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

reply to post by Zaphod58


For me that post goes from dogged pursuit of a theory to deliberate and disingenuous misrepresentation of information.

Quite clearly the information shows that an external pressure wave accounts for all anomalous FDR readings. The fact that some returned to readings present before the pressure wave hit indicates it wasn't down to mechanical breakdown of the sensors etc.

The altitude change is obviously physically impossible and only explainable with an instantaneous external pressure increase.

It is also obviously clear from the calculations that different sizes of explosive can create the data seen simply by moving the point of the blast further away or closer to the plane. The CWT is in a fixed position relative to the sensors and could not produce the readings seen.

Regarding this missile launch signature thing lets draw a line under it. To dismiss witness evidence of a missile because no-one saw the actual launch defies logic. If you see a plane in the air you don't need to have seen it take off to recognise it as a plane. Where and how it was launched can come after a missile is positively identified as being probable cause behind the break-up.

Can you provide any possible reason for the NTSB subsequently editing the data ?

reply to post by chunder


It's bad data. No missile shockwave could have put the sensors in a position to show what they did. Even if it exploded 1 foot underneath the plane.

But of course I'm deliberately being disingenuous about the fact that missiles don't carry the weight of explosives claimed, and everything else.

It is NOT only explainable by an external pressure change. It's also explainable by bad sensors, bad data from the FDC, and a couple of other reasons.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by chunder

 

It's bad data. No missile shockwave could have put the sensors in a position to show what they did. Even if it exploded 1 foot underneath the plane.

But of course I'm deliberately being disingenuous about the fact that missiles don't carry the weight of explosives claimed, and everything else.

It is NOT only explainable by an external pressure change. It's also explainable by bad sensors, bad data from the FDC, and a couple of other reasons.

edit on 6/29/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

Ok, I can understand bad data, but not bad data for specific sensors only and at least two streams (altitude and airspeed) corrupted in a manner that a single explanation with a specific measurement (the 1.1 pressure ratio) results in the same anomaly. That the rudder, AOA and vertical acceleration returned to previous readings proves that the anomalies were not down to permanent mechanical damage, at least of those sensors.

Can you explain why a missile shockwave could not have caused those readings ?

In this calculation below (which shows the external pressure increase required to alter the altitude and airspeed readings to those recorded by the FDR) from the link provided earlier the weight of explosive does not even factor.

62.5 / 0.6 ft. = 104.16
(104.16)3= 1,130,135
1,500,000 / 1,130,135 = 1.32 psi

The weight of the explosive dictates the propagation of the shockwave and the destructive force of the weapon, the size of the pressure increase experienced by any object in the radius of the shockwave dictated by distance. The exact weight of explosive in any given warhead is immaterial. However, for the sake of argument, what weight of explosive would you attribute to explode 60 ft from the plane and cause the break up described ?

If it's not only explainable by an external pressure increase and bad sensors and data don't appear to be the case, what are the other couple of reasons ?

reply to post by chunder


It wasn't just altitude and airspeed, it was everything. The AOA read over 100 degrees nose up, there were control movements, and the EPR readings made very little sense.

As for why, it could have been an electrical problem, a problem with the pitot tubes, or the data computer itself (although that's probably the least likely).

reply to post by Zaphod58


Is there a possibility it could been tampered thus the reason it does not make sense?

reply to post by marhaba


Think of it as a tape recorder. If you've recorded on tape, at some point you stopped the tape while recording, and gotten that weird chirping/squealing sound on the tape. If power is suddenly cut to the FDR, then you occasionally get some pretty random data recorded. That's why on alot of the transcripts you'll find the last couple of seconds cut off, because it's useless.

Eyewitness Account: youtu.be...

I can't download the documentary from Epix, however if anyone is interested I found a torrent to download it here:
thepiratebay.sx...

I'd be less open to the possibility if the CIA hadn't come out and said it wasn't a missile...

reply to post by NickDC202


I also saw that clip of a stinger being fired at flight 800, I then waited to see it again, but like you mentioned, it was scrubbed...

I then remember after that a week or less, people were calling in on the Art Bell radio show, and anyone claiming to have seen this clip would be angrily called liars and hung up on by Mr. Bell himself...It was really strange stuff, after this I knew Art was a phony and an idiot from then on.. (kind of thought that before anyways...)

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by chunder

 

It wasn't just altitude and airspeed, it was everything. The AOA read over 100 degrees nose up, there were control movements, and the EPR readings made very little sense.

As for why, it could have been an electrical problem, a problem with the pitot tubes, or the data computer itself (although that's probably the least likely).

edit on 6/29/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

The link provided speculates why the AOA gave that reading and the EPR's are consistent with a shockwave.

Already provided reasons why it wasn't an electrical problem or a problem with data or sensors (multiple anomalous readings having a single reference point, readings returning back to their previous level).

Any more straws you care to clutch to try and refute the data ?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by marhaba

 

That's why on alot of the transcripts you'll find the last couple of seconds cut off, because it's useless.

Above respectfully snipped to the relevant point.

Can you provide an example from the NTSB database of any other accident investigation where the last few seconds of data has been "cut off" ?

Seriously man, you're just making stuff up to fit your agenda. You don't receive a little retainer for your services do you ?

You know what, screw it, you're right, I have no idea what I'm talking about. All those years on the ramp and I didn't learn a damn thing. I guess I better go tell my handlers to dock my pay.

reply to post by Zaphod58

You know what, screw it, you're right, I have no idea what I'm talking about. All those years on the ramp and I didn't learn a damn thing. I guess I better go tell my handlers to dock my pay.

I am surprised your patients lasted this long.

