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

[Swordmaker]

LSoft Flight 800 Forum
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996
From: Michael Davias
(cite from Sunday NY Times of 7/21/96)
A US military official said yesterday he saw a flash of light, similar to a shooting star, cross the planes path when TWA Flight 800 jet crashed. The pilot was on helicopter patrol on Wednesday night when the jumbo jet exploded.

"I know the strike of a missile. What I saw didn't look at all like a missile," said Commander Fritz Meyer of the 106th Rescue Wing of the New York Air National Guard. "Our three man crew saw the same thing. A flash of red - orange light, characteristic of a shooting star", he said. "Then we saw a small explosion followed by a large explosion and a ball of fire fell into the sea".
[end quote] ?

Great source, Assmode, they can't even get the name right and you think they also got the quotation right?

[Swordmaker]

You've heard of the conservation of energy right? It IS physically impossible for TWA 800 have climbed if it didn't lose horizontal velocity, all other physical evidence and facts aside.

The radar data clearly shows that it didn't slow down, so it didn't climb.

We could argue back and forth with equations in relation to lift and drag, we could argue about how TWA 800 didn't go into a ballistic climb as its engines were at idle, we could argue about all sorts of things related to the time it would have taken for it to hit the water in relation to the altitudes claimed by the CIA and NTSB videos. In the end, upon close examination of any or all of those issues, the facts would indicate that TWA 800 DIDN'T go into this theoretical zoom climb.

The BEST physical evidence we have IS the radar data at this point, and it clearly shows that TWA 800 didn't climb after the initiating event which occured between 20:31:12 and 20:31:16.7. The data shows a ballistic fall, the termination of said ballistic fall in perfect agreement with where the debris was found...

Former,

Rokke and I went round and round about this. He apparently believes that TWA800 converted ALL of its considerable forward momentum into upward momentum because the aircraft MAY have sustained lift for a few seconds and pitched up. Then, ignoring drag and other forces, he believes it proceeded to climb to the theoretical maximum altitude the momentum would allow before wafting slowly to the ground like a leaf.

He will ignore ALL data to the contrary. He will postulate strawman arguments and then gnaw them to death until you get tired and make a small error... then he will pounce on that.

[Swordmaker]

Let's see.

Data from the chart:

Last TWA800 transponder return: 31:12
Last Primary Radar return on fuselage: ~31:49
difference equals 37 seconds

Allow a little time for the loss of return when the aircraft falls below the radar horizon and you get ~37-42 seconds from initiating event to ocean splash down.

I shall refer you all back to my timeline analysis post #192 on this thread:

Post 192...

All energy contained in the momentum of the system will be applied in trying to overcome the drag. Gravity is INSTANTLY pulling the entire shebang downward at an acceleration of 32 feet every second. 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... accelerating at 32 feet per second until it reaches terminal velocity of about 450 feet per second in 15 seconds. It will have fallen 3810 feet in the 15 seconds after stall.

The forward momentum is rapidly being used up by drag. Asuming the plane mantained lift for 3 seconds after the IE, and not allowing for any decelleration or loss of lift, the MOST the plane could have risen is a mere 100 feet... but let's give it 200.

0 seconds - IE @ 13,800
3 seconds - stall and start of ballistic fall @ 14,000
18 seconds - terminal velocity - ~450 ft/sec. @ 10,190
24 seconds - Massive fireball - fuel/air explosion @ 7,300
41 seconds - Ocean impact - 0 feet.

That's what the radar said... loss of signal to first ocean impact - ~38 to 44 seconds.

If we add in either climb scenario we have to add 18 seconds for the climb... and from 3 to 9 seconds more for the fall. The CIA scenario needs 27 more seconds than can be accounted for and the NTSB scenario needs 21 seconds more than can be accounted for.

Sounds like the new Accounting math being used by Enron and its ilk.

Finally:

"Ballistic Fall.
The captain of the NOAA research ship Rude entered Flight 800's last secondary radar position, speed, heading and gross weight into his computer and it predicted the landing point by calculating a ballistic fall. He went to that spot and immediately found the main wreckage including the fuselage, wings and engines. "

Unless you want to repeal the law of gravity, there literally is not enough time for ANY climb at all.

Period.

End of quotation from post 192.

