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.”

[Lower Deck]

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

And Kallstrom's evidence for this is...?

For those who claim there was no P3 in the area. Nobody is denying a P-3 was in the area. W-105 and W-106 were both active. The NOTAM said that there would be ASW aircraft in the area dropping sonobuoys at or below 5,000 feet during the period from 10 AM to 7PM. The P-3 could easily still be in the area continuing to monitor them.

[Lower Deck]

What’s your point with this one?

[UCANSEE2]

What’s your point with this one?

"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."

[UCANSEE2]

And Kallstrom's evidence for this is...?

First, I think he would have been in a position to 'know'.

Second, are you saying he made it up ?

[UCANSEE2]

The NOTAM said that there would be ASW aircraft in the area dropping sonobuoys at or below 5,000 feet during the period from 10 AM to 7PM.

Why would a P-3 be dropping sonobuoys IN THAT AREA ? What are Sonobouys used for ?

[Lower Deck]

"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."

[Lower Deck]

First, I think he would have been in a position to 'know'.

Why?

Second, are you saying he made it up ?

That would depend on his evidence.

[Lower Deck]

Why would a P-3 be dropping sonobuoys IN THAT AREA ? What are Sonobouys used for ?

Sononbuoys are used for hunting submarines. Aircraft drop them, they deploy listening devices, and the aircraft listens for the sub and tracks it when it detects it. Why they would be dropping in that area is easy. The Navy has a major submarine base at Groton, CT. Subs transiting to and from Groton enter Long Island Sound from the eastern end and can be routed through W-105 or W-106. When subs are scheduled to be passing through the area then the P-3 squadrons out of Brunswick and occasionally Canadian squadrons out of Greenwood would often take advantage of it to do some training on a live target.

[OA5599]

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

I'm not one who claimed there were no naval exercises in the area as I have no idea. I did say there's no way they would conduct live fire exercises in a busy air corridor. By that I meant live fire capable of shooting down aircraft. I did not mean anything on or below the surface of the ocean.

Your map shows "notice to mariners" below the area highlighted as a "navy firing area." It does not say "notice to aviators."

Since it looks like it's off the continental shelf and it's not too far away from Groton, logic would dictate it is where submarines practice. I think by now everyone but Talisker realizes there are no anti-aircraft missiles on submarines.

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

Also not something I claimed. I just said that I couldn't find any info to back up claims in your link that a P-3 was towing a target. I don't think they do that. Never heard of that and can't find info on that. Plus the navy uses self propelled drones as targets like the BQM-74.

[Talisker]

I think by now everyone but Talisker realizes there are no anti-aircraft missiles on submarines

Actually, I'm the only one who doesn't give a damn if they are or not. As has been so mockingly pointed out, people can't see past around three miles of ocean from the shore because of the curvature of the earth, and the missile would have been launched from farther out than that. So would it really change anything if it was from a ship over the horizon?

And I'm still not convinced that subs weren't testing or using subSAMs at the time. Why? 1) Because the concept has been pursued by various companies, and 2) Because anyone actually on a sub in those days would not have discussed a top secret technology then or now, especially if it still hasn't been released as having existed back then (which is a subtle, but important point). And yes, if it was used back then that fact would not be cleared for release even today, because of what it would mean about TWA800. So no, anyone with directly knowledge of this information from their hallowed sub days would still not admit it on FR.

But, if it wasn' a sub, so what? It's still a missile fired in the middle of a naval exercise. Via Occam, that means the navy fired it, if not from a sub, then from a ship. Or is it also an absolutely absurd fantasy that a ship would have SAMs? Or that the launch vehicle wouldn't be visible past three miles from shore - at night? Or is that just cheating, because all of this is dependent upon a sub? But I thought it wasn't dependent upon a sub, that it couldn't be dependent upon a sub, because it's literally impossible - subs are only outfitted to deliver teddy bears, and it would take an ASWDTTRRESG-level brain tech MasterChiefCaptainAdmiral with two Ph.Ds, the Congressional Medal of Honor and Astronaut's Wings to verify that anything - anything at all - other than teddy bears could ever be delivered by a sub?

So why not fire the missile from a ship? An Aegis ship, maybe? [shrug] Does it really matter? The POINT is that it was MOST LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN a Navy missile.

[Lower Deck]

The POINT is that it was MOST LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN a Navy missile.

All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. And regardless of the lack of evidence to support.

[Talisker]

All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. And regardless of the lack of evidence to support.

A refusal to acknowledge evidence doesn't erase that evidence.

