Posted on 06/20/2016 11:33:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
When I see former FBI New York honcho Jim Kallstrom appear on Fox News, I see a tortured soul. As boldly honest as he has been on the subject of Islamic terrorism, this once honorable man has lived a lie for the last twenty years on the subject of TWA Flight 800. Others have lived the lie as well, but none so personally.
It was Kallstrom who spoke to the press, Kallstrom who testified at congressional hearings, Kallstrom who consoled the families of the 230 dead with the assurance he would leave “no stone unturned” in his pursuit of the truth.
When Kallstrom arrived on the scene in Long Island the day after the crash in July 1996, the truth was indeed what he was seeking. By July 30, 1996 -- less than two weeks after the 747 blew up -- FBI agents had interviewed 144 “excellent” witnesses to a missile strike. As revealed in a recently unearthed CIA memo, the evidence was “overwhelming” and the witness testimony “too consistent” for the cause of the plane’s destruction to be anything other than a missile.
1996 being an election year, however a missile strike on an American airliner involved far too much political risk for the Clinton White House. Working through the CIA, its operatives took effective control of the investigation. For reasons only he knows, Kallstrom knuckled under.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The two cartoon demos of what happened produced by both the CIA and the NTSB both included a zoom climb up to a far higher altitude than the initiating event. The CIA's cartoon took it to 3800 feet higher and the NTSB's took it 1200 feet higher. Both claimed 18 seconds of climb. The math doesn't and cannot support either, nor was there any time in a ballistic trajectory for a climb to any altitude which would have required an additional 18 seconds to fall back to the initiating altitude before falling the rest of the way into the ocean. . . which had the climb and additional distance for the fall been added, also would have placed it in a different place in the ocean than where it did finally come to a rest.
The NOAA research vessel Rude, used the 13,800 foot known altitude of the initiating event of the TWA-800 disaster, the last known ground speed, and the known pre-disaster trajectory, and did not included any climb at all, and using a ballistic computer, calculated a ballistic fall and sailed to the calculated landing of that ballistic fall, and found the main body of the aircraft exactly at the predicted location. Ergo, no climb, no higher altitude for starting point, no greater distance.
Ergo, it did not happen.
The climb is hardly a zoom. It simply reflects a shift in the center of gravity as well as a lighter mass once the nose section separated.
And each of those have a zoom climb in them that the MATH does not allow. Not at all. Where does the energy come from when Boeing says uncategorically that the engines at loss of signal from the flight deck WILL GO TO IDLE! How hard is that to grasp? There was no altitude data from the passive radar returns after the initiating event yet you have the CIA claiming the aircraft GAINED altitude to 16,000 feet, at least in this graph, and the NTSB claiming 1200. There is no way either of these graphs is possible when the plane went into a stall condition almost instantly with the center of gravity 12 feet behind the center of lift. Planes cannot fly unless they are balanced. The plane was unbalanced. . . And the engines were not providing any energy to the system to add to the lift. This chart is bogus because they did not include the math to back up any of graphed lines! They just drew them and claimed they matched radar that had ZERO altitude data. That was why people, including aeronautical engineers and expert crash investigators, were filing FOI lawsuits for that data and calculations which were stonewalled! Boeing itself said they were NOT included in the making of those videos and graphs!
There is no way either of these graphs is possible when the plane went into a stall condition almost instantly with the center of gravity 12 feet behind the center of lift. Planes cannot fly unless they are balanced. The plane was unbalanced. . .
...
Planes sure can fly unbalanced, especially if they have momentum. If the condition is extreme they will stop flying at some point, as TWA800 did.
Here’s another example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUWC2jfjqI
The a/c's resulting pitch up and stall after losing that much forward mass would likely be as violent as the explosion that caused it to lose its nose.
But, would its wings' lift trade the remaining a/c's speed for altitude during that destruction?
Sure. Possibly so, however briefly, depending...
I think instantaneous climb prior to/during destruction would be the initial response of what was still intact, however briefly, if that official version of the story is true.