Gee, doesn't that fit exactly with the charted radar returns?? Yup, it does.

Ergo: there was no climb.

[JohnFiorentino]

You can "accept" it for whatever you like.

Boeing provided the pertinent weight and balance information to the NTSB and the NTSB published it in the TWA800 accident report. PLaintiff used this Boeing information to make the calculations shown on Exhibit A. Then the Plaintiff presented the results to the NTSB and repeatedly asked the NTSB how it had calculated its zoom-climb. The NTSB refused to discuss the zoom-climb claiming that it involved information proprietary to Boeing. Concsequently, Plaintiff submitted FOIA requests for the zoom-climb information to both the CIA and the NTSB.

The CIA responded that, “We have researched this matter, and have learned that the pertinent data, and resulting conclusions, were provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)” Exhibit B. The NTSB responded that it couldn’t release the information because it was based on data that was proprietary to Boeing. Exhibit C. But when the CIA cartoon was shown on national television, Boeing issued a press release saying,

“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.” Exhibit D.

All of the trails to the source of the zoom-climb calculations lead back to the NTSB. Normal accident investigation procedure required that the NTSB form a group to analyze the TWA800 flight path, including the hypothetical zoom-climb. Since the zoom-climb was one of NTSB conclusions, all of the parties to the investigation such as ALPA and TWA and Boeing should have participated in that conclusion, and the report of that group should have been a part of the public record. However, the NTSB did not form such a group. Instead, the NTSB seems to have assigned this task to only one individual within the NTSB. This is what the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) had to say in its 43 pages of comments to the NTSB. Exhibit E.

“Furthermore, although ALPA does not doubt the technical capability of the NTSB, we are concerned that this analysis was essentially accomplished by only one individual at the Board, with little or no party input or participation.” There was no peer review of the zoom-climb calculations. That is an abysmal breech of accident investigation procedures. http://www.twa800.com/letters/lahr-4-2-02.htm

[Rokke]

"Rokke and I went round and round about this.
True.
"He apparently believes that TWA800 converted ALL of its considerable forward momentum into upward momentum because the aircraft MAY have sustained lift for a few seconds and pitched up."
Not true. Here is exactly what I believe as I have already stated in post #359

"...as you have said, it took 3 seconds for the wings to stall after the initiating event. The NTSB has applied the data given to it by Boeing and calculated that at the time of the stall, the pitch of TWA 800 was 30 degrees nose high and its airspeed was 260KCAS. Remember that it reached that pitch during 3 seconds of increasing vertical velocity caused by an up to 2.7g climb. If you assume it was in a 30 degree climb when it stalled, it would have peaked about 800ft above its stall altitude, which was the IE altitude plus 3 seconds of climb before the wings stalled. Even if you assumed the rate of climb remained 33 ft per sec during those 3 seconds, you now have a climb of 900ft. Considerably more than the 100-200 feet you assume, and closing on the 1200-2200ft the NTSB assumes. How do you account for the other 300-1200ft. Well, we don't actually know the rate of climb after the FDR shutdown. The NTSB used data provided by Boeing, and several computers to calculate and simulate the flightpath of a crumbling aircraft. We used some very raw assumptions and a calculator. I imagine there are several factors not included in our raw assumptions that are included in the data the NTSB used."

"Then, ignoring drag and other forces, he believes it proceeded to climb to the theoretical maximum altitude the momentum would allow before wafting slowly to the ground like a leaf."
Not true.
"He will ignore ALL data to the contrary."
I WISH that were true. I could have avoided a 200 post interaction with you if I did.
"...until you get tired and make a small error...
Ummm, Swordmaker...your error (which you finally admitted to) came in your initial post containing your calculations. It took until post #360 to admit it. That was tiresome.

[JohnFiorentino]

The way Rokke "understands" things....

To: JohnFiorentino

"Regardless of why the CIA produced the video, there is little doubt the NTSB was not involved."

excerpt
63 posted on 7/28/02 2:03 AM Eastern by Rokke
[

[JohnFiorentino]

Admittedly a lesson I need to learn......

Another thought... don't mud wrestle with a pig... it'll only annoy you and the pig likes it.


