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

[Asmodeus]

In case you didn't notice, your infallible source is a "shootdown" tinfoil hat.

Tinfoil hats - "conspiracy theorists"

The first paragraph of your infallible source "shootdown" tinfoil hat tells it all.

The Ongoing Dissent over TWA 800 John B. Roberts II The American Spectator; FEATURE August,1999The White House, with help from a Republican Senator, is sitting on evidence that could point to terrorism in the 1996 jet explosion. an FBI official has become a scapegoat in the cover-up. and the mystery remains unsolved.

Birds of a feather flock together. But you're not a member of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats' flock, are you.

Yahoo TWA800 forum - 18 June 2001
From: John Fiorentino
Subject: The most likely scenario so far
[excerpt][quote][emphasis added]
Officials July 29 said that the event that triggered the crash appeared to have taken place toward the front of the plane. However, probers August 12 said they were focusing their examination on the center of the airplane, where the craft's wings met. Cantamessa July 29 said that the bodies of passengers seated near the front of the plane had more severe injuries than those in the rear section. Probers July 30 said that heavy damage to the recovered landing gear supported the theory that a bomb went off in the plane's forward section.
[end quote]

Yahoo TWA800 forum - April 12, 2002
From: John Fiorentino
Subject: Re: [twa800] Kabofovic revisited
[excerpt][quote][emphasis added]
Most here are convinced a "missile" did the dirty deed. I'm not, not yet at least. The initial assessment was "bomb". I thought so to. I still do.
[end quote]

GREPAR="bomb" tinfoil hat

And you torpedo allegations of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats, don't you, such as Jim Sanders and Fred Meyer, a member of the Board of Bill Donaldson's ARAP.

From: John Fiorentino - 18 June 2001
From: John Fiorentino - 18 June 2001
Subject: The most likely scenario so far
[excerpt][quote][emphasis added]
Just for s--ts and grins my son and I popped off a road flare and placed it close to the back of a discarded child car seat which had a foam backing to it. Left a reddish brown residue very similar to Sanders' swatch. Remember My scientist friend who thought the chem analysis resembled residue from a "flare?"
[end quote]

Yahoo TWA800 forum - 15 March 2002
From: John Fiorentino
Subject: Re: [twa800] A little sensitive, aren't we?
[excerpt][quote][emphasis added - caps yours]
However, based on Meyer's statements, I don't believe he witnessed the IE. Fl. 800 didn't explode in a MF at 13000+, the MF was somewhere 7500-8500ft. Look at his timeline, Please explain, HOW he could have witnessed the IE?
[end quote]

So isn't it long past time for you to provide the readers with your explanation of the streak?

[JohnFiorentino]

That's VERY LOUD, along with being selective and misleading. However, my dear Asmodeus, YOU didn't answer any of my questions.

You REALLY should consider giving this "tin-foil" nomenclature a rest, it's quite transparent after all.

I will give you an A for drama........I hereby award you the coveted "King of HTML" award!...Congrats

[JohnFiorentino]

GREPAR="bomb" tinfoil hat




Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)

Definition:

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:

ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.

ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.

ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.

[First_Salute]

Rokke's statement that the "initiating event" did not take place at the time of the last transponder return, is probably correct.

The Flight Data Recorder ("FDR") stopped, as best as that department of the government's investigation has calculated, at 20:31.11.9130 --- see page 52, Group Chairman's Factual Report - Revision 1, by Dennis R. Grossi.

According to the TWA800.com website, RADAR Analysis:

Flight 800's Transponder failed after the 20:31:12 sweep of Islip's radar.  From that point on, only primary radar was available to track the aircraft and large pieces of debris after the explosion.  The primary radar records any reflected signal but does not have an altitude component, therefore, we have the ability to determine distance and azimuth from the radar but not the altitude of any object.  The Islip radar scans any given spot every 4.69 seconds.

Using TWA800.com's same webpage, their revealing "composite radar graphic (pdf) (gif)," places the next primary radar "blip" at 20:31:46.