Never believe those that have the hands on experience when you have a documentary and a conspiracy site to believe.

Don't worry your pay is safe I will talk to the big man and make sure of that....

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You know what, screw it, you're right, I have no idea what I'm talking about. All those years on the ramp and I didn't learn a damn thing. I guess I better go tell my handlers to dock my pay.

edit on 6/30/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

Zaph, I'm sure its been clear to you for awhile that you are debating with someone with no formal experience or education in aerospace.

Dont worry, your argument is sound. No need to contact your handlers.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot

I have no time on the ramp, but I do know something about electrical circuits, and based on that I'd consider any data recorded immediately prior to the aircraft losing electrical power to be at best, suspect, especially when it doesn't look accurate.

Originally posted by alienreality
reply to post by NickDC202

 

I also saw that clip of a stinger being fired at flight 800, I then waited to see it again, but like you mentioned, it was scrubbed...

Yeah a lot of people say they saw this - but I have to ask how on earth they know what they saw?

How was it identified as TWA 800? How was it identified as a Stinger? If you saw a shot of a missile being launched at ground level then how big would a 747 at 16,000 feet actually look?

And how much actual damage would a 1.4 lb HE warhead actually do to a 747?

Personally I think that if such a video was ever shown then it was a fake or "stock" footage montaged to make it look like something it was not. But that is just supposition on my part of course - just like, IMO, it is supposition that such a video existed.

the recorders were not stopped early:

The cessation of the CVR recording at 2031:12 was consistent with the loss of electrical power to the recorder. A transcript was prepared of the entire 31-minute 30-second recording.

and

Examination of the FDR data revealed that the interruption of the recording at 2031:12 was consistent with the loss of electrical power to the recorder.

From the NTSB report pages 59 & 61 respectively.

the FDR had some recording anomalies hat are listed, but they had been present for previous flights and weer an ongoing problem:

The following parameters contained frequent data anomalies recorded
during the accident and previous flights:
• -Aileron position – Recorded values were noisy and erratic.
• -Thrust reverser engine No. 3 – During the landing at JFK that preceded the accident, the “transit” indication was displayed while the other three engines indicated a “deployed” condition. (The thrust reverser on engine No. 3 had
been mechanically locked in the retracted position by maintenance personnel at JFK before TWA flight 800 departed on the day of the accident. Corrective maintenance was deferred for up to 10 days.)
•- Altitude (coarse) – Indicated erroneous altitude values and was unusable.
•- Altitude (fine) – Occasionally displayed noisy values.
•- Leading edge flap left No. 3 – With the flaps retracted, the “transit” indication remained on. With the flaps extended, the “transit” condition indicated “extended.” The maintenance log contained the following entry: “July 15th,
3L LE flap amber [light] stays on with LE flaps up and retracted electrically. [Forward] panel lights ops check ok.”
•- Indicated airspeed – The recorded values were occasionally erratic.

Examination of the FDR data indicated that the data recorded during the accident airplane’s approach and landing at JFK before the accident flight (as TWA flight 881) did not reveal any anomalous airplane or flight conditions. During the first 12 1/2 minutes of the accident flight (from the start of the takeoff roll until 2031:12, when the recording stopped abruptly), the FDR operated continuously and recorded data consistent with a
normal departure and climb.

There is nothing missing from the CVR transcript - you can read it as Appendix B at this link

reply to post by Zaphod58


Ok, bit harsh for which I apologise.

In response to other comments no I don't have any hands on experience, formal experience or education in aerospace but actually I am willing to listen to anyone that does, if they take the time to actually explain why something is so, as opposed to just stating so.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

the recorders were not stopped early:

The cessation of the CVR recording at 2031:12 was consistent with the loss of electrical power to the recorder. A transcript was prepared of the entire 31-minute 30-second recording.

and

Examination of the FDR data revealed that the interruption of the recording at 2031:12 was consistent with the loss of electrical power to the recorder.

From the NTSB report pages 59 & 61 respectively.


There is nothing missing from the CVR transcript - you can read it as Appendix B at this link

edit on 30-6-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

Strange that the CVR had sounds consistent with tape damage from 2031:05 to 2031:12, although I'm not sure what, if any, bearing that has.

Edited to add that explained by the NTSB as being due to water damage to the tape that occurred post break up.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

I have no time on the ramp, but I do know something about electrical circuits, and based on that I'd consider any data recorded immediately prior to the aircraft losing electrical power to be at best, suspect, especially when it doesn't look accurate.

Likewise in terms of electrical engineering and yes, highly suspect as there are a number of possible reasons as to why those inputs could have been corrupted. Without knowing details (as obviously I'm not an aircraft engineer) I would imagine that there is a degree of filtering to remove noise but it is conceivable that an electrical event could cause values to change and then (some) revert to previous.

It appears that the FDR actually records on a continuous real time level (magnetic 8 track tape) and the timestamps are for ease of display. To be able to see the full data as opposed to timestamped blocks would be useful because it would help determine whether it was an electrical event or a mechanical event.

That an electrical event would cause a deflection on two values that is explainable by a single specific event (increase of external pressure around 1.3 psi) though, indicates it may have actually been a physical event, especially considering what could cause an increase in external pressure.

For the NTSB to state that the airspeed and altitude values recorded by the FDR were occasionally erratic "as recorded during the accident and previous flights" seems misleading in that even so, the inputs were steady up to 2031:11 and (some) returned to steady after the 2031:12 timestamp. If the traces on the 8 track showed a returning to steady on other inputs this would indicate a mechanical (physical) event occurred, specifically an external pressure increase that doesn't appear to be commensurate with a CWT explosion.