TWA 800: Breaking -- Air Traffic Controller Tells All

American Thinker ^ | 6-13-16 | Jack Cashill

[Lockbox]

As I hoped would happen, American Thinker’s series on TWA Flight 800 has prompted individuals with first hand knowledge to come forward. “Mark Johnson” is one. An air traffic controller (ATC), he worked the night of July 17, 1996 -- the night TWA Flight 800 was destroyed -- at the New York Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) located in Westbury, New York.

Johnson has provided me with his real name, and I have confirmed that he was in a position to know what he says he knows. He requested that I use an alias because he has children who depend on him. The federal government, he believes, “will seek revenge, retribution and/or any other remedy they feel like. I would be fearful my pension would be at risk.” I have heard this sentiment voiced by many people involved in this incident.

Although Johnson was not responsible for tracking TWA Flight 800, he spoke directly with the ATC who did. In fact, he asked him “plenty of questions to prepare myself for the ‘suits’ who were beginning to arrive.” Along with several other ATCs, he viewed the radar tape of the incident. According to Johnson, “A primary radar return (ASR-9) indicated vertical movement intersecting TWA 800.”

An advanced radar system, the Northrop Grumman ASR-9 is able to detect a “target” in severe clutter even when the target has no transponder. The absence of a transponder is what distinguishes a “primary radar return” from a “secondary” one. In others words, the radar picked up a small, unidentified, ascending object intersecting TWA 800 in the second before the 747 “disappeared from radar.”

[GingisK]

No, the report was fabricated. The rules for “intrinsically safe” are very specific and strongly enforced.

[GingisK]

What makes you say there wasn’t?

Displaced by fumes.

[DiogenesLamp]

The source of air comes from the atmosphere outside the tank. Are you saying it was some kind of vacuum tank? That would be amazing and would go against the common practice of pumping inert gas into fuel tanks to prevent explosions (something TWA 800 didn’t have).

For what it's worth, I believe someone pointed out earlier that the plane was at 13,000 feet. I believe at 10,000 feet a source of pressurized air is required for passengers.

My recollection of fire is that people can breath levels of oxygen which are so low that a fire cannot be sustained.

So how much air would there have been in the tanks at 13,000 feet? Probably not enough.

[Lower Deck]

They did, indeed. They worked really well. Hitler cancelled them so that they could afford more long range bombers. In reality, they could no longer build the bombers or the missiles.

Source please?

[Popman]

BMk

[Stanwood_Dave]

Sorry you haven’t seen any of the many photo’s that were shown on broadcast television, (MAJOR HINT) shortly (the first couple of day’s there-after) after the the shoot down.

[Moonman62]

There is air in the tanks. There’s plenty of evidence for that you can find by doing an Internet search. Here’s an example:

Later this year, the FAA plans to order reductions in the flammability of gases that float in the void above Jet A fuel in airliner tanks. Airlines and manufacturers will be able to meet the requirement by using systems based on a prototype developed by the FAA—an onboard inert-gas generation system (OBIGGS), which replaces much of the air in a fuel tank with nitrogen, a gas that does not support combustion. The technology “will virtually eliminate the possibility of future fuel tank explosions,” FAA Administrator Marion Blakey said in February when announcing the agency’s plans to recommend that 3,800 Boeing and Airbus airliners be fitted with inerting technology.

http://www.airspacemag.com/how-things-work/safer-fuel-tanks-5883916/?no-ist

Go to page 131 of the NTSB report and you’ll find the extensive testing and research done on the flammability of the fuel air mixture in the center tank of TWA 800 at the accident altitude.

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0003.pdf

[Moonman62]

No, the report was fabricated. The rules for “intrinsically safe” are very specific and strongly enforced.

...

Your criticism would be much more credible if you addressed what’s actually in the NTSB report rather than what you imagine is there.

[pfflier]

Usually any TWA 800 post on FR brings out the conspiracy around the corner crowd. Apparently only two of us grasp the fundamental capability of traffic control radar, in this case ASR-9.

Too many respondees to my question either quote "What they saw on you tube", "saw on a TV program" or quote theoretical radar operations.

I don't believe any of them ever saw a mid-air explosion on radar.

[going hot]

Many saw that video, that night, never again.

They cannot erase the memory, although they sure as heck try, to this day.

Clinton coverup from time of explosion to today.

[mad_as_he$$]

+1. I went and rescanned the specs on the ASR-9 system. Nothing like the claims made in the OP and on this thread. It is late 1980’s technology.

[pfflier]

The radar track shows the dispersion of fragments from which the energy of the explosion can be inferred.

How big do you think the fragments have to be to reflect a radar signature in an air traffic control environment? Entire airplanes are lost (become invisible) when their transponders are turned off. Only occasionally can they can be seen by skin painting and only when ATC maxes the gain intentionally.

The radar can show a debris cloud but that would be fairly brief and I'm pretty sure even the best trained operators cannot discern velocity of individual fragments in the debris paint.

[pfflier]

Thanks. Now three of us actually have some real world knowledge about ASR-9 capabilities and don’t get our “irrefutable evidence” from you tube and late night talk radio.

[GingisK]

Source please?

Sure, let me Google for you: Wikipedia (One of many)

There are also books that go into those topics somewhat in depth.

[pfflier]

You do realize that anybody can put anything they want on wikipedia?

Likewise just because something is in print doesn't validate the material content, only the market niche for the content.

[pfflier]

For what it's worth, I believe someone pointed out earlier that the plane was at 13,000 feet. I believe at 10,000 feet a source of pressurized air is required for passengers.

Ask a WWII B-17 vet if the plane can burn and explode at 30,000 feet...(hint hell yes it can).

