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!
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.
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