71 posted on 7/28/02 7:30 AM Eastern by Swordmaker

[Rokke]

Using the information from the graphic you posted you can see that the aircraft slowed 64 knots (I can't really read what airspeed is shown at point 1. either 385 or 395) between point 1 and 2. The NTSB believes the nose fell off at 8:31:16. In less than 5 seconds, TWA 800 has slowed 64 knots. That despite having the momemtum of a 747 travelling 385knots. That isn't inconsiderable.

[JohnFiorentino]

To: JohnFiorentino

....."No matter how loudly you type, you still can't show any evidence that the CIA relied on anything from Boeing or the NTSB to create their video."
excerpt

99 posted on 7/28/02 8:02 PM Eastern by Rokke
[

[Rokke]

Gee, maybe I ought to hit the abuse button with cries of libel and smearing.

[Rokke]

....."No matter how loudly you type, you still can't show any evidence that the CIA relied on anything from Boeing or the NTSB to create their video."

Hey John. I'm still waiting for you to show me Boeing's statement in which they say anything about the NTSB video. You've claimed 3 times it exists.

[JohnFiorentino]

"Well".....perhaps if you knew the DIFFERENCE between the two......You'd realize, nothing in that post, which I merely reposted by the way....is "libelous"

I have said before, here, and on other forums, I really don't care who calls me names, or what they call me.

However, I WILL NOT overlook being called a "liar" by you or anyone else.

Now, I have given you proper notice, which is really not needed, but which I have provided anyway.

From this time forward, you will proceed at your own risk.

[JohnFiorentino]

Why Asmodeus' Timeline is NOT supported by his other statements.

First, his published "timeline"

8:31:11 Intact and climbing 747 approaches 13,800 feet.

8:31:12 Initiating Event at 13,800 feet.

8:31:47 explosion of Massive Fireball at 5500-7500 feet.

8:31:55-8:31:57 splashdown of the Massive Fireball flames

exerpt from 135 posted on 7/30/02 5:59 PM Eastern by Asmodeus

Asmodeus has made several statements wherein he indicates HIS belief that the CIA-NTSB animations are "untenable." When asked to explain these statements, he responded:

As you know, my answer to that question was that "although the absence of any credible eyewitness support for the re-creation videos is evidence that the fiery events in them are inaccurately depicted, it is not evidence that the rest of the sequence of events including the loss of the nose section and the so called "zoom climb" depicted in them is inaccurate".

excerpted from 130 posted on 7/30/02 4:12 PM Eastern by Asmodeus

However, if in FACT TWA800 performed a "zoom-climb" as reported by CIA-NTSB. Then Asmodeus "splashdown" time MUST be in error.

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.

CIA Zoom Climb.

The CIA video was even more ridiculous in that it showed the aircraft climbing to 17,000 ft. You still have the same problem of the aircraft not being capable of climbing 3 times faster than normal. You also have the problem that it would take much longer to get to 17,000, even at this absurd rate of climb. That brings us to the biggest problem with the CIA scenario and that is the time it would take to hit the water. It would take at least 54 seconds after reaching 17,000 for the aircraft to hit the water assuming it reaches a terminal velocity of 450 ft/sec. It is only visible on radar for another 20 seconds. Where was the aircraft for those extra 34 seconds?.....

You will notice in Asmodeus's remarks he makes NO DIFFERENTIATION between the CIA or NTSB video versions.

How can we interpret these discrepancies?....Does it mean that the timeline proposed by Asmodeus is in error?.....The answer to that question is NO, it DOES NOT.

Can one verify his proposed timeline solely by the data HE himself presents?......NO

Does his timeline (if accurate) support IN FACT a "zoom-climb" as proposed by CIA-NTSB.....NO

[FormerLurker]

Using the information from the graphic you posted you can see that the aircraft slowed 64 knots (I can't really read what airspeed is shown at point 1. either 385 or 395) between point 1 and 2.

You read it wrong Rokke. You should have researched a bit furthur into the radar graphics.

The aircraft's speed was 350 knots between the INIATING event at 20:31:12 and its position at point 1 at 20:31:16. From point 1 to point 2 at 20:31:21, its speed had INCREASED to an average of 395 knots over that time. That is an INCREASE of 45 knots. Hate to tell you this, but an INCREASE in airspeed does not allow for a zoom climb...