However, after re-viewing the National Air Cargo B747's CG shift, stall and crash at Bagram Airfield video, I think the official TWA 800 story and accompanying video are BS.
No way would the initial climb of the remaining a/c explain what multiple witnesses from multiple vantage points saw.
Your point on that video? That cargo plane was on take off, hence the extreme climb, then lost its engines, and could not continue its take off acceleration. No air speed, no lift, while it was trying to take, no resistance to drag, and no climb. It only appeared to climb a short distance (and there may have been some because there was still a bit of lift and the momentum) after the loss of engines because of the camera angle. It was still balanced until stall eliminated all lift. It still had its nose and unless it’s cargo all shifted backwards toward the tail, it was balanced. That plane had other problems which caused the engines to stop producing thrust and caused it go into an obvious stall and stop it from flying. There was sound on that video and there was no engine noise. Ergo, no engines were operational working when it appeared on the video.
Your point on that video? That cargo plane was on take off, hence the extreme climb, then lost its engines, and could not continue its take off acceleration.
...
That 747 was carrying cargo and had a cargo shift to the rear. It continued to fly afterward for a short time. That’s my point. You specifically said a plane can’t fly unbalanced at all regardless of momentum, and that’s false.
That’s my point.
The chart shows a time frame from the initiating event to splash down of 55 seconds. But that is NOT what the radar track actually showed as plotted. If you refer to my time line above, you'll see that only ~43 seconds, plus or minus 2 seconds, elapsed between the initiating event and ocean splash down. They added the time to ALLOW for their zoom climb, but did not allow for the time to fall back to the initial altitude. By the LAWS of physics, the time to climb under momentum to zero upward velocity has to equal the time to fall back to the same positional altitude as the forces of acceleration and drag that stopped it from climbing are the forces that will also pull it down and also equally resist that downward pull.
However, the positional data plots which the radar DID accurately show (it DID NOT show altitude without a transponder return) showed very little change in ground speed (again, refer to my time line), until the parabolic angle of the ballistic fall increases between the later passive radar returns shows far shorter distances. The earlier distances do NOT show the exchange of speed for altitude.
The CIA needed the full 3800 feet of their claimed zoom climb because the eye witnesses descriptions and distances where they were located described a long, streak of light and smoke trail. To account for that at the distance where these witness were, the CIA desperately need the crippled aircraft to ZOOM almost straight up under high acceleration trailing fire and smoke to partially account for what those eyewitness claimed they saw.
The NTSB, being more accustomed to what aircraft were capable of, accepted the CIA's scenario, probably under political pressure, tempered the Zoom climb and only went to 1200 feet in their cartoon, ignoring that their scenario would never have sufficiently been a long enough trail of fire and smoke to account for what was described for the witness at the distances these witnesses saw what they saw.
When the eyewitnesses disagreed that was NOT what they saw, some in the government tried to claim that what they saw was the cripple plain falling down from the initiating event into the ocean instead of a missile rising up from the horizon to strike a flying plane. They were just mistaken about the direction of travel.
The FBI agents did not record a single witness' report of what they saw. They interviewed the witnesses, according to the witnesses questioning them in a confrontational manner, and then later writing a 302 interview report from memory of that interview which was often at odds from what the witness said they actually claim they said.
Unlike any NTSB investigation before or since, not a single eyewitness testified before the hearings of the NTSB, instead, they allowed FBI agents to read from their 302 interview reports and admitted THOSE as accurate reports of what the eyewitness would have testified about, even though hundreds of eyewitnesses had stated they were willing to testify.
My calculations show that, after the engines when to idle, the most it could have climbed using every bit of upward momentum it had was about ten feet more for 1.02 seconds. The 33 feet per second of previous climb it had be over come very quickly as it lost lift when the angle of attack changed drastically as the center of gravity was moved backwards almost 12 feet behind the center of lift, then the drag coefficient was increased massively.
...
In your calculations how did you account for the loss of 80,000 pounds when the nose section separated? How did that affect lift and stall speed?