Subtract 4.69 seconds from 31.46 seconds, and the previous primary radar "blip" calculates to 20:31:11.80, which would be just a bit earlier on TWA800.com's chart than the last transponder return at 20:31:12.00.

Not making any claims about "Who struck John?," here, just observing these moments:

20:31:11.8000 - primary return

20:31.11.9130 - flight data recorder stops

20:31:12.0000 - last transponder return

20:31:46.0000 - primary return

 

Side note regarding the cockpit and air traffic control center voice conversations

Returning to my reply 95 at TWA Flight 800: Is everyone who disagrees with NTSB, a "tin-foil hat?", August 2, 2002, by John Fiorentino (posted August 3rd by JohnFiorentino).

[T]he tape recording of the New York Air Traffic Control Center conversations with TWA 800 and the other aircraft in the area. You can listen to it, by going to The Flight 800 Investigation website, and then scrolling down to: Tower Tape - TWA 800's last moments.

Advance to this time on the tape (it's RealPlayer): 5:24.

Shortly thereafter, you will hear, "We just saw an explosion out here ... " which report was from the crew of a "flight 507."

Later in the tape, the NYTC man queries flight 507, and they give him a more detailed report. Go to this point on the tape, to hear it: 10:00.

Shortly thereafter, the flight crew of flight 507, reports, "...there seemed to be a landing light coming right at us at about 12 to 15? thousand..."

My mistake in there, is that what I presumed was NYTC (because the reference is called "Tower Tape"), was instead "the Boston ARTCC, Sardi Sector," according to the NTSB.

Yet the NTSB, in their Air Traffic Control Group Chairman's Factual Report (page 8), fails to report the Eastwind 507 crew's words, as follows:

STINGER BEE 507

BBE507 reported to the Boston ARTCC, Sardi Sector, about seeing the event at 0031:50 UTC. At 0033:48 UTC this aircraft reported being directly over the site. At 0037:20 UTC the crew of BBE507 reported that they had observed what they thought was a landing light at about fifteen thousand feet and had responded by selecting their own landing lights on, which was immediately followed by the explosion.

(Page 8 of the report has no page no. though page 7 and page 9 do have their no.'s.)

Eastwind 507 actually calls itself "BB 507."

At 5:25.1 seconds on the tape, "BB 507" initially reports:

"We just saw an explosion out here ... BB 507 ... "

Sardi:

"BB 507 I'm sorry I missed it. You're out of 18, did you say something else?"

BB 507:

"We just saw an explosion, man but there's somethin' abou... about 16 thousand feet or something like that. It just went down! ... To the water."

[Other conversations related to "normal" radio traffic ensues. Virgin Airways 009 confirms the BB 507 report about an explosion. More "normal" radio traffic ensues with other aircraft reporting the explosion(s). Fast forward.]

At 10:00.7 seconds, Sardi:

"BB 507. Thanks for that report ... uh ... New York on 133 point 05. Good day sir. [This is Sardi instructing the handoff from Boston to New York air traffic control centers.]

BB 507 acknowledges:

"3305 ... [unintelligible] 507. Anything we can do for you before we go?"

Sardi:

"Well I just want to confirm that uh that you saw the uh splash in the water ... approximately uh 20 southwest of Hampton. Is that right?

BB 507:

"Ah yes sir. I-It blew up in the air and then we saw two fireballs go down uh to the water and there's a big smo... uh smoke coming up from that."

[This point of the report is now10:29.3 seconds on the tape.]

"Also uh ... there seemed to be a light ... I thought it was a landing light on it. It was coming right at us at about 12 - 15 thousand feet or something like that. I flipped on my landing lights. Uh ... y[eah?]... so I saw it and then it blew!"

The crew member did not report a descent of that light to 5500-7500 feet.

The crew member first reports an explosion judged to be at 16000 feet, then in this last sequence with Sardi, reports the range as 12 - 15000 feet.

