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

reply to post by chunder

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.

Nothing "returned to steady" after 2031:12 - that is the time all recording ceased!!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by chunder

 

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.

Nothing "returned to steady" after 2031:12 - that is the time all recording ceased!!

edit on 1-7-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

It's not actually, the originally released FDR data showed values obtained at 2031:12:00 and some subsequently - see here.

The data that returned to normal state was recorded at 2031:12:25 and 2031:12:50, although I'm making the assumption they are every 250 ms because they don't have a specific timestamp, they just appear between the second stamps.

What you are actually seeing is a tabulated representation of continuous data which can be misleading. For example if you look at the AOA data it shows 3 values of 3 from 2031:11, then values of 106, 30 and 3 from 2031:12, with 2031:13 blank.

106 is not necessarily the peak value and if you could see the actual real time trace you would know if it was an almost instantaneous spike (which may point to an electrical cause) or a smoother transition (which may point to a physical cause) and that is smoother in context, obviously we are talking about a very short time span.

Obviously also the actual data is incorrect, I'm not sure what inputs are used to determine the actual value of AOA (if anyone does know please post), the relevant point being that it returned to its previous value. Whether there is a scenario that could cause that recording deflection that also fits in with the other anomalies I don't know.

reply to post by chunder


Here's the problem with the EPR data. EPR is a measurement of pressure within the engine. There are something like 8 sensors throughout the engines from intake to exhaust.

Engines on all aircraft are numbered from the left. That means on the 747, the outboard left is #1, the outboard right is #4.

Now the missile/shockwave theory states that the detonation took place approximately 60 feet low and left of the fuselage. That would put it pretty much between #1 and #2 engines.

Now the shockwave somehow caused #1 EPR to drop slightly, from 1.3 to 1.14. It then pushed #2 up to around 2.3, traveled the 60 feet to the fuselage, another 80-100 feet and up to get into #3 and #4 engines, and after traveling all that distance, the shockwave, which apparently hadn't dissipated in the slightest, then proceeded to push the EPR of #3 and #4 up almost the exact same amount as it did #2.

Now does that make sense to you? It sure doesn't to me.

Obviously also the actual data is incorrect, I'm not sure what inputs are used to determine the actual value of AOA (if anyone does know please post), the relevant point being that it returned to its previous value. Whether there is a scenario that could cause that recording deflection that also fits in with the other anomalies I don't know.

All inputs are through static ports, and pitot tubes on the nose area of the aircraft. Going from memory (I've lost all my reference books), there was one vane on either side of the nose of the aircraft that was moveable. As the AoA increased and decreased, the angle of the vane changed. It was tied to the instruments, the FDC, and the FDR.

That's from memory though, so I may be misremembering.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


The video, when it was aired, was identified as it was being shown, as footage taken with a camcorder by a person on a pleasure boat, ( if memory serves), who witnessed and video taped the incident.. The person was even asked questions by the reporter, one was to the effect of "what did you think was happening"? The person stated that they thought the aircraft was shot down with a stinger, then the CNN reporter talked about stingers and other portable ground to air weapons..

This news showed only one time, and I left the TV on all night, and not once did anyone on any news channel after that, speak of a missile shoot down again.. They avoided speaking of anything related to a hostile shoot down happening in our own country after that one single CNN news piece..

It appeared to me that someone up high, didn't want Americans thinking we had enemies attacking us in our own country and already here carrying out terrorist acts against us.

reply to post by Zaphod58


To answer in brief, no that doesn't make sense to me.

I imagine a shockwave would cause an increase in pressure measured at the engine, although if the actual EPR is a ratio between inlet and outlet pressure I would expect the ration to remain constant ?

If it would increase EPR again I'm not sure by what magnitude or whether the blast wave would be seen at all engines simultaneously, although this wiki link perhaps indicates it would, especially in tabulated data form.

Even in the graphical data representation at the end of here it is impossible to see anything other than plotted changes.

I can only speculate as to why the EPR of No 1 was reduced - and admittedly its pretty weak - but possibly because of the blast wave contraction ?

Without speculation I guess the sensible conclusion is bad data, although again the deflection on 3 out of 4 inputs is very similar which to me is strange. I also find strange the graphical representation linked to earlier shows EPR data continuing to at least 2031:20, as it does for all parameters except heading and altitude. I assume this is underlay from the previous recording, and indeed the NTSB have argued that is the reason for the anomalous data at 2031:12 - noise due to the transition between readings, however a lot of the data on the underlay shows very similar flight conditions to 800. Again, my lack of expertise precludes any real conclusion, there just seems to be something not right.

According to this very detailed and expert (to me) analysis here there is a full 4 seconds of data available from 800 that has been withheld !

Just a FYI here. Peter Lance is on Coast to Coast AM at the moment. He covered a bit of the TWA crash.

I'm sure it can be found pirated on somewhere on the internet. Date of the show is 7/6/2013 for someone who read this thread in the future.

reply to post by Zaphod58


The static ports on the nose are the reference points for the measurment taken in the Engine?
One engine sensor reads a loss of presure and the other 3 a rise in pressure.
Relative to the static ports on the nose.
Do all of the engines use the same static port as their source?
If the blast wave is directed such that it hits the static port for the number one engine that would cause that static port to show a rise in presure, its corresponding engine sensor would then be at a lower relative pressure if it did not see a direct hit from the blast wave.
If the other engine static ports were not hit by the blast wave but the engine sensors were then they would show a rise in relative presure to those static ports.

