TWA Flight 800 investigators break silence in new documentary, claim original conclusion about caus

reply to post by Zaphod58


Have you accessed the NTSB report?

National Transportation Safety Board. In-flight Breakup Over The Atlantic Ocean, Trans World Airlines Flight 800, Boeing 747-131, N93119, Near East Moriches, New York, July 17, 1996.

Radar data information starts on page 87 and gives a much more thorough explanation regarding the interpretation of what was eventually deemed erroneous data being used by some to buoy the missile hypothesis.

From the report regarding the "hidden" radar tracks...

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.

The full explanation for dismissing the missile theory begins on page 257.

I don't see anything honestly new being presented, just claims that something new is being presented, which leads me to agree with some of the commentary from others who were involved in the original investigation...

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."

Filmmaker asserts new evidence on crash of TWA Flight 800

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by smurfy

 

But the US did pay out a chunk of money for the victims.

Yes, around £213,000.00 per person directly to the victim's relatives as per a Washington request, and settled out of court. £131million in total.
So I agree it's all about money.So in the day you, me, man, woman and child...and Donald Trump were worth £213,000.00 each. .

reply to post by elouina


I will check with an air traffic controller. but basically it is how I described it. Just look at this display for example


The top line is always flgiht ID or squawk. [Note the JENA flight is a FBI plane flying VFR.] "Brickyard" is Republic Airlines, which uses RPA in the flight ID. The second line changes over time. Sometimes it is the aircraft type. For example, E170 is an Embraer aircraft.

Looks like the first value on the second line is altitude in hundreds of ft. It alternates with the destination of the aircraft. Not so sure about the 2nd two digit number.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Page 259 goes into the explosive residue. The theory is the military personnel probably transferred it during the recovery.

Well, I'm outta here. I can't possibly go through 20 odd pages of posts. See you back at N27RA when the FOIA documents arrive.

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.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
I don't see anything honestly new being presented, just claims that something new is being presented

Here is a summary of what is claimed to be new in the petition:

PETITION TO RE-OPEN TWA FLIGHT 800 INVESTIGATION

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.

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.

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 claim is new to me. Here's the screenshot the video shows at around 72m45s and the speed calculations were apparently made by the PhD physicist Tom Stalcup who is co-producer of the documentary.



I hadn't seen that before. The data was presented previously but as an accumulation of 20 minutes worth debris drifting in the wind after the plane explodes, but I never saw an analysis of the data for the first few seconds after the incident before this documentary. The video doesn't show the raw data and calculations (nor would a documentary typically get bogged down in that kind of math) but I'd be interested to see them, but this shouldn't be hard to calculate for a PhD physicist.

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.

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).

The new guy was David Mayer, who according to Hank Hughes was illegally changing evidence tags to better match the theory the FBI wanted the evidence to fit. That is new information to me.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by drock905

 

The password didn't work.

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.

There seem to be clips available here (which I haven't watched) but not the whole documentary (which I watched twice):
press.epixhd.com...
I can't say how good the clips are but the full documentary was pretty good.

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.

Your post got me thinking about Nitrates and that they were found on sections of the outside surface of the fuel tank remains (and evidence of melted or previously molten metals parts)...and thought of lightening.

Could a lightening strike have been responsible for this explosion?

If so, why would the FBI scramble to remove evidence of this, and not simply say it was lightening?

Maybe they wanted to keep confidence in air safety high? If people know an airfraft can simply explode without warning due to lightening strikes, would the airline industry collapse overnight?

Maybe this and the resulting $ Billions lost to industry and commerce was the main motivation for sweeping this under the rug?

Here's a quote about lightening:

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

Lightening

So we see...lightening strikes react with the Nitrogen in the air, and create a nitrate residue. If lightening had struct the fuel tank, it would create both the molten metal splatter patterns where it hit, and also create the nitrate residues on the metal parts around the stike point too.

But then again, the evidence is applicable to both lightening and a missile strike.

Here's a link to a page about lightening strikes on aircraft...that caused the aircraft to either explode mid-air, or disintegrate and crash...food for thought?

The white streak seen by witnesses could have been the lightening i suppose?

Aircraft destroyed by lightening.

For the record, "lightning" does not have an "e" in it.
Please resume normal service.

reply to post by Zaphod58


How many of those other cwt explosions were in airspace where anti missile surface to air missiles were being tested ?

How many other cases have there been where a short circuit in a fuel level sender caused an in tank ignition event ?

Possible scenario, some fact - some speculation.

Firstly as stated previously by another poster TWA800 had a working transponder up till the explosion picked up by at least 3 civilian ATC radars. Military radar will also show the mode / squark code and therefore any suggestion it was hit by a US military missile in a case of mistaken identity with the EL AL flight is nonsensical. If it was a false flag exercise the correct plane was hit. But it wasn't a false flag exercise.

The early preliminary to the Aegis ballastic missile defence system was undergoing testing in the area at that time. This is why there was a P3 airborne with thermal imagining capability, to record the test. Many of the witness descriptions match perfectly seeing a target missile / drone and the launch of the intercepting missile from a ship. Despite what has been said about the launch being visible it could easily have been over the horizon, it may even appear as a small flash on the horizon at the distances we are talking about (up to 80 nm).