[FormerLurker]

The only likely real interest the tinfoil hats have in the timeline is the portion below in red so why don't you give the readers the benefit your analysis of that.

The only person donning a TINFOIL hat here is you. You continue to cling to your obviously flawed timeline that has nothing to do with facts, and has clearly been proven in several posts to be utterly void of any semblence to reality. You either can't read, understand high school physics, or are just here to cause trouble. Probably a combination of all of the above from what you've demonstrated here.

Your only "source" is your own website, but you do throw around a few names as if they endorse your statements in some of your posts. Do you still claim that Dr. Harrison has anything to do with your claims or your website, or have you backed off from that assertion? You still haven't provided an email address so that he could discuss your claims with you.

You appear to be an individual who is seeking attention. You've put up a website and have made ludricous claims here on FR, yet your only source is yourself as far as your timeline. You've been shown how that timeline is impossible, yet you continue to post it with a reference to your own site that has no other links or references, so the timeline that you present is simply a figment of your imagination. You should perhaps go visit a doctor who deals with such matters...

Truth is determined by facts - not suspicions, speculations, allegations or accusations.

If you believed in that statement as much as you like to post it, you'd stop this utter nonsense, and accept the facts.

[FormerLurker]

Please explain, HOW he could have witnessed the IE?.

With his eyes.

[FormerLurker]

There is a continuing dispute between those who say yes which includes the NTSB experts and those who say no who are most if not all "shootdown" tinfoil hats.

And just what sort of tinfoil hat are YOU JF?

[FormerLurker]

the tinfoil hats haven't been able to present any compelling evidence to the contrary.

I would consider Asmodeus and yourself to be raving tinhatters well before I'd consider Commander Donaldson to be such..

Commander Donaldson HAS presented an enourmous amount of evidence that TWA800 was shot down by SEVERAL missiles, evidence that you and your brethren continue to ignore and claim doesn't exist.

[FormerLurker]

The public also has heard numerous conspiracy theories and myths or disinformation.

Much of it from the likes of you and your cohorts..

[First_Salute]

OUCH! Correction!

I made a mistakenly stated the time for the first primary after the loss of the transponder as: "20:31:46."

The correct time: 20:31:16.4900.

Thus the paragraphs in reply 584 should read ---

Using TWA800.com's same webpage, their revealing "composite radar graphic (pdf) (gif)," places the next primary radar "blip" at 20:31:16.4900.

Subtract 4.69 seconds from 16.49 seconds, and the previous primary radar "blip" calculates to 20:31:11.80, which would be just a bit earlier on TWA800.com's chart than the last transponder return at 20:31:12.00.

Not making any claims about "Who struck John?," here, just observing these moments:

20:31:11.8000 - primary return

20:31.11.9130 - flight data recorder stops

20:31:12.0000 - last transponder return

20:31:16.4900 - primary return

[FormerLurker]

The Islip radar scans any given spot every 4.69 seconds.

Er, given the IE at 20:31.11.91, 4.69 seconds after that would be 20:31:16:60, where 20 = 8PM, 31 = 31 minutes, 16 = seconds, 60 = hundredths of seconds.

Using TWA800.com's same webpage, their revealing "composite radar graphic (pdf) (gif)," places the next primary radar "blip" at 20:31:46.

You obviously made a mistake reading that radar map (which I've already posted). The first return from Islip is the point marked as 1, which was at 20:31:16:49 (shown as 31:16:49 on the graphic for clarity).

I'll post again here for all to see..

Subtract 4.69 seconds from 31.46 seconds, and the previous primary radar "blip" calculates to 20:31:11.80, which would be just a bit earlier on TWA800.com's chart than the last transponder return at 20:31:12.00.

Uh, that's 31 minutes and 46 seconds, so 31:46 (which isn't valid as I've shown) minus 4.69 seconds would be 31:43:31...

Let me repost a little something I've already posted, and we can see just how high TWA800 was at 20:31:46.

