Anybody up for a TWA 800 discussion?

I see no reason to ascribe any authority to this document whatsoever, for two reasons:

  1. We don’t actually know where it came from or if it has been altered, and I have to tell you, I find it really curious that an NTSB document never once correctly spells the word “Hangar.” You would think that of all the organizations on the face of this planet, the one the least likely to mix up the word “hanger” with “hangar” would be one that investigates aircraftrelated issues.

  2. The reference to “A technician” who “Did an analysis” that suggested the presence of a missile is purely second hand. Let’s see that analysis and the technician’s name.

You say that something on radar showed a missile moving towards the plane. Show us that. I’ve seen a lot of radar information that claims to demonstrate a missile strike and every bit of it has been debunked. Unless we have objective evidence of this, it’s sort of a sticking point. We need to have objective evidence of a missile to even begin to think there may have been a missile.

I’m also intrigued by the new claim that witnesses saw something ascending all the way from the surface. If a missile had shot down TWA 800 and had been fired from a point visible to an eyewitness to the aircraft’s destruction, it would have been fired from a point in, or reasonably close to, New York City - not far beyond visual range, as USS Normandy was. A missile capable of shooting down a plane well above 10,000 feet is not something you pick up a Chuck’s Sporting Goods; you’d think someone would have noticed that puppy being fired if it was close enough that the eyewitnesses saw it ascend from the surface.


On a separate note, let me approach this, I dunno, more philosophically. You are, IMHO, making the classic error of all supporters or apologists for conspiracy theories (I acknowledge you are not a conspiracy theorist) - you are approaching it back-asswards. The beginning of proving an alternative theory to a historical event is NOT finding inconsistencies in another theory, like “this agency estimated a climb of 3400 feet and this one 1300 feet.” It’s finding objective evidence for the alternative theory.

The only evidence that would really work here is missile debris or eyewitnesses who saw the missile being fired. I know you say you don’t want to go there yet. But that’s where the theory MUST begin.

The size of the 747. Bigger planes don’t make pitch changes as quickly as littler ones. They can’t.

Not related. Increased torque and power can make an airplane rotate about an axis faster for given control surface inputs, but not if there isn’t any extra power or torque being applied.

And it did.

Not necessarily. The aluminum alloys used in aircraft structures have good ductility. They can bend quite a bit, and take a good ‘set’, before breaking.

Once the engines stopped, and once the airplane had settled into its new trim configuration, and hadn’t broken up, then yes. The process of restabilizing with a reduced weight and an aft CG would have carried it higher than a ballistic trajectory in the meanwhile, though.

I believe the plane was climbing at the time. Depending on air traffic control instructions, the climb speed would be much closer to 250 than 450.

This would not have been a 0to450 or more likely, 0to250 acceleration. The airspeed change would have negligible.

Related to drink glass out the window supposition of massive increase in drag. At relatively low speeds, there would be a large change in perceived resistance. At increased velocities, boundary air level effects would reduce the area subject to drag. Still a substantial increase but less than imagined.

What was the rate of climb at the moment of nose separation? Seems upward velocity over time analysis could determine which increased altitude figure was more correct.

It’s a standing joke in aviation that any time there’s a crash, you can find some yokel on the tube saying “They was this big ol’ fireball in the sky”. I’ve even heard it in the 911 recordings from the Hudson River ditching.

Hey, RickJay, thanks for chiming in.

I’m not sure such radar data exists (that shows the ‘merging’ of contacts.) The raw radar data is available, but I wouldn’t begin to know how to interpret it, and I’m not going to rely on a conspiracy buff’s analysis for definitive evidence. Unfortunately, the ‘leaked’ document is the only thing I’ve come across so far that mentions the track in any semi-official way.

If we throw that document out, then I got nothin’. I’ll keep looking, particularly at the NTSB’s own website, to see if I can find anything else. Based on the Senate subcommittee testimony I linked to earlier, consideration was given to a missile (not necessarily based on radar data,) but I’ll have to defer on more data.

