TWA 800 Investigation (very long)

[delldude]

Once again find another source.

Neither the NTSB nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation has ruled definitively on what downed Flight 800.

The First Hints

Almost at once, eyewitnesses were being interviewed on radio and TV who reported that something strange had preceded the explosion of the 747. Witnesses, many on the ground, reported seeing a bright object "streaking" towards the 747. The object in question turned in midair as it closed on the jumbo jet. Witnesses reported horizontal travel, as well as vertical. The broad geographical range covered by the eyewitnesses eliminates foreground/background confusion. To be seen as being near the 747 from so many different directions, the bright object had to actually be in the immediate vicinity of the 747.

Other pilots in the air reported seeing a bright light near the jumbo jet before it exploded.

In the days following the disaster, many industry executives privately concluded that TWA 800 had been shot down.
What Was The Bright Object Detected On Radar?

There was an initial report that something had been picked up on Air Traffic Control radar, but this report was quickly withdraw. Associated Press on (07/19/96) reported " Radar detected a blip merging with the jet shortly before the explosion, something that could indicate a missile hit."

It's important to remember that in normal operation, Air Traffic Control radar does not detect aircraft, but aircraft transponders. A transponder is a special type of radio in the aircraft that listens for a radar beam. When it detects a radar beam, it immediately sends out a coded signal with an identifying number (assigned by the Air Traffic Controller on the ground) as well as the altitude of the aircraft. The Air Traffic Control radar will then use this extra data to display useful information to the Air Traffic Controller.

All air traffic operating inside the Terminal Control Area is required to have an operating radar transponder. Unless the Air Traffic Controller displays the skin paint return, any air traffic without a transponder will not be seen.
Was The Bright Object A Missile?

The descriptions given by the eyewitnesses and by pilots in the area (including an Air France crew) are not inconsistent with a missile. No alternative explanation for the bright object has been forthcoming.

ABC World News Sunday, 07/21/96, interviewed witness Lou Desyron, who reported, "We saw what appeared to be a flare going straight up. As a matter of fact, we thought it was from a boat. It was a bright reddish-orange color. ...once it went into flames, I knew that wasn't a flare."

The Washington Times, on July 24th, 1996, reported. "Several witnesses...saw a bright, flare-like object streaking toward the jumbo jet seconds before it blew up. ABC News said yesterday that the investigators had more then 100 eyewitness accounts supporting the [ missile ] theory."

The New York Post, in its story of September 22, 1996, reported,
Law-enforcement sources said the hardest evidence gathered so far overwhelmingly suggests a surface-to-air missile...

The FBI interviewed 154 "credible" witnesses -- including scientists, schoolteachers, Army personnel and business executives -- who described seeing a missile heading through the sky just before TWA 800 exploded.

"Some of these people are extremely, extremely credible," a top federal official said.

FBI technicians mapped the various paths -- points in the sky where the witnesses said they saw the rising "flare-like" object -- and determined that the "triangulated" convergence point was virtually where the jumbo jet initially exploded.

The New York Times, on July 19th, 1996, reported,
" [ Witnesses reported ] a "streak of light" hitting the plane just before it blew up."

And perhaps most tellingly, from the Associated Press, on September 23, 1996,
"...a source...said on condition of anonymity... ``There's metal bent in, metal bent out. Metal you can't tell. I see a hole going in and a hole going out..."

Navy sources already are over sensitized due to a slight boo-boo in the Persian Gulf.

 

[777 fixer]

Navy sources already are over sensitized due to a slight boo-boo in the Persian Gulf.

And this is proff of what? Why don't you show some evidence that the Navy was responsbilre instead of playing this little game of saying things like "boo-boo" or "oops". Evidence like a guilt ridden OS off the USS Normandy confessing to it. Or evidence of a proximity fused 130lbs continous rod warhead going off close to the aircraft. Trust me, something like had hit TWA 800 there would ahve been evidence all over that 747. Read my previous post on how the SM-2 works.

 

[delldude]

Or evidence of a proximity fused 130lbs continous rod warhead going off close to the aircraft.

"This is either a train wreck in the sky, or an explosive device -- mid-air, outside the plane," said retired Navy Cmdr. William Donaldson, who flew 89 combat missions over Vietnam and for five years was a top Naval aviation accident investigator.

