TWA 800: Breaking -- Air Traffic Controller Tells All

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

[Triple]

Time...and truth - they are great friends.

I personally asked an operator in the CIA, at the time, about the zoom-climb video, after telling him I knew it was a cover-up. He shook his head and laughed, admitting to the logic that the CIA does not get involved in plain old airliner crashes. (I knew he could not give a direct answer. His verbal response was: oh, did you notice that? He might have also muttered under his breath, some people are just dumb-asses.)

[Talisker]

I realize you have no knowledge about the things you have been writing about, but I would have thought you would at least be smart enough not to get in a pissing contest about submarines with a guy that used to live on a submarine.

You're the only one who's unzipped, and what you don't seem to get is I haven't been impressed with your show for a week now. You also don't seem to get that there are other things in this world besides living on a sub. And finally, specifically, you haven't gotten that the entire subject matter under discussion is whether it was possible for someone to have been on a sub, during a naval exercise, looking up. In your vast sub experience, such an act was impossible. Once again, you're flat out lying, and you have no concept that the name of the sail is not only not unknown to others, but utterly irrelevant.

Zip up, and stop embarrassing yourself.

[UCANSEE2]

We're straying from things I know about to stuff I have to take the word of others on.

Well then.... we are in the same boat, so to speak.

Too bad my 747 mechanic father isn't around to talk about this.

Life is full of coincidences.

My dad was a mechanic at TWA at the overhaul base. He also is, unfortunately, not around to talk to.

IIRC, one of them was a tank level or something related. I believe the other one was a higher voltage system, and that both circuits ran in the same conduit. I think that is what lead the NTSB to their theory.

True. The NTSB said that the cockpit recorder had an incidence of the pilot remarking "look at that crazy fuel gauge on #4).

One of the pictures I posted shows that concept (and indicates wiring to #4 engine).

If true, then the NTSB CWT theory makes sense.

Kallstrom tried to show us proof of the 'arcing' but I'm rather skeptical of the 'piece of evidence'.

[UCANSEE2]

I don't know if the fuel pumps are electrical or mechanical however.

Mostly mechanical. But there are multiple pumps besides the ones on the engines.

In this incident, the 'short' centers on the wires to sensors for the #4 engine.

[OA5599]

You're the only one who's unzipped, and what you don't seem to get is I haven't been impressed with your show for a week now.

A week already? Considering this thread was only opened four days ago, maybe you should give it more time.

You also don't seem to get that there are other things in this world besides living on a sub.

Trust me I get it. I no longer live on a sub. In fact, I got out before the USS Seawolf was capable of firing missiles. Which was many years after the loss of flight 800.

And finally, specifically, you haven't gotten that the entire subject matter under discussion is whether it was possible for someone to have been on a sub, during a naval exercise, looking up. In your vast sub experience, such an act was impossible.

Of course it's possible. When did I say it wasn't? It's just that it's not how nuclear submarines operate. It's like driving an airplane on the ground. Yes it's possible, and it's done at the beginning and end of the journey, but that's not how they operate.

Once again, you're flat out lying,

What specifically have I written that was a lie? Apparently I've done it at least twice.

and you have no concept that the name of the sail is not only not unknown to others, but utterly irrelevant.

It goes to show that you are not well researched. If you're going to float a conspiracy theory that besmirches whole groups of people, it helps if you actually know what you're talking about because they're going to come in and rip your little fantasy to shreds. At a bare minimum, get the terminology correct. Then you should at least float ideas that make sense.

But you have a pre-commissioned submarine that isn't fully operational launching a non-existent or above Top Secret weapon while submerged in the rather shallow waters along the continental shelf for live fire exercises in a known heavy commercial air traffic corridor with multiple ships conducting exercises and were all threatened to keep quiet with amazing 100% compliance including the SEALs planting evidence and the CIA running interference on the NTSB while Bill Clinton and the press watch it on a monitor in the White House.

Yeah, sounds legit.

Zip up, and stop embarrassing yourself.

Sound advice. You might want to consider following it.

[UCANSEE2]

In the illustration, it shows a short occurring far away from the CWT. The idea is that high voltage ran down the sensor wires to the tank, and the sensors created a spark.

Since the sensors are electrically isolated, how did they produce a spark ?

The independent test (I can find the link to the video again, if you wish) just used a spark gap and kept increasing the output until the tank exploded. Of course a spark gap creates a spark when you apply enough current.

