TWA Flight 800 Is everyone who disagrees with NTSB a "Tin-foil hat?"

See: Fateful 4 seconds [Free Republic], World Net Daily, July 9, 2001, by Jack Cashill. (Article was posted separately by both japaneseghost and It'salmosttolate. The link is to It'salmosttolate's post.)

On Dec. 12, 2000 --- more than four years after the tragic crash of TWA 800 --- Jim Hall, chairman of the NTSB, sat uncomfortably across from Don and Donna Nibert. There was good reason for his discomfort. The Niberts, from Montoursville, Pa., had lost their 16-year-old daughter in the crash and had journeyed to Hall's D.C. office to find out why. Hall, arguably the least qualified and most political chair in NTSB history, surrounded himself with his director of research and engineering, legal adviser and two flight data recorder specialists.
At the request of Don Nibert, Glen Schulze, a Flight Data Recorder expert, joined this group as well. For the record, the FDR is a device that records precisely what the plane is doing, microsecond by microsecond. If a mechanical problem had begun to unfold within the center wing tank, the Flight Data Recorder would have picked up clues as the event spread throughout the 747. The same holds true if the plane had been blasted by a missile warhead explosion. Clues would begin to appear on the Flight Data Recorder.
As the meeting unfolded, Schulze made a lengthy, highly technical presentation to the NTSB's top FDR experts. He paused briefly after explaining the first four of his five explanatory flip charts, looked the NTSB experts in the eye and challenged them boldly:
"Hard evidence extracted from the NTSB's own reports is consistent with the FBI and NTSB withholding the last 4 FL 800 FDR one second data blocks and over 3,000 data bits from the public."

In a world with more honor, these would have been fighting words ...
Hall had little stomach for straight talk.
Brushing Hall's complaint aside, Schulze presented more hard evidence ...
Schulze contended that the NTSB withheld from the public the fact that the FDR has the precise time, to the second, that the FDR ceased recording data. But instead of sharing that data --- "too accurate" in the damning words of one NTSB expert [Grossi] --- the NTSB used FAA and Navy radar data to manipulate the numbers and regain the four seconds missing from the FDR ...
The NTSB experts presented no information to refute Schulze's factual presentation ...
The only means by which scientific testing and analysis can confirm or deny NTSB/FBI tampering with the FDR is to release the original FDR tape to an independent laboratory. Don Nibert asked Jim Hall to approve such an independent test. Hall asked for the request to be put in writing. It was.
More than six months have now passed since ...
The NTSB has "completely ignored and failed to respond to Mr. Nibert's perfectly legal and proper request as a FL 800 Family Member," Schulze recently revealed ...

See The Hull Thread's, "Missing Seconds."

See ARAP's "Analysis of Flight Data Recorder."

(1) The aircraft's transponder registered a signal reported by a MegaData Systems facility near Islip, Long Island, as time value 20:30.13 --- not at 20:30.11 nor 20:30.12 which are both the times alleged by the federal government's agencies.

(2) The tape of the cockpit voice recorder ("CVR") has not been released to the public; the ending 10 seconds have not been heard by the public. The federal government agencies' reconstruction/transcript of the tape thereby challenges credibility, given that there is allegedly nothing to hide.

(3) The flight data recorder ("FDR") reports released to the public, are missing the last 4 seconds of the FDR's data. However, of the NTSB's reported last bits of data so far shown to the public, such data indicates a port-side forward, "nose on," air/shock-wave hit the airframe.

(4) The Boeing 747's electronics bay ("EB") is situated in the nose of the airframe near the front landing gear ("nose gear") well. This bay is the center for fore-and-aft electronics activity aboard the aircraft. To "kill" the FDR and/or CVR, they must be "attacked" in the cockpit ,or effectively along the wiring harness(es) routing from there down to the EB, or effectively in the EB. The EB does have a battery backup system for the event of power failure from the engines, so that "all is not lost," and some margin of time is allowed for restarting the engines.

(5) All debris related to the initial de-construction of the airframe ... landed to the starboard side of the aircraft's "disabled flight" path --- even when taking into account the wind --- and when considering how far to starboard, went such a heavy and ballistic item as the portion of the front landing gear's tire (it's one of two tires of the nose gear), that is evidence of a massive port-side application of lateral force to the airframe.

(6) Over 90% of the belly of the airframe --- below the lower deck whereupon the cargo carriers rest --- is in a multitude of small pieces. It is shredded, as if the airframe landed upon a giant cheese shreddar. That is evidence of an explosive vapor existing well forward and aft of the Center Wing Tank ("CWT"), which explosive vapor(s) did indeed explode. Examination of photographs of the fuselage on the port and starboard sides, indicates that most of this energy release happened beneath the lower deck, and this energy was largely directed up and down (using the airframe's layout/coordinate system).

Whatever was the initial causal event of the airframe's demise, a fuel leak appears to have followed rapidly, with at least vapors, if not raw fuel, making way fore and aft beneath the lower deck.

An explosion caused all these little pieces to form in roughly the same size category --- ie. similar force was applied along almost the entire belly of the airframe.

(7) No pieces of the CWT or the Wing Box ("WB") were found to have penetrated forward of the Front Spar. (According to Cdr. Donaldson.)

(8) Not all bombs and warheads use solid chemical explosives. Some bombs and warheads use liquid explosives.

(9) The ratio of entrance to exit holes, port to starboard on the airframe above the lower deck: The count of exit holes on the starboard side, far exceed the count of exit holes on the port side. The cross-sectional area of starboard holes exceeds the cross-sectional area of port side holes.

(10) The port side of the airframe, ahead of the wing, in the forward wingbox fairing area (green painted fuselage skin, the fairing is missing), indicates a possible supersonic, laminar, "ball" impact that would attend a missile strike, there.

The shockwave of such a missile may be what caused the data pickup that instead, Cdr. Donaldson argues well, may be the result of a warhead explosion that occured slightly earlier and farther outside the airframe.

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.