Donaldson, who said he is not working for TWA or the passenger jet's manufacturer, Boeing, examined the mountain of material released in early December about the $100 million federal investigation. He particularly criticized one NTSB document reflecting flight-recorder data that was not discussed when the material was unveiled in Baltimore last month.

Donaldson noted a line drawn through readings of the last five seconds of the doomed jet's flight, with a handwritten margin note reading "End of Flt. 800 DATA" -- except there are more revealing readings below it.

He said he thinks this was an attempt to divert attention from the final readings on the flight recorder: "The only reason you put flight data recorders into an airplane at millions of dollars cost is to capture this last data line."

He said NTSB officials later tried to convince the Navy dissidents it merely was transcript from an earlier flight -- a conclusion former TWA pilot Howard Mann said is "not possible -- it's erased -- there's just no way."

The final readings show chaos in the sky -- with airspeed dropping instantly by almost 200 knots, the pitch angle jumping five degrees, altitude dropping 3,600 feet in about three seconds, the roll angle going from zero to 144 degrees (the plane almost inverted), and magnetic heading changing from 82 degrees to 163 degrees.

The small vane that measures wind angle striking the nose -- situated on the left forward fuselage -- goes from 3 degrees to 106 degrees back to 30 degrees.

Donaldson said all these indicate an extremely high-pressure wave coming from the lower left side of the plane's front. The measurements "indicate there was an explosion -- a big explosion -- outside the cockpit." Mann agreed with Donaldson's interpretations.

Donaldson also said:

* Divers found debris from the forward fuselage as much as 2,900 feet to the right of the extended flight path, suggesting it may have been propelled by an explosion from the plane's left.

* Fuselage doors from near the front of the craft, later recovered, were bent and dented inward.

* Subsequent tests Donaldson conducted showed fuel vapor in the empty center tank would not have been flammable enough to cause such an explosion, and there was nothing to ignite it.

* More damage occurred to the left wing than the right.

* The fuselage skin broke up in such a way as to suggest a pressure wave from the outside left front.

"What you're looking at is the product of an explosion in the sky that totally destroyed the aircraft's ability to fly anywhere," he said.

The retired officers speculated a missile could have come from either a submarine or a buoy device developed by the Navy years ago to float attack missiles into position for launch from miles away.

"One vital question we haven't attacked is the origin of that streak of light," Moorer said. "Where did it come from? Who fired it."

For its part, the NTSB insisted after the briefing that "We have no physical evidence that a missile impacted TWA 800, or a fragment of a missile penetrated the aircraft."

Navy Times, Jan. 19, 1998, Page 14

In an apparent attempt by the Navy to keep a lid on information a California newspaper reports, "A Navy captain assigned to the Pentagon told an Atlantic Fleet watch officer about 24 hours after the crash to keep the names of three merchant ships that could have been near Flight 800 "in-house Navy for the time being." The directive was noted in Atlantic Fleet logs released under a Freedom of Information Act request. (8) If three vessels in the area were merchant ships, what was the identity of the fourth? Obviously, the Navy didn't want the three merchant ships to reveal that.

The Navy continued to demonstrate "defensive" behavior during the early days of the investigation, even when other agencies were on hand and offered their services. Kevin Gallagher, a member of the New York Police Department Scuba Team which took part in the TWA recovery made some relevant points. "Within hours after the crash the Navy took control of the recovery operation, prohibiting all non-Navy divers from diving for four days after the crash. During that four day prohibition, only divers from Navy Explosives Ordnance Disposal (EOD) were allowed to dive." (9) James Sanders, retired police officer and author of The Downing of TWA Flight 800 says the exclusive purpose of EOD is to locate, recover, and dispose of explosives ordnance.

In an open letter addressed to "Fellow Americans" Admiral Moorer makes several cogent points worth consideration.

* Why didn't investigators look for the clues that would be left by the explosion of a large sophisticated missile detonating in close proximity to the target?
* Why did investigators ignore the compelling evidence that indicated that this is just what happened?
* The extremely tough nose-wheel tire, that survives most crashes, was shredded on TWA FL 800 even though the plane crashed over water. The doors that cover the wheel when retracted were blown inward by external force.
* Why hasn't the public been shown the photographs of the shredded nose-wheel tire?
* How could an explosion in the fuel tank between the wings blow in the nose gear doors that are 70 feet away?
* How could the center fuel tank explosion shred the nose-wheel tire, but not the tires of the wheel close to it?

