Posted on 07/27/2002 8:30:11 AM PDT by JohnFiorentino
Retired airline Pilot Capt. Ray Lahr has brought suit against the NTSB for release of the data pertaining to the alleged "zoom-climb" by TWA800. NTSB has stated that this event was what the hundreds of witnesses observed prior to the TWA800 explosion.
You can view the amended complaint in it's entirety here:
http://www.twa800.com/lahr/lahr-amended.htm
"I did the math in my head...too late to correct or amend it."
Been there, done that.
"No, I said in the next second it would only fall 32 feet. in the 3rd second it would fall 64 feet below its initial 13,800 feet."
Here is what you said..."The Upward momentum vector is overcome fairly quickly after lift is lost... less than one second. Without lift, the aircraft will fall 64 feet in the next second and 96 in the following..." Now maybe I'm misunderstanding you but it seems to me you are saying the upward momentum vector ends about one second after the stall and in the next second the aircraft will fall 64 feet. Before I'm accused of nitpicking, your assumptions here are very significant because they do not match the laws of physics which is exactly the problem you say you have with the NTSB. With regard to the rest of your post, I've already admitted I slept through physics. You have access to the same definitions, equations and Newtonian Laws that I do. Frankly, you can say momentum is equal to the square root of &*uckall for all I care. But when you start slamming me for creating new laws of physics, you get my dander up when your own statements are making Newton spin in his grave.
I will conclude by saying it is impossible to predict what TWA800 did without having all the data and resources the NTSB had. I think you can agree on that, and if you can, we can end this nightmare on a note of agreement.
I saw a streak of light in the sky. I have no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?
Acehai: Here's Meyer's reply to my e-mail:
"TYPO = I saw a streak of light in the sky. I HAD no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"
World of difference, folks... He had no way of knowing what it was at the time. It looked like a streak of light, and that's what he reported.
Swordmaker: Asmodeus, there is a very simple explanation, these flyers were trying to assess (diagnose) a peculiar event, an event beyond their experience in the area they were flying.
In medicine, an old saying is applicable: "When you hear hoofbeats, look for horses, not zebras."
In this instance, they saw a streak of light, followed by an bright flash explosion. Their experience, in this flight area, is that it is filled with airplanes (horses) and that it would not be unreasonable to assume, initially, that what they had seen was a mid-air collision of two airplanes. They DID NOT expect to see a missile (a zebra) flying before their eyes. The first inclination is to fit observed data into expected norms. It is only upon reflection that a rarer diagnosis can be made... that the hoofbeats were from zebras and not horses... when the observations DO NOT FIT the expected normal scenario. In this instance, the streak of light followed by the bright flash of an ordnance explosion DID NOT FIT the mid-air collision scenario expected. To make that conclusion one must shift time and place and situation. Flying on a warm evening off of Long Island, one DOES NOT EXPECT TO SEE an AA missile! One's mind must shift gears and paradigms to realize what actually was seen.
The readers will note that both Acehai and Swordmaker studiously ignored the fact that witness Meyer made that statement SIX MONTHS after the Flight 800 disaster. Source. By that goofy tinfoil hat "logic", investigators can't determine what witnesses actually saw until the witneses have come to an informed conclusion about what they saw. In fact, expert investigators of such matters routinely make every effort to interview witnesses at the earliest possible moment to minimize the amount of tainting - input from other sources - the witnesses are subjected to. It was tainting that eventually led to witness Meyer's conclusions over six months after he made his observations.
In addition to that whacky performance, Swordmaker has also joined the sleazy efforts of Acehai and that legend in his own mind, John Fiorentino, to try to discredit FBI whistleblower Tobin. Let's take a look at Tobin's background followed by the pathetic response of Swordmaker:
On June 27, 1971, Mr. William A. Tobin was appointed a Special Agent for the FBI. Before joining the Bureau, Mr. Tobin served three years in the Marine Corps - two in active combat duty in the Republic of South Vietnam. While in the Marines he received the Bronze Star with Combat "V," two crosses of Gallantry and twenty additional military combat decorations. After joining the FBI he worked organized crime and police corruption in Chicago, and general crimes in Detroit. In September, 1974 Mr. Tobin was assigned as a forensic metallurgist in the FBI crime laboratory in Washington, D.C. In 1976 he was promoted to a Supervisory Special Agent and in 1986 became the civilian equivalent of the FBI's Chief Forensic Metallurgist.