I am throwing this out as a possible explination for those readings, my exposure to avionics is limited to GA aircraft not big jumbos.

reply to post by Dragoon01


The engine sensors for the EPU are in the engines themselves. There are 8 I believe it is, and they measure pressure at various stages through the engine, from intake to exhaust. It then averages the pressure reading through the engine, and puts it on the display in the cockpit.

The static ports on the nose are for altitude, with the airspeed pitot tubes, and the AoA sensor.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Thanks, for that breakdown.
So that set up still could account for the rise pattern. Number two shows the largest increase in presure owing to itsproximity to the blast. Number three shows a rise but not as large because it was shielded by the body of the plane. Number 4 further out on the wing and not shielded shows almost as large a rise as number 2.

That would explains all but number one's drop.
A shaped warhead would however explain number ones drop in pressure and the others rising.
A CWT explosion would not explain those readings.
I dont think an electrical issue would explain those readings either.
Let us suppose that it is an electrical problem. It would either be the same short that ignited the CWT or an additional electrical problem on top of that short. Are you suggesting this aircraft was flying around with TWO electical problems in its diagnostic system?

reply to post by Dragoon01


No, I'm suggesting that the electrical problem that led to the loss of the aircraft, led to faulty readings being recorded by the FDR. The initial electrical problem caused the loss of the aircraft, as that was occurring the power to the FDR was cut, leading to faulty readings being recorded in the last second or so.

One of the problems with the EPR readings is that #3 and #4 were on the other side of the fuselage. The blast wave would have had to travel to the other side, and by the time it reached #4 not dissipated one bit, because it pushed #4's EPR up to almost identical to #2 (2.44 on #4 to 2.46 on #2). That's a long way for a blast wave to travel without dissipating, and an odd path for it to travel to get from the left side out to the outboard right engine.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Okay I see where you are coming from.

I dont see the pressure readings as a problem. As I said the number three engine is sheilded by the body of the aircraft from the direct path of the blast so it has a lower reading. Number four is not in the shadow of the planes body so it suffers the full force of the blast and registers a slight reduction from number two due to its longer distance from the blast.

reply to post by Dragoon01


But #3, being shielded still went up almost as high as #2 and #4. And even though #4 wasn't shielded as well, that blast wave had to go over 100 feet to get to it (I don't have the exact measurements anymore, but it's close to that, if not more). That's a long way to go, to only be .02 off from the engine closest to the blast.

The OP story said the documentary was set to air on July 17, which is tomorrow.
But I searched "TWA 800" in tvguide.com and none of the results I got seem to match, so I'm not sure "air" is the proper term, but the epix website says it's coming in a little over 13 hours from now, and even has a countdown timer.

www.epixhd.com...

I hope they left out the three missile theory from the final version. That was a little over the top, since nobody said they saw three missiles that I'm aware of.

The documentary is finally online, though I don't have access to it. Here is the link:

www.epixhd.com...

If someone watches it, maybe you can describe briefly how it differs, if any, from the rough cut which was made available right after this thread started. In particular I'm interested to know if they kept the three-missile theory.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Yes, they kept the three missile theory.

You can watch the movie for free. If you are not in the US, will you probably have to search the internet and find a US proxy. It shouldn't be hard. I can neither confirm nor deny I do that for BBC broadcasts. ;-)

The video is flash. Are you on a mac?

I wanted to share this interview with Kristina Borjesson (Director of TWA 800) and Tom Stalcup (Researcher of TWA 800); I think most will enjoy it.

Great interview Nick!

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Yes, they kept the three missile theory.

Thanks! Maybe the final version didn't change much from the rough cut. I'll probably eventually see the final version.

Originally posted by NickDC202
I wanted to share this interview with Kristina Borjesson (Director of TWA 800) and Tom Stalcup (Researcher of TWA 800); I think most will enjoy it.

That was pretty good and yes I enjoyed it. The host said he's not a fan of conspiracy theories but he found this case to be compelling. However I'm skeptical of his claim he's not interested in conspiracy theories, because he insisted that Kristina Borjesson should visit the "grassy knoll" which is kind of a famous site for conspiracy-related theories.

I found it interesting that while Borjesson and Stalcup presented a case for a cover-up, they flatly refused to speculate on possible reasons for the cover-up, and would only say that two possibilities might be a terrorist missile attack or a US military training exercise gone wrong, but implied there might be other possibilities too.

They did mention something not in the documentary which was interesting to me because I hadn't heard it. I tried to transcribe it here, starting at about 7:40 time index, said by Tom Stalcup:

"There was a video of a missile five days before the crash over long island. The defense intelligence agency confirmed there was a missile on the videotape. There was an aircraft (unintelligible) AC mechanic on the roof of a hospital filming the sun rise, and the missile went up "hey, look at the rocket" and he brought it to the FBI after this crash thing and asked "is this significant?" They made ten copies. we requested those copies. They lost them. They're all gone."
(Host comments)
"They looked where they were supposed to be, they couldn't find them."

I wonder who's missile that was?

Then they talk about how the guy who made the video and his wife didn't want to get involved, and how other witnesses had been threatened...like the lady who was seeking her citizenship, and they told her not to say anything if she wanted to become a citizen (This part was in the documentary).

Perhaps one of the biggest mysteries of all is why, if the official story was true, would the FBI threaten witnesses like that?

Is there any insight into why the plane would be shot down? Who would benefit from that and how?

Originally posted by Deirdre
Is there any insight into why the plane would be shot down? Who would benefit from that and how?

This thread mentions one possible idea that it was supposed to be an El-Al flight that was the target and the TWA flight was shot down instead, presumably in error, if it was shot down, which really isn't proven. Did you read the thread?