 

[777 fixer]

Congratulations dell, you can cut and paste. Now the problem you have is that you think what you cut and pasted supports your bizzare belief that the Navy shot down TWA 800. Could you please point out to me where CMDR. Donaldson says the Navy did it? If you had bothered to do a little research you would have found that no where does he say the Navy did it. In fact here is what is said on the website he started Information uncovered in early 1999 now shows that TWA Flight 800 could have been shot down by one or more shoulder-fired missiles. Since the navy typically does not launch MANPADS off ships sitting off Long Island I wonder who they are refereing to? Me personally I really don't buy the terrorist with a Stinger or SA-7.


The retired officers speculated a missile could have come from either a submarine or a buoy device developed by the Navy years ago to float attack missiles into position for launch from miles away.

First of all, which retired officers are they refering to? Second USN submarines don't carry SAM's. Why would they, the best defense for a sub is stealth. Coming up to periscope depth just increases the chances of detection. Third, what sort of missile carrying buoys are they talking about? Do you have a link that talks about such a system? I'm curious as to how it would operate.

A Navy captain assigned to the Pentagon told an Atlantic Fleet watch officer about 24 hours after the crash to keep the names of three merchant ships that could have been near Flight 800 "in-house Navy for the time being." The directive was noted in Atlantic Fleet logs released under a Freedom of Information Act request. (8) If three vessels in the area were merchant ships, what was the identity of the fourth? Obviously, the Navy didn't want the three merchant ships to reveal that.

Could you provide evidence that this actually happened? If you do may I point out that this does not support your belief that the Navy did it. May I also point out that the Navy does not operate merchant vessels.

Kevin Gallagher, a member of the New York Police Department Scuba Team which took part in the TWA recovery made some relevant points. "Within hours after the crash the Navy took control of the recovery operation,.

Here's the problem with that statement, the Navy offered it's services on July 18. Which of course is the day after TWA 800 went down. Navy divers did not show up until July 20. The first Navy divers did not start work until July 21. Within a week there were 120 divers involved in the opeartion, 81 of whom were USN divers. Which means the rest were not. So dell, could you explain this discrepancy for me? Either Mr. Gallagher is full of it, someone attributed a quote to him that he did not actually make or he does not exist at all.

 

[delldude]

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC: There are facilities in the White House, not the normal situation room, which everyone has seen in the past, has seen pictures of. There is a second situation room, behind the primary situation room, which has video conferencing capabilities. The director of the Pentagon, the defense chief, can speak from a national military command center at the Pentagon. The Secretary of State can speak from the State Department, the President from wherever he is, and they'll have this capability for video conferencing throughout this crisis. In my time at the White House it was used in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, in the aftermath of the TWA Flight 800 bombing, and that would be the way they would stay in contact through the afternoon."

[According to Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid, Jim Sanders, in his book "The Downing of TWA Flight 800," says that there was a meeting in the White House situation room that night. He was told that high officials were watching in real time a video transmission of a Navy test of an anti-missile missile that went awry.]

CR

 

[tech2101]

CR

I did not think you were a conspiracy theorist.

Nice cartoon though.

 

[delldude]

I did not think you were a conspiracy theorist.

Nice cartoon though.

Don't know about the conspiracy theorist.....do know something got out of hand that night and caused a lot of people to die and the government acted very odd.

 

[stonewall]

Now here's a simple math problem. The SM-2 top speed is Mach 3. Say you launch one and then realize it's gone astray and decide to launch another. For arguments sake lets say this happens in ten seconds, rather generous if you ask me. Now is something traveling at Mach 3 going to catch something traveling at Mach 3 launched ten seconds earlier from behind? Not that it really matters since the easier thing to do would be to turn off the fire control radar.

There were two missiles fired that day. The Navy was doing a classified test on
a classified advanced surface to air missile.

The test missile experienced a mechanical malfunction.

A second air to air missile was launched from an F-18.

I do not know if the target of the missile launched from the F-18 was the
test SAM or the drone launched as a target for the test SAM.

My best hunch is the F-18's missile destroyed the drone.


The end result was TWA 800 was shot down.

Some people have been talking close to the units involved.

Remember how long the F-117 was flying before it was revealed to the public.
Just because you have not read it in USA Today does not mean people have not been talking.

 

[Cosworth]

There were two missiles fired that day. The Navy was doing a classified test on
a classified advanced surface to air missile.

The test missile experienced a mechanical malfunction.

A second air to air missile was launched from an F-18.