The loss of engine power caused the thrust countering the drag to immediately be the only force working on the horizontal vector. . . and that was now in the opposite direction of what the engines had been applying their force to overcome the drag and add energy to provide the lift. To even have lift, the angle of attack to maintain the partial vacuum over the wing at the proper vector requires the center of gravity be ahead of the center of lift.
With the loss of 70,000 to 80,000 lbs of the front of the aircraft which included all controls for essentially everything, representing between 13% and 15% of the total weight of the aircraft, any balance there was to maintain any flight characteristics at all was lost. The 12 foot behind center of lift movement of the figures came from Boeing. It is far beyond the design parameters of flight for the airframe. Any air movement over the wing at that point would tend to pull it farther and farther out of the proper angle of attack as there was no thrust from the engines. Without the ability to drop the aircraft down to get control, it would immediately stall. Numerous 747 pilots have come forward to state there is now way such an out of balance 747 could fly at all nor could they even attempt recovery from stall with that much added weight at the rear of the plane over-balancing the aircraft, even with full control.
In addition, with the loss of the streamlined nose, the aircraft was now presenting a front surface that was essentially a flat wall of approximately 600 Square feet, instead of a carefully designed wind resistant curved cone, to a 360 knot wind—a wind that is two to three times the wind velocity of the worst hurricane—in the opposite direction of travel at varying leverages on the fulcrum of the lift force that is now completely un-countered because the engines that had been providing a counter force in the opposite vector are now at idle. This collision of the wind with the fuselage is no small force, adding to the force changing the angle of attack of the air passing over the wings.
This is a completely unprecedented condition for an aircraft.
In my calculations, I used the facts provided by the pilots who operated the planes on an everyday basis and were relying on them to balance their aircraft to safely fly them and had to rely on those factory supplied data to know the parameters to safely load their planes and their expertise in that area. Every one of them who challenged it claimed that a center of gravity 12 feet behind the center of lift would almost instantly force the aircraft into a stall condition. The designed parameters of the plane require the center of gravity to always be several feet ahead of the center of lift to maintain stability. This allows the tail surfaces to control the aircraft's attitude.
Both the CIA and NTSB videos were made with the assumption, contrary to Boeing's statement that at loss of signal from the cockpit the engines will revert to idle, that the engines were still operating at their last throttle settings. In fact, the CIA's assumption was they'd had gone to 100%. This is contrary to reality and to Boeing's design parameters.
Ping to the continuation of this thread
....as any 15 year old boy who builds a RC aircraft will tell you about the C of G
Ping to the continuation of this thread:
ping to the continuation of the thread:
I know. I built gliders and the required precise balancing to fly. If they weren't balanced they crashed. . . disastrously. If they were precisely balanced they'd fly long distances.
Great posts Sword!! A question: After the ocean floor recovery of TWA 800, (and the ‘rebuild’ of it in the hanger), was there any indication/evidence that a missile of some sort had torn through one side and exited the other side of the fuselage?
...been saying that since the “climb theory” was explained... no Cg,no climb..most likely, wing over,spiral in
The plane did NOT CLIMB AT ALL.
Unlike the CIA, I spoke to the person best in position to make that assessment. He is an airline captain who was flying PIC, at virtually the same altitude as TWA800 staring at that plane when it exploded. I've spoken with this guy three times, once for more than an hour. (Pilots like to talk to other pilots, even single engine guys like me.) He emphatically told me that NOTHING CLIMBED.
ML/NJ
Did he say if he'd seen some sort of missile hitting the aircraft?
Actually in the Bagram crash it was an unbalanced load that caused the crash. On climbout under takeoff power a tracked armored vehicle that was improperly lashed broke free of it’s tiedowns shoving all the cargo behind it to the rear of the plane, a 40 ton weight shift. Obviously the plane did not “zoom” upwards even though it was under full power, it stalled immediately and the result was catastrophic. This lends evidence to your scenario.
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.