[UCANSEE2]

Another question. Since the electrical cables are routed through the CWT, where are the Fuel lines routed ?

[Lower Deck]

But what paint color do they use for it? And how many gallons of paint does it take? And how long does it take to dry before it can go underwater?

Trick questions, right? Submarine hulls, including the sail, are not painted. They are covered with a synthetic rubberized polymer coating made up of anechoic tile. It's a sound-deadening covering that helps muffle sound generated by the sub and absorb sound generated by active sonar to reduce the range that they can detect the sub. I am truly surprised that you were not aware of anechoic tile and thought that submarines were actually just painted.

Pish, you know nothing.

Want to walk that back a bit there, chief?

[OA5599]

The last time I talked to my father about this, they were still floating the static electricity from microscopic cracks theory. Not sure where he got that info (news or scuttlebutt at JFK) but he called BS.

That may have influenced my tendency to not believe the official report. That and my fondness of Boeing and 747s in particular.

I never spoke to him about the subject again. By the time I heard about the damaged wiring/stray voltage issue, he was gone. I was still skeptical, but after reading about the NTSB findings in the last few days, what struck me is how hot the fuel was. I had no idea that the fuel in the tanks would be kept above the flashpoint at all, let alone that far above it.

[Lower Deck]

And if I missed where you already posted this then I apologize, but can I ask what your hands-on experience on this topic is? ASW in airplanes? Surface ships? Sub ASW? Forgive my curiosity but I’d like to know.

[OA5599]

I don’t know how the level sensors work on airplanes. I do know quite a bit about instrumentation in power plants however.

We use many different methods to measure level from magnetostrictive floats to differential pressure transmitters to conductivity probes to radar at my plant.

All of our instrumentation is in class 1 div 1 explosion proof enclosures near the fuel systems.

I can’t think of how any of my instruments would create a spark if the signal wiring (usually 4 to 20 miliamps powered from 24vdc supplies) had say 120vac leaked onto them.

But these instruments are in pretty heavy enclosures. Not sure how the aircraft equivalents are constructed or how they operate.

[OA5599]

Another question. Since the electrical cables are routed through the CWT, where are the Fuel lines routed ?

I have no idea. A quick call to my father would have resolved that question, but we're 12 years too late for that. Have to search the internet now...

[Talisker]

But you have a pre-commissioned submarine that isn't fully operational launching a non-existent or above Top Secret weapon while submerged in the rather shallow waters along the continental shelf for live fire exercises in a known heavy commercial air traffic corridor with multiple ships conducting exercises and were all threatened to keep quiet with amazing 100% compliance including the SEALs planting evidence and the CIA running interference on the NTSB while Bill Clinton and the press watch it on a monitor in the White House.

Yeah, sounds legit.

What you described are inescapable facts.

The alternative is what? A spontaneous 747 center fuel tank explosion that never happened before or since, and the flat out denial of hundreds of eye witnesses who saw a missile rise up out of the water and hit the plane, and the dismissal of a major naval exercise based around the Aegis combat coordination technology which is literally designed to control, track and monitor multiple assets simultaneously - exactly as would be required from a sub missile launch. Oh yeah - and even though a number of companies with proven track records spent millions of dollars developing and displaying for sale, with all engineering finished and connected to current combat conrol platforms, a sub-fired SAM, somehow the fact that I point out all of these things is a "fantasy" because... why? Because YOU were once on a submarine, back when they ran on bicycle gears and spitwads, and they didn't have no high falutin' flying missile what got shot outta the torpedo tubes back then.

Well lemme clutch my pearls, darlin, I think I'm gonna faint.

You know, I really don't think we're going to find any areas of agreement. We should just leave it at that.

[OA5599]

What you described are inescapable facts.

Facts... I don't think that word means what you think it means

The alternative is what? A spontaneous 747 center fuel tank explosion that never happened before or since,

I find the official explanation a bit hard to swallow, but just because something that may have happened hasn't happened before or since then, that is not proof that it did not happen.

You should note however, airplane fuel tanks have exploded before without a bomb or missile hitting them. There was 737 that exploded on the ground in 1990 after new wiring was passed through the fuel tank, which may have damaged existing wiring.

and the flat out denial of hundreds of eye witnesses who saw a missile rise up out of the water and hit the plane,

This doesn't strike you as odd? How can an observer see the surface of the ocean from over ten miles away? You realize the Earth is round right? How far out do you think the horizon is exactly? If you're on the beach at the edge of the water, 3 miles tops. After that, boats start disappearing.

and the dismissal of a major naval exercise based around the Aegis combat coordination technology which is literally designed to control, track and monitor multiple assets simultaneously -

I don't know if there was an exercise in the area at the time or not. While I've never participated in naval exercises (my subs were spec ops and were always alone), I will dismiss the idea that the navy was conducting live fire exercises in one of the heaviest commercial air corridors on the planet. That's just stupid.

exactly as would be required from a sub missile launch.