The target was possibly flying an erratic evasive course with altitude and vector changes, would have been slower than the interceptor, left little plume and may have been similar to a Tomahawk. It may even be what was captured in the Kabot photo.

Whether this hit TWA800, the interceptor did or, as fits much of the eyewitness testimony and these new claims of an explosion outside the plane causing the terminal damage, it was a successful intercept very close to TWA800.

This scenario covers the original video footage, possibly the radar returns (although the radar data provided cannot be trusted) the debris field and why the resultant investigation was a cover up, plus alleged subsequent benefits to Boeing / TWA.

In an earlier post it is described how another earlier flight was informed of an active fire area and routed accordingly. We can only speculate as to why TWA800 (and possibly other flights - although different altitudes / vaguely similar headings) were not also treated accordingly.

Why the military continued with the test when civilian airliners were clearly in the active airspace is again speculation, personally I think it was a series of minor cock ups that spiralled into a monumental disaster.

I don't believe there is any link to the Olympics other than they may have been rushing a test to validate a system being deployed to protect the opening ceremony, contributing to the series of errors.

Most of the above is verifiable and is freely available by google search, deliberately not quoting or providing any links to encourage others to find via their own routes. There is a lot more corroborating evidence this scenario was the case, from details of where the target missile was launched to the Executive Order Bill Clinton passed to include the search teams under legislation prohibiting their describing publicly any finds (in essence by removing whistle-blower protection).

Please feel free to point out any flaws in above, I have no definitive proof and if wrong fair enough, hopefully it just helps to refine any scenario closer to what actually happened.

In the meantime thoughts for the lost souls and their loved ones and hopefully the truth will prevail and justice served as one way or another criminal prosecution should result.

Political reality has already killed this.

Any attempt at reinvestigation an investigation that produced a 50,000 page report would directly reflect and implicate President Clinton, and the mainstream media will never allow there darling any such negativity.

Clinton's two terms were vastly different from the Bush years and even more different from the current Obama administration. Normally Presidents allow the Security and Military branches of Government to operate independently, providing they adhere to one condition, one very big condition. That condition being that they can harass, invade, snoop, assassinate or whatever as long as the White House staff is the sole editors of the information of what they have done. The White House spin machine totally controls all media assets-and how that information is released to the media-who then release it with there own political spin.

President Bush was a social sort who like big ceremonies such as document signings, tours, big international visits things of this nature and allowed his staff to do the real work. President Obama-no one really knows what he does all day other than play basketball, golf or whatever but it is known his staff does all the real work he mostly stays aloof-just like Bush did.

Bill Clinton was night and day different. He was a veracious reader of reports had real administration skills and an excellent memory and reading comprehension ability. He participated DIRECTLY in all the PDB -President Daily Briefs and reviewed the Access Data reports from the FBI, CIA and every branch of the military-including the JCOS. This made him many, many enemies in the hierarchy of the military. Because all this is well known, along with his impromptu address to the American people about the incident, and the fact that he held such a tight grip, and mention of a 'conspiracy' would doubtlessly challenge his credibility and include him 'in' this conspiracy since he would have known about it-and most importantly would have had to approve of it.

Regardless of what really happened-I don't really know myself and have only taken token glances at the masses of information-you would need to be politically naive to the nth degree not to see this will go nowhere.

Even right/center media outlets like FOX want nothing to do with tarnishing Bill Clinton and, like myself, have a lot more respect of him after he left office-than was ever given him when he was President.

reply to post by spooky24


Clintons Exec Order 13039 protected himself and the Navy from this also I believe, right?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by spooky24

 

Clintons Exec Order 13039 protected himself and the Navy from this also I believe, right?

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:

www.aim.org...

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.

This also meshes with the documentary, where an investigator stated him the FBI refused to let him watch the unedited tape of the wreckage.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


More specifically, the navy seals

The political truth is that once all the players leave their office jobs for retirement, Congress will open a new investigation, solely from the will power of the American taxpayer. We want the truth.

I'm angry and seriously concerned about this latest revelation.

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 ?

Apollo 13.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Who did the recovery. Truth is stranger than fiction...

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 ?

Apollo 13.

Uhhh no.....Apollo 13 was a leak in an Oxygen tank which leaked into other areas of the module. TWA is supposed to be a short INSIDE of the actual fuel tank. So like all of the other examples I mentioned above Apollo 13 is nothing like TWA 800.

one of the witnesses in the documentary was a woman, she was in the process to become an american citizen, she was told if she wanted the paperwork to go through that she should shut up and not talk about what she saw.

there was also a pic of a form that showed the flight schedule for the plane and there is no way that plane was the one that had the dog bomb sniffing training that they claimed left bomb residue.

there were 3 debris areas, parts were given a red blue or yellow tag, depending on which area they were found. important part had the color tag changed to the one that fit their story.

they realized someone was changing tags during the night, putting white tags, they ran a hidden camera and it was the FBI guy.

Nothing is more troubling than hearing people who have have NOT viewed the documentary (media outlet anchors, websites like Gawker, etc) so quickly dismiss the findings in this documentary so quickly even though they have no understanding of its contents. What is enraging is reading the mouth breathers comments on different "news" stories on various websites; again people who have NOT seen a second of the documentary who are suddenly experts who can so easily dismiss the findings of something they haven't viewed.

UGH!