one-third of those followed the streaks from the horizon. There were many more eyewitnesses who did not share their accounts with the FBI. We too believe it was a bomb, a flying bomb that was exploded somewhere under the plane.

Sometime in the late '80s, I was on a flight between JFK and Tel Aviv (TLV). The airplane was a 747-200. During the initial climb out from JFK, a strange rattling and metal-to-metal noise began to emanate from the throttle quadrant.

We ignored the noises as a nuisance and since everything else was normal continued on our way. At about 23,000 feet airplane altitude, the FE announced that he cannot control the cabin.

[Later] the FE announces, "I have a Differential Fault" on generator number 3. ... Not more than 30 seconds elapsed from the GenDiff announcement by the FE when he announces that he now has a GenDiff on generator number 4! We not only have the Virgin Mary in first class but Jesus Christ and the 12 Apostles just showed up.

That did it; we declared an emergency, made a 180 degree turn and headed back to JFK. We were just past Nantucket Island heading for Yarmouth in the Canadian Maritimes when we made the turn and dumped about 160,000 pounds of fuel (the natives of Nantucket can thank our crew for having never sighted a mosquito since that day).

... So we had two 85KVA capable generators, running at about half load, dead short against the wing spar. 170KA is equivalent to 1,700 100-watt bulbs; with four generators online, each was running at about one-half load when the first GenDiff occurred and three-quarters when the second went off. The spar also serves as the front portion of the wing fuel tanks which had much fuel and air.

So after F800, I always asked the question – if a dead short electrical arc of considerable power on a fuel tank did not cause us to blow up, how did static electricity cause the [center wing tank] to go off in F800?

All of the above can be quantified with crew names, airplane number and log book write-ups if necessary. I truly don't know the consequence of a dead short on an airframe. All I know is that I have five crew members who witnessed it.

PS: After the shoddy investigation by the NTSB on TWA F840 in 1979, I never had much respect for the outfit.

PPS: I just finished the book – great job. Thanks on behalf of those friends I lost.

Note: This has been shortened considerably. The pilot's point, however, is clear.

I commend you for the excellent series of articles . … I do hope the prosecutions proceed. There is nothing worse than corruption in our government.

My interest in this is that I should have been the captain of 800 that day. Management used its prerogatives and took the flight for training purposes. I lost many friends and associates on that flight. I had flown that aircraft No. 119 only several days prior to the shoot down. Justice over due. Let the trials begin!

I am totally convinced that an outside source blew up TWA 800. In fact I went live on Fox TV on their 10 p.m. newscast that night and stated that fact. (I am their in-house spokesperson for aviation matters.) We can muster up a number of pilots with thousands of hours and years and years of experience to augment and support your theory. Please contact me if you are interested in us pursuing this any further.

Note: Yes, we are. Our best bet for genuine exposure at this time is for America's pilots to force the issue. If some pilot or pilot's organization is willing to take the lead, we are more than willing to help.

Price slashed on "First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America"! New book by Jack Cashill and James Sanders says government lies upped drama ante for terrorists. From WND Books, available in ShopNetDaily.

Purchase Jack Cashill's stunning documentary video, "Silenced: Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice" from WorldNetDaily's online store.

"Altered Evidence" from Flight 800 How the Justice Department framed a journalist and his wife. Also available from WorldNetDaily's online store!

Well. it can't, except as far as inertia and aerodynamics carry it... 3,000 feet is possible. With a lot of weight forward of the centre of lift suddenly gone, a massive pitch-up is not just possible but certain.

3000 feet is "Possible" but it didn't happen according to the best evidence.

Theoretically, approximately 3000 feet is "possible." If you convert 100% of the aircraft's forward vectored momentum instantly into upward vectored momentum, you can get MORE than 3000 feet of climb if you ignore drag. However if this were what happened, it would have required ALL of the forward momentum to get that much climb... and the stalled aircraft would have then fallen almost almost straight down... meaning it would not have impacted the ocean where we know it did: 2.5 miles East North East of the initiating event position. However, the plane DID impact the ocean exactly where the math for a ballistic fall from the initiating event said it should so therefore it did not exchange forward momentum for upward momentum.

From the math I did on a previous thread:

Let us play a "what if" scenario out...

What if the entire horizontal Momentum of Flight TWA-800 was converted instantly into vertical Momentum? How long would TWA-800 climb straight up and how much higher could it climb before losing ALL MOMENTUM and begin falling? For this "what if" we will ignore the drag on the climbing aircraft (which will only mean shorter time and lower total climb) and consider only the pull of gravity.

I am assuming 330 MPH and 547,000 Lbs aircraft mass. These convert to ~147 Meters per second and ~249,000 Kgs aircraft mass.

The horizontal momentum of the 747 is ~36,500,000 Kg*m/s. and the acceleration of gravity is 2,440,200Kg*m/s^2.

2,440,200Kg*m/s^2 *t = 36,500,000 Kg*m/s - 5,350,000Kg*m/s (Momentum of the missing nose)

2,440,200Kg*m/s^2 *t = 31,150,000 Kg*m/s Again, solve for time (t) when s = 1

2,440,200Kg*m * t = 31,150,000 Kg*m

t = 12.75 seconds

If ALL of the FORWARD vectored MOMENTUM was magically changed instantly to UPWARD vectored MOMENTUM, Flight TWA-800 could only continue climbing for an additional ~13 seconds or so.

