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
If so, it should be easy for your to provide the readers with a meaningful rebuttal of The "Missile Witnesses" Myth
Truth is determine by facts - not allegations, accusations, speculations or suspicions.
Er, I already have. Was the math a little too much for you to understand, or do you have problems with reading comprehension?
Truth is determine by facts - not allegations, accusations, speculations or suspicions.
Exactly why your allegations, accusations, speculations or suspicions are utter bunk.
You've never answered ANY of my questions.
Your timeline and altitude claims have been proven to be false and misguided. You have not repudiated anything, other than responding with ad homiem remarks and innuendos.
Do you want to discuss anything specific in order to argue your position, or don't you have anything meaningful to say?
Lets make this simple...answer the following question with a yes or no:
Did Boeing make any statement about the NTSB video?
That much is obvious..
The NTSB zoom data does not include a climb to 3000'. The CIA's does.
Right, instead the NTSB video includes a 1500 foot climb, which is also impossible.
Boeing made their statement concerning the CIA video about one month before the NTSB video was shown. They made no similar statement about the NTSB video. You have no idea what data the CIA used from the NTSB.
However true your remark concerning the time frame between the Boeing statement and the NTSB video might be, it has no relevence to the validity of the zoom climb theory.
Although I might not have any idea exactly WHAT data the NTSB used for the video, it still stands that the CIA based its video on data and conclusions from the NTSB..
From FOIA Appeal to NTSB General Manager from Capt. Ray Lahr :
We do know that Boeing publicly denied any knowledge of the data and conclusions used by the CIA in its nationally televised cartoon of the zoom-climb. We also know that the CIA received its data and conclusions from the NTSB.
Lets make this simple...answer the following question with a yes or no:
Did Boeing make any statement about the NTSB video?
As far as I know, no they didn't. HOWEVER, that has zero relevance to the validity of the NTSB zoom-climb theory, which is physically impossible.
Now to answer more in realistic terms, I have no idea if they did or didn't.
...the FBI released a CIA produced animation that depicted the official crash sequence. This animation suggested that the streak of light reported by eyewitnesses was actually the plane itself, rising sharply after losing its forward section. Shortly thereafter at the NTSB public hearings into the tragedy, a similar animation was released by the NTSB. It too, showed F800 rising sharply, early in the alleged crash sequence. As explained within the respective animations, the CIA and NTSB believed that a weight imbalance, created by the loss of the plane's forward section, caused F800 to climb sharply. Each agency attributes this climb to the streaking object observed by eyewitnesses. However, these agencies based their findings on speculation, rather than evidence. Neither the CIA nor the NTSB interviewed a single eyewitness in connection with the production of either animation, nor did the animations approach to portray the actual RADAR data.
The CIA Animation:
Details of the CIA analysis involved in the production of the agency's animation are not publicly available. Five days prior to the NTSB public hearing, the FBI requested that discussion concerning the CIA animation be banned. What is known is that the CIA concluded the aircraft gained approximately 3,000 feet in altitude following the loss of its forward section, that no eyewitnesses were contacted during the production, and a related NTSB analysis discounts the possibility of such a climb. Indeed, the maximum climb considered in the original NTSB analysis (Exhibit 22C) is 1,300 feet. The CIA animation did not account for the radar data, which showed a northward turn during the crash, as discussed in NTSB Exhibit 22C, "...the radar data indicates that the aircraft turned North [left] of the pre-event course line."
The NTSB Animation:
Many inconsistencies surround the NTSB animation. At the NTSB public hearing, the aircraft was alleged to have climbed a maximum of 1,500 feet, but Chairman Hall has since stated that the aircraft probably climbed between 1,200 and 3,200 feet. The NTSB animation shows a climb of approximately 3,400 feet, while a maximum climb of 1,300 feet was determined by NTSB simulations in exhibit 22C. Then, in January of 2000--and after these inconsistencies were detailed by Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization (FIRO) to House Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Duncan--the NTSB released Addendum 22D which shows a maximum climb of ~3,000 feet and conflicts with conclusions of the original Exhibit 22C. And most important, the only tangible evidence (RADAR data), analyzed in NTSB exhibit 13A and relevant to the main wreckage flight path, is inconsistent with all official "zoom-climb" scenarios. http://www.flight800.org/altitude.HTM
One could also ask the following questions in the same manner...
"I really DON'T know" would have been the more accurate and truthful answer however....
There's some discrepencies here as far as the altitude. I've seen it stated to be 1500 feet, then I see here that it's stated as 3400 feet. Either way, it just couldn't have happened...
Just to provide the reason why it couldn't have happened, let me post Commander Donaldson's analysis concerning the NTSB zoom-climb..
NTSB Zoom Climb. Although the radar data released by the NTSB has no altitude information, we can use it to determine if a zoom climb occurred. The radar data shows the aircraft's position in relation to the Islip radar beacon every 4.69 seconds. Using this data you can calculate the aircraft's horizontal speed between each radar return. If the aircraft did a "zoom climb" you would expect to see a significant reduction in ground speed (horizontal velocity). This is especially true the more steeply the aircraft climbs.
The NTSB video shows the initial explosion at 20:31:12, the nose separating at 20:31:16 and the aircraft beginning its zoom climb at 20:31:20. It reaches the peak of its 1,500 ft climb at 20:31:28 or 8 seconds later. This is a rate of climb of 187 ft./sec. or 11,250 feet per minute. Considering that a fully loaded 474-100 with full power climbs at less than 4,000 feet per minute, it is hardly likely that a crippled 747, with extreme drag due to the loss of the nose, could climb at nearly 3 times the normal rate with the engines at idle, which is what Boeing says would happen with the loss of the nose section.
In addition, with the aircraft reaching its peak altitude of 15,200 ft. it would take the aircraft another 40 seconds to fall from 15,200 feet. However, there is a significant problem with this. The aircraft is only visible on radar for another 20 seconds. It disappears from radar after Sweep 8. It should have been visible through Sweep 12. It was not.
Lastly, if there was a zoom climb, the aircraft's forward velocity would have slowed significantly between 20:31:20 and 20:31:28. There is no evidence of a significant loss of horizontal speed during this time period. In fact, two of the three radars tracking the flight path show the aircraft speeding up. The third shows it slowing slightly. In all cases it appears to have maintained a forward velocity of over 300 knots during this period. Using a physics calculation for the loss of forward velocity in a zoom climb, you would expect the forward speed to have dropped to around 200 knots. The radar data does not support this. Therefore the "zoom climb" could not have happened.
[Table showing rate of fall]
As far as NTSB exhibit 22C, here's an analysis of that..
If a 1500 foot climb is impossible, it's obvious that a 3400 foot climb is doubly so...
Um, no they didn't, but I won't accuse you of lying here. I will assert that you have made another bogus assumption. I don't know whose post they removed, but it wasn't mine. As far as refraining from calling you a liar...until you produce a statement confirming the NTSB said anything about the NTSB video, or admit you don't have one, I will submit that your statement is untrue. Since you persist in making it, it is a lie.
Well I'll be damned. Good for you. As for the rest of your post, please take a look at my post #359. Not only is a zoom a physical possiblity, it is in all likelihood a probability. Most of this stuff has been beaten to death previously in a series of corresspondance between swordmaker and I.
I'll buy that too.
The CIA was involved because the FBI asked them to produce the video. It had nothing to do with the NTSB.
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.