The NTSB believes the nose fell off at 8:31:16. In less than 5 seconds, TWA 800 has slowed 64 knots. That despite having the momemtum of a 747 travelling 385knots. That isn't inconsiderable.

Considering you misinterpreted the data, where the airspeed INCREASED by 45 knots rather than slowed down as you assert, the zoom climb didn't happen.

For a much more thorough analysis with even more charts and links, refer to post #476

[Rokke]

Here is the definition of libel: a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression
As a lawyer, I would have thought you'd be more familiar with the word. I know that at least my mother would consider someone describing me as a "pig" to be conveying an unjustly unfavorable impression. Furthermore, personal attacks are expressly forbidden on FreeRepublic, and calling someone a pig is certainly a personal attack. But I wouldn't hit the abuse button. Ever since I graduated from kindergarten, I've learned to despise children who run to their protectors at the first sign of trouble. They were usually the paste eaters that sat in the front of the room, picked their nose and on odd occassions wet their pants.

But maybe you can help me out here. What would you call someone who says a company (lets just say Boeing) stated something about a video (lets just say the NTSB video), but then could provide no evidence that the company ever said anything about that video. His statement is obviously not true because he has had plenty of time to provide the statement he said exists. What is that person, if not a liar?

[Rokke]

Yeah. I guess I should have been able to read right through that big red arrow. Regardless, the initiating event was not at 20:31:12. That was the last transponder return. That is not the same thing. But nice try.

[Rokke]

Look, this whole discussion has eroded into a schoolyard pissing match. I am now rehashing the same arguments that took place 300 posts ago in this same thread, but with different people. Talk about tiresome. I will return to this topic when A. the courts rule on Lahr's FOIA lawsuit B. A panel of engineers with the qualifications of the NTSB, Boeing, ALPA etc. reinvestigate the incident using all the tools at their disposal and come up with a different conclusion, or C. Hell freezes over, which is about as likely as B.
John, good luck with your book. I can't wait to read it. Make sure you source all your claims.
Formerlurker, I hope the chemtrails return soon, so you can return some of your conspiracy passion back to that very worthy subject.
Swordmaker, I'll see you in the engineering rooms of Boeing.

[JohnFiorentino]

As usual, you seem to be unable to get anything straight.

You say:

"Here is the definition of libel: a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression"

Do you have any legal background?.....I would also assume that many of the lawyers in this country would be saddened to learn, that they frittered their time away in law school. I mean, just go to a dictionary, and save all that time and money.

You say: "As a lawyer,..."

Well, I am not a lawyer, never said I was a lawyer. I am a Paralegal, as your buddy Asmodeus has so studiously pointed out on numerous occasions.

You say: "I know that at least my mother would consider someone describing me as a "pig" to be conveying an unjustly unfavorable impression."

I don't know why you brought that up, as I never said it.....I merely reposted a comment by another. As I have ALREADY stated.

You say: "But maybe you can help me out here. What would you call someone who says a company (lets just say Boeing) stated something about a video (lets just say the NTSB video), but then could provide no evidence that the company ever said anything about that video."

I have REPEATEDLY posted my reasoning behind my statements, and documented my sources. I agree with the statements of Capt. Lahr.

"Immediately after the CIA animation of the zoom-climb was shown on national television, Boeing issued a public statement that it had no knowledge of the data used by the CIA for its zoom-climb scenario. Later, the CIA itself stated that the data and conclusions for its zoom-climb came from the NTSB. Therefore, logic dictates that Boeing also has no knowledge of the data used by the NTSB for its zoom-climb scenario." http://www.twa800.com/letters/lahr-9-27-01.htm

[FormerLurker]

Regardless, the initiating event was not at 20:31:12.

Sorry Rokke, but the Flight Data Recorder says otherwise...

TWA 800 Flight Data Record From Time 20:31:11 to 20:31:13

Excerpt from the Interim Report on the Crash of TWA Flight 800

In fact Rokke, I've found a really nice analysis done by Commander Donaldson on the subject..

Analysis of TWA FL800 Flight Data Recorder (FDR)

So the initiating event DID take place at 20:21:12. Nice try though Rokke..

[FormerLurker]

Are you conceding defeat Rokke?