How high???

The aircraft, even though climbing because of its Momentum, is being acted on only by the FORCE of gravity... essentially it is in freefall.

The formula for this is:

Vf^2 = Vi^2 + 2 * a * d

(0 m/s)^2 = (147m/s)^2 +2*(-9.8m/s^2) * d

0 m^2/m^2 = 21609 m^2/s^2 + (-19.6m/s^2) *d

(-19.6 m/s^2) * d = 0 m^2/s^2 - 21609 m^2/s^2

(-19.6 m/s^2) * d = - 21609 m^2/s^2

d = (- 21609 m^2/s^2)/(-19.6 m/s^2)

d = 1102.5m = 3617 Feet

Remember, that is ignoring the not inconsiderable force of drag. Also WHERE does the amazing force that converts the vector of the plane's momentum come from?? The CIA and NTSB and you would have us believe that the aircraft's wing maintained its proper and most efficient angle of attack and applied lift force to accomplish this... but that force would have to come from converting the Momentum to lift... and therefore there would be a lot less momentum to continue climbing.

Of course, none of this could happen... the plane will continue mostly forward, decelerating from the initial velocity of 147m/s because of air resistance... not going instantly upward at the 147m/s.

"The captain of the NOAA research ship Rude entered Flight 800's last secondary radar position, speed, heading and gross weight into his computer and it predicted the landing point by calculating a ballistic fall. He went to that spot and immediately found the main wreckage including the fuselage, wings and engines. "

Ergo, unless you want to ignore the very well understood laws of Physics, there was no "zoom" climb. NONE, NADA, ZILCH.

The average climb in those 12.75 seconds would have to be ~283 feet per second to achieve a terminal altitude of 3617 feet above the point of pitch up. However, an average velocity is deceptive... during the last second before reaching terminal altitude, the aircraft would climb only 16 feet! That means that in the first couple of seconds the climb had to be MUCH greater... and during the initial moments of conversion of forward vector to upward vector (supposedly all caused by the force of lift on the upward pitching wing) the apparent G forces on the airframe must have been astronomic. I calculate it to be around 12-13 Gs for at least one second!

In addition, IF it had climbed, the aircraft would have climbed until upward momentum was used up, reached zero upward movement and begun to fall... taking an equal amount of time to fall from its ultimate altitude back to the altitude of the start of the climb... and then fallen the rest of the way to the ocean. The CIA and NTSB cartoons allowed 8-10 seconds for the climb... which requires an additional 8-10 seconds to return to the starting altitude... a total of 16-20 seconds added.

The radar returns do not show the aircraft remaining in the sky for those additional ~16-20 seconds. The radar record shows that TWA-800 was in the sky for only ~38-40 seconds after the last transponder return which took place just before the initiating event.

If we subtract the 16 seconds for the "zoom climb" and fall back to initial pre-zoom altitude, we find that it would be necessary for TWA-800 to fall 13,800 feet AND travel approximately 2.5 miles horizontally in ~22-24 seconds, an astonishing 392-427.5 miles per hour and an equally incredible terminal velocity for the airframe of 575-627 feet per second.

Those same figures (except terminal velocity) ALSO apply to the horizontal vector... but TWA-800 was originally moving at only 330 MPH (484 feet per second) horizontally before the initiating event. WHERE did the extra velocity come from???

Of course these incredible speeds are only required IF we add in the time for the mythical CIA-NTSB "Zoom Climb" to have occured. Without that "extra" time, we find that to fall from the initiating event altitude and position to splashdown and wreckage position requires a much more explicable average velocity of 363 feet per second (247MPH) which IS consistent with an unpowered, ballistic fall of the noseless aircraft experiencing drag.

Again, ergo: NO ZOOM CLIMB OCCURED!

"Rumor" has it that this was a test of a sub capability.

Capability to do what?

The Navy denied there were any subs in the area. Once proven to be lying, the Navy fessed up.

Two warning areas were active and there was a P-3 from Brunswick flying at low levels in them. Was it working with the sub in an exercise? Possibly. New London is a major sub base for the Atlantic Fleet and W-105 and W-106 would be convenient. Was it testing something secret? Again, possibly. A lot of test and evaluation work goes on with the subs at New London. Is this necessarily connected with TWA 800? I don't see how.

If a missile was fired from a terrorist boat, the Navy had enough assets to know the boat was there and where it went.

If it was looking for it, perhaps.

Sonar, as I am sure you know, can detect a private class of boat many, many miles away. If 800 went down, the Navy must have known within seconds or minutes of the downing and searched for all craft.

Sonar can track surface targets, and it can classify targets by type...if it knows what it's looking for. The waters off Long Island constitute the busiest sea lane on the Atlantic seaboard with dozens of freighters and literally thousands of small pleasure craft, fishing boats, and the like. Trying to pick a single small boat out of that is the ultimate needle in a haystack. For the Navy to search with sonar it would have had to know what it was searching for.

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.