[OA5599]

As has been so mockingly pointed out

Tone is hard to establish while communicating over the internet. I'm just breaking your balls, but don't mean to offend you too much. Since we're on FR, we probably have more ideas in common than not. I just don't agree with your particular TWA 800 theory.

[OA5599]

This also may be of interest to you:

Although commissioned in July 1997, the USS Seawolf did not enter service until June 25, 2001, when she made her first operational patrol. The Tomahawk launch capability had still not been incorporated at that point, the submarine was still experiencing problems with the pumpjet propulsor, and the BSY-2 combat system was still not operating satisfactorily – nearly 17 years after project inception and well over a decade since the submarine was ordered.

https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=792

[Forgotten Amendments]

Back then, there were a lot of very suspicious plane crashes that I believe were bombs. I used to rant and rave about it. Two that I remember were one that blew up on takeoff in Detroit and the Gander Newfoundland crash of our soldiers returning from the Mideast. I'm sure that several were covered up and I never knew why.

After the post 9/11 hysteria that permanently terrorized this once great nation, maybe they were justified in hushing up any terrorist connections.

[Swordmaker]

The CIA was used by the FBI to evaluate witness statements. It’s in the NTSB report I linked to.

Oh? The CIA is filled with experts in witness statements? Since when? When has the CIA had better qualifications than the FBI at interviewing witnesses when the CIA did not even interview a single witness of this crash. Since when has the CIA been permitted to be involved in domestic investigations?

NOT ONCE has that been permitted. . . and they did not even evaluate the statements, they evaluated the FBI agents' written 302 reports, written from the faulty memories of those agents after the agents had interviewed those witnesses, not the actual recorded or video taped interviews. . . and in many instances critical re-interviews that NEVER HAPPENED, according to the witnesses themselves.

[Moonman62]

Go ask somebody who knows about the CIA involvement. You can read the same thing I have in the NTSB report. I don’t see how it’s all that relevant since many of the witnesses and their testimony are available to anybody.

As far as the witnesses go, I’ve read and thought about the testimony from the top three, Mike Wire, Fred Meyer, and the Eastwind 737 captain. There’s consistency problems and changed stories over time. I think they are upstanding people and trustworthy, but there’s always problems with eyewitness testimony, even coming from the best people.

I’ll note that the Eastwind captain is certain he didn’t see a missile.

[Swordmaker]

The question I always wondered was why the fleet of planes were not grounded until the is defect was fixed, like they always do with every other serious plan mishap.

Not only was the fleet of 747s not grounded until the exploding Center Wing Tanks fixed, the NTSB's final order on INERTING fuel tanks on commercial aircraft was issued in May 2008, twelve years after the TWA-800 disaster. It required all new US commercial aircraft to have auto-inerting of the empty volumes of fuel tanks after 2010 (!). However, it also requires that specific existing commercial aircraft must be retrofitted with inerting systems by 2018. Strangely, of the several thousand Boeing 747s manufactured before 2008, only a mere 60 were being required to be retrofitted with inerting devices. That tells me that it was NOT a major safety issue or even a priority.

[Swordmaker]

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.

Aircraft cabin pressure is maintained, depending on the altitude of the plane at between the equivalent of a surface altitude of 6000 to 8000 feet above sea level. Fires often are sustained at those altitudes, so that would not be a problem. However, at 13,800 feet, the flash point mixture for a Jet A/air mixture is considerably different than the flash point at sea level, requiring quite a bit more air and it has to be aerated quite a bit better than just would be achieved by heating the fuel. In addition, the cold air from the exterior of the plane at 13,800 feet would have condensed what fuel there was in the atmosphere in the Center Wing Tank back into the puddle of ullage.

One of the scenario's the NTSB claims was possible was a spark from a fuel pump, but all the wiring is external to the pump's exposure to fuel. . . and the pump would be under the fuel level in any case, unexposed to the fuel/air mixture. In addition, the pump switch for the Center Wing Tank was in the OFF position. The other was a spark in a fuel gauge for the CWT, but again, all the electrical is external to the tank and low voltage to boot. They postulated that the low voltage wiring shared a wire chase with high-voltage wiring, and somehow high-voltage shorted to the low voltage wire. . . but Boeing claims all low-voltage wiring is run separately from high-voltage wires. Oops, that doesn't work either.

[Moonman62]

How many times do I have to tell you that until a few years ago, inerting systems were too heavy and expensive?

As far as older 747’s being exempt, if that’s true, maybe they’re being used as freighters. Very few, if any, older 747’s carry passengers anymore. Plus there were other Airworthiness Directives that made the older 747’s safer. Fuel tank explosions are rare. I don’t think anybody’s disputing that.