A submarine does not need an Aegis ship in order to launch a missile. The BSY-1 Combat Control System onboard can do that just fine. But of course that's for Tomahawks and Harpoons, not fictitious missiles.

Oh yeah - and even though a number of companies with proven track records spent millions of dollars developing and displaying for sale, with all engineering finished and connected to current combat conrol platforms, a sub-fired SAM,

Did you just pull that out of your ass? Your story involves the Seawolf, so I guess the navy just let all these foreign companies have access to the brand new BSY-2 CCS of the most advanced submarine ever constructed to write code for a missile system the navy never asked for?

somehow the fact that I point out all of these things is a "fantasy" because... why? Because YOU were once on a submarine, back when they ran on bicycle gears and spitwads, and they didn't have no high falutin' flying missile what got shot outta the torpedo tubes back then.

Let me repeat myself here. I was in the navy when TWA 800 exploded. My boats were Los Angeles class fast attack submarines. The Seawolf class was not operational and had many teething issues that prevented them from becoming operational until 2001.

While the Los Angeles class boats could fire missiles from either their torpedo tubes or their VLS (flights II & III only), those missiles are for land attack (Tomahawk) or anti-ship (Harpoon) missions.

Submarines in the US Navy do not have anti-aircraft capabilities. The defensive tactic to go deep and quiet. A submarine has no way to track aircraft. If you built a system that relied on an Aegis cruiser or destroyer's radar, then why not just use that surface ship's SM-2 missiles to take it out? Why definitively give up the subs position?

Well lemme clutch my pearls, darlin, I think I'm gonna faint. You know, I really don't think we're going to find any areas of agreement. We should just leave it at that.

Can we at least agree that Los Angeles class submarines do not have anti-aircraft capability? I mean that at least covers my real world experience and allows you to keep your Seawolf class fantasy.

[UCANSEE2]

I had no idea that the fuel in the tanks would be kept above the flashpoint at all, let alone that far above it.

Yet.... private planes SIT around smaller airports for days or weeks with tanks FULL of fuel. Sitting there in the glaring sun with no external 'cooling' equipment. With a fuel (gasoline) which is WAY MORE VOLATILE than Jet fuel.

Never seen any of them blow up.

[UCANSEE2]

A quick call to my father would have resolved that question, but we're 12 years too late for that. Have to search the internet now...

I don't know if I read it in one of the comments on this thread, or somewhere else, but the fuel lines are run THROUGH the CWT to 'cool' the fuel.

[UCANSEE2]

For those who claim there were no naval exercises in that area.

"... about three of the radar-tracked vessels below Flight 800, Kallstrom said they were "Navy vessels that were on classified maneuvers."

For those who claim there was no P3 in the area.

[UCANSEE2]

Anyone remember this?

---

Newsday
Fax Gives Glimpse of Crash Investigation
By W. Michael Pitcher

Official documents faxed mistakenly to a Riverhead resident recently show that the Federal Bureau of Investigation two months ago was investigating whether pieces of debris found among the wreckage of TWA Fight 800 were the remnants of an aerial target drone used by the U.S. Navy and other armed services training exercises. The FBI apparently has since determined that the wreckage was not from the aerial target.

The information came to light after a fax meant for the FBI’s facility in Calverton was sent to Riverhead resident Dede Muma, who forwarded a copy of the fax to this newspaper.

The Calverton FBI facility was established to investigate the July 17, 1996 crash of the Boeing 747 off Moriches Inlet that killed all 230 people on board.

The fax was meant to be sent from an employee at Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical to his superior, who was on assignment at the Calverton FBI facility. The fax shows a diagram of what appears to be a missile, along with a breakdown of its tail section and a parts list. The fax was sent by Teledyne employee Erich Hittinger to Walt Hamilton of Teledyne, via FBI agent Ken Maxwell. Teledyne is based in San Diego and, among other things, manufactures armaments.