In this position, Mr. Tobin was the leading expert, nationwide, in the law enforcement community on forensic metallurgy (i.e. the examination and analysis of material's deformation and damage).
In this position, Mr. Tobin was qualified as an expert witness on behalf of the FBI or the U.S. government in over 200 local, state and federal courts. He served as the FBI's leading forensic metallurgist on thousands of cases, such as the UNABOM, Judge Robert S. Vance mail bomb murder case and numerous accident/disaster cases (i.e. the Escambron Beach Puerto Rico Oil Spill, the Willow Island West Virginia Scaffold Collapse, the Wilberg Coal Mine Disaster in Utah, the Panama City Florida Train Derailment, the USS Iowa explosion and the Mobile, Alabama Train Derailment).
In his 24 years in the crime lab Mr. Tobin provided forensic analyses in approximately 75-100 aircraft incidents (i.e, ranging from mechanical failures to suspected sabotage to actual crash damage examinations).
In regard to the July 17, 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800, Mr. Tobin arrived in New York at the crash reconstruction site on August 4, . He devoted his efforts as the FBI's chief metallurgist at the crash reconstruction site for 89 straight days, and as necessary thereafter.
The science of metallurgy is the only scientifically appropriate discipline to evaluate metal damage and causes of the metal damage of the recovered parts of Flight 800. Mr. Tobin was the most scientifically qualified and experienced metallurgist involved in the evaluation of the crash damaged materials in the law enforcement community.
Swordmaker: "Asmodeus, Exactly WHAT scientific education and degree(s) does Mr. Tobin bring to the table?"
Swordmaker, a genius in all things in his own mind and a carbon copy of the classic tinfoil hat, Ian Goddard, is going to have to do his own research in his continuing efforts to impress [lifting a partial quote from Rokke] "the National Enquirer set in this country with his fantasies".
YahooTWA800 forum
From: "Jack Reed"
Date: Mon Aug 5, 2002 8:21 am
Subject: Re: [twa800] Digest Number 727
[quote][emphasis added]
John F, thanks for the added report in Message 24:
> Mark R. Peterson wrote: > > In article , > cs77@c... says... > > > > > >A friend and I were standing on a boardwalk on the beach in Westhampton, > >New York. I did not see the fire untill after the plane had (or atleast > >appeared to have) hit the ocean. It was at this time that I heard an > >incredible noise/shaking of the earth, and I noticed the incredible glow > >of flames from the airplane. My friend, who saw the plane on its way down > >described it to me, before we realized that it was an airplane, as "a fire > >ball with pieces coming off it.
Considering the speed of sound in air, IF they heard the crash it had to be only a mile or so offshore. No way! And since many other "ear-witnesses" heard the Big Bang not long after the Massive Fireball erupted, it also had to be very few miles off shore. No way, again!
So - they heard the IE, which no one saw, then they saw the MF, which got everyone's attention, and they put it together, with help from the Air Guard pilots and FBI interviewers chasing the terrorists, into a missile attack. No way, still!
Hoping you can read the attached Appendix G, my collections of "ear-witness" time lines relating the sounds to the visuals, you will see clearly that no one reported seeing anything until long after the IE.
This is part of my report presentation next week at the DOD Explosives Safety Board Seminar in Atlanta. The said they will include all 6+ Mbytes of my report, figures, and data, in their Minutes CD-ROM. Since they and their audience have been dealing with me for over 30 years, they don't give me the kind of rebuttable guff that I've gotten from the acoustics, aeronautical (NTSB), and conspiracy communities.
