Retired Airline Pilot sues NTSB for "Zoom-climb" data

http://www.twa800.com/lahr/lahr-amended.htm ^ | 7/27/02 | John Fiorentino

[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

[acehai]

"Later, the CIA itself stated that the data and conclusions for its zoom-climb came from the NTSB."

Hey, that would be interesting to see. Why don't you post some evidence of that statement.

I believe I can help out here, Rock. I have this info. somewhere in my files, and will diligently search to provide it. Might take a little while, 'tho. I don't have the resources that Elmer seems to...

But I do have this one:^)

The statement was made by the CIA in response to Ray Lahr's FOIA request for the "zoom-climb" data. The official letter can be perused at leasure by clicking:

HERE

[acehai]

From that CIA letter:

...We have researched this matter, and have learned that the pertinent data, and resulting conclusions, were provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). CIA simply incorperated the NTSB conclusions into our videotape. Therefore, we are unable to provide the information you seek inasmuch as the agency that originated the information has the responsibility for making decisions about release of its information. Accordingly, you may wish to submit your request to the NTSB at the following address:

Can't say it much plainer that that.

[JohnFiorentino]

I certainly hope you have had the chance to read the text of the CIA letter to Capt Lahr.....you have, haven't you?.......the readers can click here if they wish:

http://twa800.com/lahr/original/original6.gif

A careful reading of that correspondence, proves beyond ANY reasonable doubt that Boeing had NO input in either the CIA or NTSB animations. Boeing so stated specifically, re: the CIA cartoon. And, based on the CIA's admission, the same must apply to the NTSB version, since CIA states the data came from NTSB.

That was and is the purpose of Capt. Lahr's lawsuit against NTSB, and again, is the subject matter of this thread.


Your problem appears to be one of incomplete familiarity with the subject matter at hand.

I do hope you offer an apology for your myriad attempts at smearing me.

[Rokke]

The link you provided gets you no closer to the statement, "Boeing states it had no knowledge of, involvement with, or contribution to said (NTSB) video." You can carefully read the letter all you want, but NO WHERE does it say Boeing had no input to the NTSB animation WHICH IS NOT THE SAME as the CIA animation. You're a lawyer. Do you really think the letter you just provided proves your contention "beyond ANY reasonable doubt? Even after your "careful" reading I don't think you could prove that if you were Johny Cochran talking to the OJ jury.

Now Acehai says he has a document to help you out. He is almost always able to put his money where his mouth is. I hope so, because right now the only person distorting anything is the person whining about being smeared. You want an apology? You ought to be thanking me. If your book is going to rest on the shabby assumptions you are tossing out here, than consider my efforts a favor. Better to get them straightened out now, than after your book hits the market.

[Rokke]

First, the letter you posted provides no evidence that Boeing stated anything about the NTSB animation (JF's assumption). JF has repeated several times that Boeing has stated "it had no knowledge of, involvement with, or contribution to said (NTSB)video." Well that is pretty damn specific, and if true, should be documented by a Boeing statement saying they have no knowledge of, involvement with, or contribution to the NTSB video.
Second, the only Boeing statement I've read concerning videos was their statement released the day the CIA video was shown. And a "careful" reading of that statement makes it very clear (ie specific quotes, not assumptions) that despite Boeing's contributing directly to the CIA's analysis("While we provided basic aerodynamic information to assist in the CIA's analysis of the airplane's performance, we are not aware of the data that was used to develop the video.") and providing the FBI with information ("Boeing provided information about the design, operation and performance of the 747 to the FBI throughout their criminal investigation."), it clearly distanced itself from the simulation shown. So JF can correctly conclude that Boeing did not agree with the CIA video, but it is quite a stretch to use Boeing's statement as a blanket statement to cover an NTSB video shown over a month later, that showed a different simulation using data that Boeing also contributed.
Third, the letter you provide would be more useful to JF if it explained what NTSB conclusions were incorporated into the CIA video. To quote the CIA letter "We understand your request to indicate your interest is focused on the separation of the aircraft's nose section from the fuselage, and the related data and resulting conclusions." As I understand it, Lahr's gripe is with the "zoom climb". Not the nose separating from the fuselage. Perhaps he should resubmit his FOIA request and make it clear he is seeking the aerodynamic calculations that support the CIA video.
Finally, the CIA is being inconsistent with their information. Read this statement..."CIA spokeswoman Carolyn Osborn said. "Based on analysis using 244 eyewitness reports, radar data, infrared data, and cockpit recorder information, CIA analysts have determined that the eyewitness sightings thought to be that of a missile actually took place after the first of several explosions on the aircraft" and compare it to their letter to Lahr.

[JohnFiorentino]

Your powers of deductive reasoning seem to be your weak point. Were YOU on the OJ jury?..If I were Johnny Cochran, I KNOW I'd like to have you....You certainly appear to be a prime candidate.