[Hulka]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3437887/posts?page=171#171

You will find many instances of center fuel tank explosions, as it was a threat that all jets have because electrical wires and hydraulic lines are routed through fuel tanks for cooling. 707, fighter aircraft, 747, it is almost universal that all jets are designed that way.

KC-135: History of Destroyed Aircraft (USAF version of the B-707 is the KC-135: https://airrefuelingarchive.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/kc-135-history-of-destroyed-aircraft/

“22-Jun-59 57-1446 A Walker AFB Main fuel tank explosion on ramp (maintenance)”

“3-Jun-71 58-0039 Q Torrejon AFB Crashed following in-flight explosion of the nr. 1 main fuel tank. Chafing of boost pump wires in conduits was determined to be as a possible ignition source.”

“13-FEB-87 60-0330 A Altus AFB Landed on the runway at altus afb on fire, cause was an arc in the fuel vapor area due to a compromised coax from the HF radio, aircraft subsequently burned to the ground in the infield after it rolled off the runway”

“4-Oct-89 56-3592 A Loring AFB In-flight explosion (aft body tank) during approach”

FAA: “ Since 1959 there have been 18 fuel tank explosions on transport category airplanes” http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%20120-98A.pdf

The cost of complying with regulations that remove the center line tank explosion threat is tens upon tens of millions of dollars, and the airlines absorbed that cost. . .and the airlines and OEM know the systems and if they knew the tank was not the cause then there would have been lawsuits and public hearings challenging the regulation. And with the threat of another center line tank explosion, the airlines and OEM have to fix the problem otherwise they would be sued out of existence. . .the fact the airlines and OEMs did not challenge the regulation and made the changes means they knew it was the cause.

Mitigation study: https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/systems/AIAAFDC32143b.pdf

Just a few.

FAA has more. . .

Good-bye.

[DiogenesLamp]

There is air in the tanks.

I am not disputing that there is air in the tanks. I am merely pointing out that at 13,000 feet, it is unlikely to be sufficiently dense to initiate combustion without being compressed to a higher density... and that's if you have a strong enough ignition source, which they didn't.

Go to page 131 of the NTSB report and you’ll find the extensive testing and research done on the flammability of the fuel air mixture in the center tank of TWA 800 at the accident altitude.

I am pretty sure I am going to regret wading through this section of document.

According to that report:

Published research involving pure hydrocarbon fuels260 estimated the LFL of these fuels at sea level to be a fuel/air mass ratio of 0.036 to 0.041. Published research involving Jet A fuels261 estimated the LFL for Jet A to be a fuel/air mass ratio of 0.032 to 0.035, for pressure between 0.4 and 1.0 atmospheres. Although the LFL was not explicitly tested for during CIT’s research, the lowest fuel/air mass ratio ignited was calculated at 0.038 at 13,800 feet msl, using 80 J spark energy.

80 joule spark energy? 80 amps for 1 second? That's trying pretty hard to light something on fire, don't you think? That would light paper on fire, let alone fuel vapor.

Also the report requires the fuel to be at a temperature of 96.4° F. Max temperature for that day was 86 degrees, presumably at the hottest part of the day.

Also the flight took place at 8:31 p.m., which was well after the peak heat of the day.

Looks like they are trying real hard to salvage that theory.

[PhilDragoo]

Now, on that same day—and this is critical, because there’s no understanding this crash without the political element of it—that this is above-the-fold left, the TWA explosion—biggest news story, by the way, of 1996—above-the-fold right is the headline “Clinton Signs Welfare Reform Bill on Eve of Democratic National Convention.” One of those headlines had to go, and the headline that went was the TWA Flight 800 headline. After August 23rd, all reporting—both by the FBI to The New York Times and by The New York Times—changed. The investigation ended on that day. Actually, it ended the day before when the Deputy—the story The New York Times heard already had been leaked out by the FBI. But on the day before that, the Deputy Attorney General, the woman who ran this show, Jamie Gorelick—and she was rewarded for her efforts a few months later—called Jim Kallstrom of the FBI to Washington for a “Come to Jesus” meeting, and everything changed thereafter. Now, after reading The Clinton Tapes, here’s what I believe happened, and this is speculation, but I think I’m right. I think that Clinton told Kallstrom what he told Branch: Iran wants war. If we acknowledge a missile attack, we will have to go to war. For national security purposes, we cannot let that happen. Now, Clinton’s real motive, of course, was to protect his big lead over Bob Dole, selling peace and prosperity to the Democratic National Convention, et cetera. Kallstrom, I really think, has been tortured by this ever since. Here’s what he said, for instance, on September 11th. He was being interviewed by Dan Rather on the very morning of September 11th, 2001. He said, “We need to stop the hypocrisy—” He just blurted this out, and then he caught himself, and he said, “Not that hypocrisy got us today, I’m not saying it did.” But that first part of his sentence, that’s the honest part: “We need to stop the hypocrisy.” Throughout the Branch book—this occurred at Oklahoma City, and it occurred with the World Trade Center bombing—Clinton was telling Branch, “The investigation can’t go beyond the water’s edge.” He does not want any investigation of terrorism to lead overseas, for a variety of reasons. And TWA Flight 800? What an ambitious thing. I think they’re just trying to push it back until after November, but then they realized they could get away with it—and they have.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ask a WWII B-17 vet if the plane can burn and explode at 30,000 feet...(hint hell yes it can).

B-17s used 87 octane gasoline. Quite a bit more ignitable than Jet A.

The Wright R-1820 radial engine had a 7 to 1 compressor to boost pressure, plus the compression pressure of the engine. You had a very well developed ignition source right there.