It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Investigators closely evaluated three sequences of primary radar returns recorded by the Islip radar site around the time of the accident (from about 1 minute before the accident to 9 minutes after), which appear to show three targets moving at 300 to 400 knots ground speed about 10 nautical miles (nm) southwest of the accident.
None of the three sequences intersected TWA flight 800ís position at any time, and all of them were moving away from the accident airplane.
For each of these three sequences of primary returns, investigators found that the signal strengths varied randomly from very high to very low, the azimuth was always 150º to 160º relative to the radar, and there were no primary or secondary tracks leading to or away from them.
Further, Islip was the only radar site out of six primary radar sites covering this airspace that recorded these primary returns. Investigators learned from air traffic controllers and radar technicians that ground or building reflections of primary radar returns from aircraft flying in one geographic area can cause ìfalse primaryî targets to be recorded as though the aircraft were flying in another geographic area.
Numerous buildings and structures in the area around the Islip radar site could have created such reflections. Investigators identified commercial airplanes traveling through other areas within the coverage of the Islip radar at the same time that the three sequences of primary returns were recorded; these airplanes had similar ground speeds and flightpaths as the three sequences of primary radar returns.
These findings indicate that the three sequences of 300 to 400 knot primary radar returns recorded by the Islip radar site between about 2030 and 2040 do not represent unexplained objects (such as a missile) but, rather, represent false or reflected returns from actual aircraft in other geographic areas.
John Goglia, a member of the five-person NTSB during the investigation, said he "took offense" at the filmmakers' suggestion that board members ignored evidence. "I would never be part of any coverup -- period," he told CNN.
"This accident, this report, over 50,000 pages, if you take and just look at certain pieces of it, you can move the cause of this accident any way you want. You can take just the radar; you can say it was a missile. You have to take all of the pieces and look at them as a whole.
The sequencing report that told how the airplane fell apart, none of it supports a missile -- none of it. When you look at the physical evidence inside the tank, it's clear that there was an explosion inside the tank. If the top of the tank goes up and the bottom of the tank goes down, and the forward side goes forward and the back of the tank goes back, that tells you that the blast was inside the tank -- not outside."
He said that no holes were found in the tank that would indicate something had penetrated it.
James Kallstrom, who headed the FBI's investigation into the explosion, dismissed suggestions that investigators concealed information and were not receptive to clues.
"If they felt that way back then, they could have come to me," Kallstrom said. "I was someone desiring to get to the bottom of this, believe me. And I had a reputation for not, you know, for not pussyfooting around. Yet it seems like they've comfortably waited until they have their pensions before they became whistle-blowers. So I think it's a bunch of bullcrap."
Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by smurfy
But the US did pay out a chunk of money for the victims.
Here is a summary of what is claimed to be new in the petition:
Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
I don't see anything honestly new being presented, just claims that something new is being presented
Have you seen the radar data showing debris traveling at over mach 4 just after the plane lost electrical power? That is apparently one of the two new analyses of FAA radar data mentioned in #1.
New evidence includes:
1. Two new analyses of FAA radar data,
2. Twenty FBI eyewitness interview summaries apparently not previously available
to the NTSB.
3. Analysis of “spike-tooth” fractures found in multiple locations.
4. Evidence of explosive residue detected in multiple locations other than the
forward cargo hold and floor boards.
Furthermore, based on a critical analysis of the new evidence, NTSB finding #8, which
states “that witness observations of a streak of light…was burning fuel from the
accident airplane in crippled flight...” will be shown to be erroneous.
The official probable cause for the crash therefore rests on the determination of a low velocity overpressure event that resulted in failure of the center fuel tank at the forward aspect and that because of the location of the failure, forces would be directed longitudinally forward with respect to the airplane.
The radar evidence however, shows that a far more powerful and sideways projected explosion occurred simultaneously with the loss of the aircraft's electrical power, which sent debris perpendicular to the accident aircraft's flight path, traveling approximately 1/2 mile due south.
We have found no NTSB analysis of or accounting for this high-speed debris in the
NTSB public docket or the final report.
That was Hank Hughes, Senior Accident Investigator for the NTSB for 26 years. He did write a report and analysis over 400 pages long. Without his knowledge or consent, it was trimmed to only 27 pages, removing his analysis. He said if he had been allowed to write his analysis (which would be normal procedure and was normal procedure for any other investigation he was aware of) his analysis would have concluded the explosive force occurred outside the aircraft (meaning the center fuel tank wasn't the cause).
Originally posted by marhaba
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
If you have viewed the documentary film, one of the investigator also said the NTSB report he submitted was sanitized. He was the lead investigator yet he was not allowed to make an analysis but instead let a new guy who is wet behind the ears to make the conclusion and is now holding a high position in NTSB. Sounds odd to me.
Too bad you didn't watch the whole thing when it was available, especially since you're making so many comments in this thread; it would have been nice to get your take on what was presented since you seem to know something of this topic.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by drock905
The password didn't work.
Originally posted by rjohns1
The fuel tank theory is destroyed in this video by experts. They found a splatter pattern across the top of the fuel tank that tested positive for Nitrates, consistent with explosives. The kicker, is that the pattern is consistent across fractures, and multiple pieces of the fuel tank ON THE OUTSIDE. A fuel tank explosion, could not, I repeat, COULD NOT cause this, because the forces would come from the INSIDE of the tank. when an investigator that held the position of the original story was confronted in the video, he changed his tune. This is big, because it proves that something happened before the tank ripped apart of an explosive nature. There needs to be another investigation, because with this evidence, the original cause is not possible. It is really that simple. Argue about launch signatures, etc all you want. The fuel tank did not cause this accident. Find another cause.
Lightning can also fix nitrogen. The high temperature of a lightning bolt can break the bonds of atmospheric nitrogen molecules. Free nitrogen atoms in the air bond with oxygen in the air to create nitrogen oxides, which dissolve in moisture to form nitrates
It removed protection from whistleblowers who might have wanted to tell the truth about what they saw, like the Navy personnel involved in the salvage operation, for example:
Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by spooky24
Clintons Exec Order 13039 protected himself and the Navy from this also I believe, right?
This also meshes with the documentary, where an investigator stated him the FBI refused to let him watch the unedited tape of the wreckage.
If, as the radar data and the eyewitness interviews indicated, a missile or missiles shot down the plane, missile parts should have been found near the wreckage. The Navy personnel who participated in the salvage operation would know if any were found. Executive order 13039 was clearly a message from President Clinton, warning them to keep their lips sealed. He had no reason to do that unless he knew they had found proof that a missile shot down TWA 800. The FBI’s $40 million investigation had covered this up, and Clinton did not want the public or Congress to learn about it.
This also explains why the salvage operation for TWA 800 was assigned to the U.S. Navy even though this caused a needless delay. It took several days for the Navy ships and crews to reach the scene of the crash. A privately owned salvage vessel was in the vicinity and could have begun the search immediately, but that would have made it more difficult to keep the information about the missile from becoming known.
Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by chunder
How many other cases have there been where a short circuit in a fuel level sender caused an in tank ignition event ?