Personally, I'm not going to waste any more time with you Rokke. It's obviously futile.

[JohnFiorentino]

A New Article on TWA800 is posted here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/729346/posts

[Rokke]

Not a whole lot of deduction required. It is very clear you have a habit of making things up. Ever find the statement you've said Boeing made about the NTSB video? Didn't think so.
Good luck on your book. I'll look for it under "fiction". I'll be interested to read its bibliography. Make sure you start all your entries with "Information extracted after very 'careful' reading. Actual reality may not match author's 'careful' interpretation."
In the meantime, don't get mad when the trial balloons you float on FreeRepublic get shot down by folks with as little deductive reasoning as I have.

[JohnFiorentino]

Actually, the MORE you post the HAPPIER I am!

[Rokke]

I suppose since most of the threads you initiate just wither on the vine, it is a little gratifying to know someone reads what you write. Even if that someone identifies the fact that you have no support for much of what you write. Find that Boeing quote about the NTSB video yet? I didn't think so.

[JohnFiorentino]

You're a "classic" I'll give you that.

[Tymesup]

George wasn't the only one to mention TWA 800 on TV. Senator Kerry referred to it. Twice.

[JohnFiorentino]

It's been brought to my attention by some that another of my articles dealing with TWA800 is just "too unbelievable" or "way-out" to be taken seriously. I have decided to post here and on other threads the source verification for that article. The article in question is here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/727674/posts

Below you will find verification:


THE NEW YORK STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE
AFTER ACTION REPORT
THE CRASH OF TWA FLIGHT 800
17 July 1996 OFF THE COAST OF LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........
(excerpts)

One of the missions the Guard accepted was controlling all flight operations at East Moriches as of 6:00 a.m. Sunday, July 21. Helicopter traffic grew heavier at the small Coast Guard station as the recovery operations at sea expanded. Divers were ferried out to the local-state-federal flotilla at sea and investigators, dignitaries and families were being transported to the Coast Guard station for briefings, etc. The need for tighter control over air operations became evident after it was learned that for the first 2 ½ days, a man claiming to be a U.S. Army Reserve lieutenant colonel bluffed his way onto the Coast Guard site -- wearing a U.S. Army Reserve green flight suit and flashing official-looking identification cards -- directed landings and takeoffs. It was later determined that he was an imposter. On Sunday, the Coast Guard requested, through SEMO, a grader to improve the landing strip. On Monday, July 22, a new asphalt landing strip was constructed by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works with assistance from equipment provided by the DMNA task force.

FULL TEXT HERE

http://www.nysemo.state.ny.us/TWA/SUMMARY.HTM

[Rokke]

While it is noteworthy that you are able to source at least one of your claims, you'll note that I didn't include anything about the faux Colonel in the list of bogus assumptions you asked me to provide. If you were able to provide similar support from Boeing concerning the NTSB video (instead of a statement made about the CIA video a month prior to the NTSB even showing theirs) then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm still waiting, and still unimpressed.

[Rokke]

Now I'm laughing. I just noticed you posted this same post on every single one of the threads you've started. Are you so excited that you actually have documentation for one of your claims that you have to show everyone? That is supposed to be a given! Why don't you post a little note on all your dead threads that lists your source for Boeing's fictional statement about the NTSB video.

[Asmodeus]

"It's been brought to my attention by some that another of my articles dealing with TWA800 is just "too unbelievable" or "way-out" to be taken seriously."

How one whacko. no more whacko than the conspiracy nuts here, is let onto an airport and directs traffic does not mean that the US shot down the aircraft. Who was he, etc.? This is proof there are whackos out there, nothing more.
31 posted on 8/9/02 5:52 AM Pacific by MindBender26

The "Missile Witnesses" Myth FBI Chief Metallurgist Blows Whistle On Kallstrom's Wild Goose Chase

[JohnFiorentino]

I, and others have already addressed the video animation issue. It is you who fail to understand, or are unable to interpret the explanations. The only thing you are capable of is personal attacks.

The FACT is, every article I have presented on FR is documented and verifiable. Your comments about that "being a given" is certainly correct.

It's accurate to say, I believe neither yourself, Asmodeus, or others like you, are interested AT ALL in anyone documenting anything which doesn't agree with, or raises questions about the official conclusions re: Flight800.

Your ploy is quite transparent.

I have no intentions of wasting any further valuable time on any of your disinformationalist claptrap.

This will be my last response to you. Except, perhaps in the form of some "auto-delete" message, which is where I send all of the garbage I encounter on my computer.

[JohnFiorentino]

The above was post #417 on a "dying thread"

[JohnFiorentino]

Who was he?.....Assmo.........That's a very good question. Why don't you do some "investigating" and find out?