The object shown in the fax was identified this week by Jane’s Information Services in Alexandria, Virginia as a Teledyne Ryan BQM-34 Firebee I, an air or surface-launched recoverable aerial target. The Firebee has a wing span of 13 feet, and is approximately 23 feet long. It can travel at speeds up to 635 knots with a maximum range of just
under 700 miles.

The targets are used all over the world, including within the military “warning areas” that come as close as about 10 nautical miles off Moriches Inlet in the Atlantic Ocean. The Navy practices shooting down drones within the warning areas.

Theories that a missile downed TWA Flight 800 began immediately after the crash when many witnesses reported seeing a streak of light arcing up toward the plane before it exploded. One theory, popular on the Internet, is that U.S. Navy forces were conducting exercises south of Long Island the night of the crash and sent one or more targets—like the Firebee—aloft. The theory proposes that a missile fired at that target from either a plane or submarine instead locked on to the TWA 747 and brought plane down.

The FBI has publicly dismissed Mr. Salinger’s theory, but says it continues to investigate all possibilities and has not singled out any cause—missile, bomb or mechanical failure—as the cause of the crash.

FBI spokesman Joseph Valiquette refused to comment on the recent Teledyne Fax and any other aspect of the agency’s investigation when contacted on Wednesday.

Former press secretary to President John F. Kennedy Pierre Salanger created an uproar this year when he announced that he had proof Flight 800 was downed by an errant missile that came from inside one of the warning areas.

Mr. Hittinger said this week that the FBI had contacted Teledyne Ryan because FBI investigators suspected that orange pieces of debris found among the TWA Flight 800 wreckage might be parts of a Firebee. The Firebee is “95 percent” international orange in color, he said.

Mr. Hittinger said Mr. Hamilton flew to the Calverton FBI facility and examined the debris. Mr. Hittinger sent the fax to Mr. Hamilton to aid him in his examination of the debris.

“He (Mr. Hamilton) said it wasn’t from our Firebee,” said Mr. Hittinger . “It was all put to bed some time ago.” Mr. Hamilton was on vacation until July 28 and was unavailable for comment.

Ms. Muma received the fax from the FBI on May 13. She received another fax meant for the FBI’s Calverton office July 10. That fax was apparently a background check on a potential federal appointee.

The problem is a simple matter of numbers—Ms. Muma’s fax number is 369-4310 and the FBI’s fax number is 369-4301.

Ms. Muma said she called the FBI when she received the first fax. She said the agency’s initial reaction was “Oh, s-—.”

After the initial shock wore off, Ms. Muma was told to “send it along to them, and destroy the original.” She said she asked what would happen if she didn’t do so, and was told “we’ll have to investigate you.”

Unfazed by the threat of investigation, “I told them its D-E-E M-U-M-A , Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, the farm with the buffalo,” said Ms. Muma.
She is married to Riverhead farmer and real estate entrepreneur Ed Tuccio, who has about 15 buffalo at his Roanoke Avenue farm.

Ms. Muma was surprised to receive the missile information over her fax, but she said she just figured the FBI was covering all the bases in its investigation of the TWA Flight 800 crash. She said it was probably just
“due diligence” in checking out every possibility that prompted the FBI to get the information from Teledyne-Ryan.

When the second fax arrived, Ms. Muma called the FBI again. This time, she said, the reaction was a pained groan. The error on the first fax was made by someone at Teledyne-Ryan, but the error on the second was made by the FBI—the second fax was sent from Special Agent (S.A.) Matt Womble to SA Paul Raimondi.

The second fax is designated “confidential” and is apparently a background check on a potential appointee. The “appointee” is never named, but he is reputed to have an unimpeachable reputation and be well qualified “for a position of trust and confidence with the U.S.
government.”

Among other things, the memo says that the appointee “can maintain confidences and secrets and exert appropriate discretion.”

“Unlike the FBI,” opined Ms. Muma. The opinions on the unnamed appointee came from one Walter Lewis of
Dillon Reid and Company on Madison Avenue in New York City, an investment banking firm. Mr. Lewis’s secretary said he would have no comment on the matter.

Before sending the second fax to the FBI’s real fax number, Ms. Muma scribbled “From your branch office in Riverhead” across the top of it.

Ms. Muma said she felt free to talk about the misdirected fax because “its not a matter of national security.” If it was, she said, “I’d die with that.”

Ms. Muma waits expectantly for her next fax message from the FBI. “I’ve started the J. Edgar Hover Memorial Library,” Ms. Muma joked.

C 1997 Southampton Press Publishing Co., Inc.

[UCANSEE2]

[UCANSEE2]