They also haven't given me any clues as to what REALLY happened. So, I guess I'm still stuck with the methane burp. LOL
I haven't gotten these time lines into my web site yet and it may be weeks, but eventually they will be at http://www.nmia.com/~jwreed
Straight Ahead, Jack W. Reed
[end quote]
Yesterday I posted four images to the files list. One of them is my best estimate of what the eye of a witness on the beach at Morisches could see of TWA 800 just prior to the IE. You can view that image here: TWA 800 vis 40 high cirrus beach view.JPG
As you can see, there is very little here to see. And if I had not intentionally left the aircraft landing lights "on" there would have been even less to see. I left the lights on MacClaine stated that he observed them as being on right up to the explosion. Normally, a departing aircraft would have turned their lights out above ten thousand feet. What could MacClaine see? Look here: TWA 800 from Eastwind at FL220 Hampton VOR.JPG
This picture is generous to MacClaine's claims. In reality, the landing lights would not be that bright at a distance of 24 miles. Also, the lights of the NYC metro area behind twa 800 would have it difficult to distinguish the aircraft. Finally, there would have been the lights of dozens of other aircraft in the immediate area that would have made it difficult to focus on just one.
The other two images are just intended to establish the lighting conditions on the night of July 17, 1996:
747 TWA 800 13,700' time 20-30 hrs.JPG
747 TWA flt 800 climb out toward Bette.JPG
The point is, there is no good reason, prior to the IE, to be looking at TWA 800, or any other aircraft that evening, unless something else drew one's attention to the aircraft or its immediate vicinity.
Like a plume of smoke from an ascending missile?
al
[end quote]
1. McClaine did not see Flight 800 in flight at any time. He had been noticing an unusual yellowish lights for several minutes. He took his eyes off them momentarily to turn on his landing lights at which same time the Massive Fireball exploded and he watched its flames fall to the surface. At no time did he see "a streak of light", "flare like light" or "plume of smoke from an ascending missile". He later ERRONEOUSLY assumed (a) the yellowish lights were landing lights on TWA 800 and (b) that the MF was the IE.
Source and related links.
2. Neither "a streak of light" nor a "flare like light" would look like "a plume of smoke".
The timeline and location of the major events of the disaster was approximately as follows:
8:31:11 Intact and climbing 747 approaches 13,800 feet.
8:31:12 Initiating Event at 13,800 feet followed immediately by the commencement of the decapitation process.
8:31:43-8:31:47 Streak of light appears.
8:31:47 Explosion of Massive Fireball at 5500-7500 feet.
8:31:55-8:31:57 Splashdown of the Massive Fireball flames.
There were an unusually excessive amount of inept witness interviews by the FBI and "shootdown" tinfoil hats, so horrendously lacking in details that it's impossible for any expert witness report analyst to come to anything remotely resembling an informed conclusion about WHEN some of the witnesses heard "noises" during the sequence of events, much less the nature and extent of WHAT those noises were. Consequently, I believe Jack Reed, as talented an "ear witness expert" as he may be, is on a wild goose chase.
The readers have been waiting for six years to see a timeline of events from the "shootdown" tinfoil hats. Let's see if you can present them with one without further delay that the reports of "Angelides and 114 others" will fit into that's not in irreconcilable conflict with the known facts.
Prediction: You won't because you can't.
The timeline and location of the major events of the disaster was approximately as follows:
8:31:11 Intact and climbing 747 approaches 13,800 feet.
8:31:12 Initiating Event at 13,800 feet followed immediately by the commencement of the decapitation process.
8:31:43-8:31:47 Streak of light appears.
8:31:47 Explosion of Massive Fireball at 5500-7500 feet.
8:31:55-8:31:57 Splashdown of the Massive Fireball flames.
Exactly the desired result when you want to hide something!!"
In case you haven't noticed, you've just accused the "shootdown" tinfoil hats who conducted inept witness interviews of deliberately doing so to "hide something".
Tsk tsk. Let's see if you can present the readers with a supporting reference URL for that poppycock.
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.