Is it a new claim? The witness statistics are dated October 16, 1997, though I admit I’m not sure when the NTSB uploaded that report or released it publicly.

Okay, at http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/TWA800/exhibits_web.htm, click on “Witnesses Group Chairman Factual Report,” which is Exhibit 4A.

That document contains:

The database contains information for 458 witness reports.

“Of the 183 [witnesses] who observed a streak of light, 102 gave information about the origin of the streak. Six said the streak came from the air, and 96 said it originated from the surface. 40 said it originated from the sea and 10 said it originated from land.”

Several of the witnesses provided sketches of the streak wherein it originated from the surface: Witnesses 649, 530, 224, 174, and 541 (their documents are available at the NTSB website linked above.)

You’re absolutely right.

That’s why I’d hoped to start with the data straight from the government. If they used that data to determine the mechanical fault, then it stands to reason that anyone else using the same data should reach the same conclusion. Thing is, the data conflicts, so it’s difficult to find a reasonable starting point. That’s why I was wondering where the CIA video got its 3,400 ft. from…to try and determine what data is “good” to start from.

The NTSB website alone is overwhelming, and in a way I’m beginning to regret even getting curious about the whole thing. It’s still intriguing to me, but there’s just a huge volume of evidence to look at, try to verify, and extrapolate.

They were above 10,000 feet, and had cleared the New York Class B airspace, so the speed limit would no longer apply. Anyway, ATC normally imposes them on arrivals, when separations are necessarily decreasing and spacing has to be controlled more tightly, not on departures. Possible, though.

Probably 500-1000 fpm, depending on load.

If there is one thing you absolutely cannot trust, it’s an eyewitness account of something that happened high up in the air. Airplane crashes hell - how many yokels have mistaken Venus for a UFO? It happens **every single time **there’s a clear night and Venus is bright.

Now, show me a guy who says “I was aboard a destroyer and we shot a Sea Sparrow towards New York just before TWA 800 blew up” and I’ll be interested.

The United States developed a continuous rod missile to counter Russian bombers and the technology has been copied by many countries. The weapon is specifically designed to cut an airplane in half. I’m not sure what kind of missiles are sold at Chuck’s Sporting Goods but something the size of a Sparrow could be launched from a small pleasure craft.

I’ll see if the NTSB lists that climb speed anywhere on their website…may take some time, though.

The CVR confirms that the plane was climbing, I know. I’m going to cite a non-official website here, because it’d take a lot of digging at the NTSB one, but this website merely contains CVR transcripts of lots of flights, and does not have a conspiracy bent: http://www.tailstrike.com/170796.htm

At 20:25:31, the Center asks for rate of climb, which is reported to be “about two thousand feet a minute here until accelerating out of ten thousand.”

At 20:26:24, the Center amends an earlier clearance, and asks TWA 800 to stop their climb at 13,000ft. The pilots acknowledge. They report ‘12 for 13’ shortly after.

At 20:30:15, the Center clears 800 from 13,000ft to 15,000 ft.

Three seconds later, the captain orders “climb thrust” but the co-captain doesn’t hear, and the captain again says “climb thrust.”

At 20:30:35, the co-captain advises “Power’s set.”

At 20:31:05, the tape damage begins, and the tape ends 7 seconds later.

Ah, I hadn’t thought about boundary air effects, but that explanation makes a lot of sense. Thanks!

If I can find it, I’ll let you know.

What SAM is “Specifically designed to cut an airplane in half?” Not Sea Sparrow or SM-2, and a twelve-to-fifteen-foot-long missile launching off a small pleasure craft would rock that boat pretty hard, I’d think.

I wouldn’t want to be on the boat when it was launched. I’d rather be on the much larger boat carrying all of the support radar and electronics required to get the Sparrow to hit its target. Except there was no such ship in the neighborhood and the one pleasure boat that hasn’t been accounted for didn’t sink when a 12’ missile was launched from its deck.