I do not know if the target of the missile launched from the F-18 was the
test SAM or the drone launched as a target for the test SAM.

My best hunch is the F-18's missile destroyed the drone.


The end result was TWA 800 was shot down.

Some people have been talking close to the units involved.

Remember how long the F-117 was flying before it was revealed to the public.
Just because you have not read it in USA Today does not mean people have not been talking.

And you know about a classified test how? Your source for the F-18 is what?

 

[delldude]

Ahh,he could tell you but.....you know the rest.

Theres more to this than a cockroach smoking inside some fuel tank.

 

[777 fixer]

CR

Because someone was "told that high officials were watching in real time a video transmission of a Navy test of an anti-missile missile that went awry" that makes it true? Could you tell me how what George Stephanaloplis supposedly said support your views? May I remind you of what a Mr. Kevin Gallagher supposedly said that was shown to be false.

As I've already pointed the Navy has a dedicated test range off the coast of Virginia. WHy would they be conducting such tests off Long Island. Also you do realize that you once again contradicted some of your previous posts with this one?

Like tech2101 said nice cartoon. Odd that an SM-2 would leave no telltale traces not only from the warhead but from the fragments from the missile itself.

 

[777 fixer]

There were two missiles fired that day. The Navy was doing a classified test on
a classified advanced surface to air missile.

The test missile experienced a mechanical malfunction.

A second air to air missile was launched from an F-18.

I do not know if the target of the missile launched from the F-18 was the
test SAM or the drone launched as a target for the test SAM.

My best hunch is the F-18's missile destroyed the drone.


The end result was TWA 800 was shot down.

Some people have been talking close to the units involved.

Remember how long the F-117 was flying before it was revealed to the public.
Just because you have not read it in USA Today does not mean people have not been talking.

Did you dream this up yourself or did you read it somewhere? It's rather obvious that you have not asked some basic questions or done some rather basic research. Here's the first question you should have asked. Why would the Navy be conducting live fire exercises off Long Island? Here are some more.

Where does the Navy have a test range on the east coast for missile tests?
Does this anti-missile missile have a name?
Does the fire control system on the F-18 have the capability to aquire and attack a "anti-missile missile?
Would the pilot have enough time to even do it if it did?
Why would an F-18 be close eough anyway?
Who exactly is "talking" and what units were they from?

 

[delldude]

Like tech2101 said nice cartoon. Odd that an SM-2 would leave no telltale traces not only from the warhead but from the fragments from the missile itself.

Looks like your CR saws A/C in half with an expanding ring/rod....so whats the issue?

And sticking with conspiracy theory.....any evidence contributing to a missile would be squashed ASAP.....

Why was Navy EOD on the scene?

Whats with Clinton removing whistle blower protection from the Navy Special Warfare Group?

I can't speak for the Navy but you appear quite able.

 

[777 fixer]

Looks like your CR saws A/C in half with an expanding ring/rod....so whats the issue?

And sticking with conspiracy theory.....any evidence contributing to a missile would be squashed ASAP.....

Why was Navy EOD on the scene?

Whats with Clinton removing whistle blower protection from the Navy Special Warfare Group?

I can't speak for the Navy but you appear quite able.

What’s the issue? Here's the issue, you continue to ignore the fact that the Navy has a dedicated test range for missile tests. It's not off Long Island. You ignore the fact that the system in question is semi-active which means even if the navy was conducting such tests of LI all they had to do is stop illuminating.

So the evidence was quashed? Any evidence to support this? Remember, there were two parties involved in the investigation who had a vested interest in it being a missile.

I want you to read the last paragraph from the following link.

< http://www.navydiver.org/MDSU1/default.html >

Using your logic something else must have happened other than a USN sub hitting a Japanese fishing boat.

Did you also know that there were divers from the sub tenders Land and Spear along with divers from the Navy Special Warfare community, Navy Experimental Dive Unit, Navy Diving and Salvage Training Center along with divers from many other different units? Did it ever cross your mind that they wanted to get as much wreckage recovered and quickly as possible before the weather turned? That meant getting as many divers on site as quickly as possible. So of course there were going to be divers there who were also EOD.

 

[delldude]

So the evidence was quashed? Any evidence to support this? Remember, there were two parties involved in the investigation who had a vested interest in it being a missile.

Well for starters.....why were what the FBI determined as 154 'credible' witnesses observations never included in NTSB hearings?