According to the radar returns, the last return of the main body of TWA800 before it hit the water was at 8:31:48:94. Considering an error of up to 4.69 seconds due to the period of the Isplip radar sweep, TWA800 hit the water between roughly 8:31:49 to 8:31:54.

A simple physics calcultion should tell us how high TWA800 was at 21:46 if we look at the difference between that time and the time it hit the water.

Given that d = (g * t2)/2, where;
d = distance in feet
g = acceleration due to gravity = 32 feet / s²
t = time in seconds,

to find the approximate height of TWA800 at 8:31:46, we first calculate for 8:31:49, where we have a three second difference, and for 8:31:54, where we have a 8 second difference.

d = (32 * 3²)/2 = 144 feet,
d = (32 * 8²)/2 = 1024 feet.

So, the altitude of TWA800 was between 144 feet and 1024 feet at 8:31:46. That obviously was shortly before it hit the water...

[FormerLurker]

OUCH! Correction!

Correction accepted, but I hit the post key before I had a chance to refresh the browser with your correction. Oh well, the more info the better... :)

[FormerLurker]

So, the altitude of TWA800 was between 144 feet and 1024 feet at 8:31:46. That obviously was shortly before it hit the water...

One MAJOR reason I posted all of that was because of the infamous Asmodeus and his "time line", where he claims that at 8:31:47, there was the "Explosion of Massive Fireball" at 5500-7500 feet.

That is physically impossible, as I've shown with the calculations..

[FormerLurker]

Uh, that's 31 minutes and 46 seconds, so 31:46 (which isn't valid as I've shown) minus 4.69 seconds would be 31:43:31...

Uh should have been duh, as I need to correct what I said here too...

31:46 - 4.69 = 31:41:31.

Not that it matters a whole lot as you've already posted a correction, but I hate it when I make silly typos like that when I'm trying to prove a point..

[Wm Bach]

Bump for later.

[FormerLurker]

Hopefully everyone can understand what I meant even with the typos, of which there are several. If necessary, I'll repost the relevent section if anybody asks...

[FormerLurker]

What gets me is this "tinfoil hat" crap that some are slinging around here. Same old time tested technique I suppose, where if you can't argue against the facts, call the person presenting those facts a "tin hatter"...

Thanks for your post mach.08, as it clearly shows that the witnesses to TWA800 saw at least one missle that evening.

[First_Salute]

These seemingly missile-like incidents are found online a Mike Hull's website; they're RealPlayer files:

 

November 16, 1996

Pakistan Airways Flight 712 off Long Island, in contact with Boston and then New York Centers:

http://hometown.aol.com/bardonia3/pia712.rm

 

December 12, 1996

Air Saudi Flight 035 off Long Island, in contact with Boston:

http://hometown.aol.com/jmikehull/1sa035.rm

and then with New York Center:

http://hometown.aol.com/jmikehull/sa035.rm

 

March 17, 1997 --- This is probably the launch of a missile test flight at Aberdeen, MD. There is some noise and then lots of chatter on places of this tape, as other pilots talk over each other.

Northwest 775 enroute from New York to Minneapolis is first to report a missile to their south and it's headed south:

http://hometown.aol.com/jmikehull/nwa775.rm

Then US Air 1937 reports the missile:

http://hometown.aol.com/jmikehull/usa1937.rm

Then Delta 2517:

http://hometown.aol.com/jmikehull/dal2517.rm

 

August 9, 1997

SwissAir127 off Long Island, in contact with New York Center:

http://hometown.aol.com/jmikehull/swr127.rm

 

There are many Long Island, NY area witnesses' statements, regarding the TWA 800 loss, which describe anti-aircraft missile flight path behavior. This is apparently a "factory film," it is a lengthy info-piece on the Stinger missile:

http://aztlan.net/stinger.asf

Requires Windows Media Player; download version 7.1 for the Mac, here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/download/mac71.asp

PC-based machines can find a download version here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/download/default.asp