The problem there, of course, is that outside of microscopic traces of explosive residue (attributed to a training session with a sniffer dog) there’s no trace of any sort of bomb or missile whatsoever. The congressional testimony I linked above contains a very qualified technician who states plainly that there’s nowhere on the plane a missile could have entered (unless it could squeeze through a hole about an inch or two wide, then turn 90 degrees, etc.)

The FBI did trawl, looking specifically for Stinger ejector motors, among other things, and never found them. Now I know the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, but it really doesn’t look like a missile penetrated TWA 800. Whether one could have exploded close enough to it to set off a chain reaction, I don’t know.

A continuous rod weapon expands in a ring and cuts the plane like a circular saw. If it uses a proximity fuse it never enters the plane (just the rods). There would be no residue and steel rods would travel in the trajectory of the missile, not the plane. I assume they would be identifiable if found.

Thanks, but HUH? I have some background in engineering and I’ve crashed a few model airplanes. I apologize if I gave the impression that there was more to me. But that’s the two sides of internet expertise: a guy can put himself up as an expert with no real knowledge or ability, but he can also use the tools available to him to build his knowledge faster and easier than ever before. Take the knowledge and add a talent for visualizing things and voila, I’m an expert. :wink: Anyway, it being “closer to my specialty” is because I have more experience with this (see the part about engineering and crashing) than I do with shooting politicians.

Nope. That was all I needed. That’s where the visualization comes in, combined with experience with a spud gun. It’s called an “explosive atmosphere” for a reason. I heard a news report about the empty tank, combined it with an earlier report on crappy wiring in old 747s, and I had it figured out.

There was no force pushing it backwards. The engines were still pushing it forward. There was just an increase in drag which made it harder for the engines to push it.

I’m not married to the missile hypothesis but you’re not going to suggest that modern terrorists are concerned about their safety? All I’m pointing out is that there are weapons specifically designed to cut a plane in half. It’s old technology utilized by all major producers of weapons. Given that the plane was cut in half I thought it worth noting.

Those things are SO KEWL! Never heard of 'em before.

I can’t find the link but I think they were developed to counter Russian bombers in the late 50’s.

No worries. You’re certainly an expert compared to me; I have a Master’s, but it’s in English! Basically anybody who can work out more algebra than y=mx+b has me beat by a long shot.

Oh yeah, I’ve seen old pain cans that got a little close to a brush fire explode with surprising violence.

I have a little better understanding of it now, based on this thread.

It’s difficult to sift through all the reports from the NTSB, but I’m slowly getting there. It wouldn’t surprise me if the official cause was correct. Course, it wouldn’t surprise me if there’d been a terrorist incident, either. That’s looking backwards through 9-11 colored glasses, of course.

(shrug) Bachelors in Anthropology. Learning to draw beat working in a factory. It took me decades to go along with what people called me and pretend I’m an engineer.

Hell, I’m always happy to play “what if” games, heavy on the paranoia. It can be fun. And I was a solid “second shooter” believer until a couple years ago when I read that Oswald’s rifle had both a scope and its original, usable sights. The light went off and I said, “He stopped using the scope after the first miss. He could acquire his target worlds faster with the iron sights.”

Not that I am a fan of Rush Limbaugh, but I recall one of the great moments of his show.

Rush was explaining to he audience that a hand-held missile could not have hit the planes as it was at X altitude and Rush said sources told him a Stinger only had a reach of Y. So a caller calls in to say in the back of Tom Clancy’s book (of some sort) the annex says a Stinger can reach X. So Rush fumbles and says that does not jive with the information he has.

They go to another subject. Then Rush comes on and says he has a fax from Tom Clancy saying the first edition of his book had a misprint. “I’ll see your book by Tom Clancy and raise you a fax from Tom Clancy.”

Great moment.