I hope his producer got a raise for that. That’s some leet Rolodex skills right there.
If it was shot down, why didn’t someone take "credit’. Isn’t that the point of doing such things?
I’ll just say, that as someone reading along who was about 8 at the time, and remembers the initial terrorism fears, that this has been an interesting discussion so far, without how ugly most “just asking questions” threads on CTs get. 
And that continuous rod missile is too cool.
The day before, a communication from the “Movement of Islamic Change” was received, apparently by ABC news–at least, that’s who reported on it–that contained the following poetic language:
"“Late this morning we got a copy of a letter in Arabic that we then had translated, and got it to the F.B.I.,” said a State Department spokesman, Glyn Davies. "It’s a political tract or a statement that seems aimed at the Saudi regime or the American presence in Saudi Arabia. There is some poetic language in the letter that says bad things are going to happen at dawn – “Dawn is their departure time. Isn’t dawn near enough?'” Cite
Per the NY Times, that statement was dismissed. Other than the timing, the only other ‘link’ is a tenuous one–TWA 800 exploded at dusk on the Eastern Seaboard, which is apparently dawn in Saudi Arabia. Newsday, in 1996, reported that the letter said the strike would happen “tomorrow morning,” so it’s a little iffy. Still spooky, but no smoking gun.
One of the conspiracy buff websites lists a July 19, 1996 Reuters article in which Janet Reno said that there were “some calls” afterward claiming responsibility. I’ve not been able to find the original article (though, for comparison’s sake, the same site accurately quoted the NY Times article I linked to above.)
Haven’t come across any discussion of ‘taking credit’ in the FBI/NTSB information, though I haven’t been looking for it, either–and there’s VAST amounts of info I’ve yet to dig through.
That is not a given:dubious:. It was not “cut”. All fracture surfaces demonstrated pure tensile overload.
That’s the thing. It doesn’t take much at several hundred knots (Take THAT, metric people! 
) to cause a small break to propagate into a big tear–look at Aloha 243. We all need to take off our shoes at US airports because Richard Reid’s PIDDLING little shoe bomb could, if set off in the right place, start a chain reaction that could bring an airliner down. While holding a glass outside the car window observe how your sleeve flaps. Extrapolate that up another 100 mph/kph (at this point it doesn’t matter) and you’ll see why wind can tear off your clothes. Bring the speed up to airliner velocity and sheet aluminum starts to flap (okay, vibrate, at first) and a crack becomes a tear.
I can’t find a cite but the separation was between bulkheads. It was a little unusual in that respect. It doesn’t prove anything.
What would prove a missile strike would be remnants of a missile and a continuous rod missile would leave evidence at right angles to the flight path.
Guys, I’ve been trudging through the NTSB reports for hours now, and a lot of it is mind-numbing, but I have found a few answers/clarifications:
- The CIA video was based, in large part, on witness reports–not surprising, considering its title of “What the Witnesses Saw.” (NTSB Exhibit 4A p. 9-10)
The CIA was also apparently given more data, including the radar, CVR, and FDR data, as well as infared data from a U.S. military satellite, presumably of the crash. Now, one of the victim’s family members asked whether there was satellite coverage of the crash (recall that U.S. satellites captured the Russian airliner shot down over the Ukraine, and subsequently turned that information over to the Russians.) According to his published interview, he was told that all three of the U.S. satellites that could have captured TWA 800 were broken/malfunctioning at the time.
But the NTSB report indicates that at least one got infared data.
To my knowledge, that satellite data is still classified, but damn…it’d go a long way toward conclusive evidence if we could see it!
-
This is intriguing–the NTSB didn’t get around to reading the witness reports, which were taken by the FBI, until at least 11-5-1998, possibly 1-99 (Exhibit 4A p. 12.) I haven’t yet determined when they seriously discounted the missile theory, but if they did before even reading the eyewitness reports, that seems remiss.
-
The FBI’s behavior/treatment of the NTSB was not, shall we say, all that friendly. The FBI prevented the NTSB from conducting interviews with the witnesses (based on the fact that the NTSB’s charter obligates them to make the information they find publicly available; the FBI has no such mandate.) The NTSB eventually got redacted copies of the FBI interviews (and, due to the large amount of cross-referencing they had to do, they were ‘loaned’ unredacted versions to assist in their filing.) However, even though the FBI forms were NOT verbatim or even reviewed after transcription by the individual witnesses–to verify correct transcription–the NTSB decided NOT to reinterview FBI witnesses. (Exhibit 4A p. 12-14).
Beyond the above, I seriously have to recommend that y’all read at least some of the (redacted) FBI witness reports found in the Appendices of the NTSB report. It, in and of itself, is utterly fascinating reading.
In addition, the official count of witnesses who witnessed certain events seems to be off, even accounting for the rubric applied to their categorization. The NTSB report doesn’t mention witnesses seeing ‘streaks’ originating from the surface until Witness 73, which omits:
Witness 8: “saw a red object flying upward…described the object as a flare when he called it in to the Coast Guard, but that it was actually much bigger than any flare he had ever seen…originally…he felt that the flare had come up from the east, possibly out of the back bay…[he] now figures the flare must have come from the ocean”
Witness 9: “saw a steak of light, orange light come up from the bay or the ocean and head straight up or at a slight one o’clock angle. The light was bigger than a flare and it lasted approximately ten seconds…[he] stated that the light as it rose up from the horizon was thick at first then thinned.”
Witness 36: “probably around 8:30pm…saw an orange-colored flash, similar to a roman candle or a rocket flash by” (this witness didn’t report its origin, but nonetheless he’s omitted from the “streak” group in the NTSB report.)
And literally dozens more…I’m reading them one-by-one, all of them omitted from the ‘count’ of witnesses who reported a streak.
THIS one, though, blew my mind:
Witness 39: “[She] went into her residence where she viewed a clock which read 8:32pm and returned outside. According to [her], after a minute or two had elapsed, she heard an extremely loud report coming from the rear of her property and a large ‘puff’ of black smoke which blew from west to east and enveloping [sic] her house and others…[She] described the report as being loud enough that it startled the children playing in the area and the smoke as approximately 50 to 70 feet away from the edge of the property, very thick and black in the center and lighter at the edges.”
Now, none of this is convincing, but it’s damn spooky–imagine how you’d feel if you observed that just before a 747 exploded a few miles away…
Also, something interesting in the Air Traffic Control Group report…
It’s widely known that there was a Navy P-3 in the area the night of the disaster. It apparently had a malfunctioning transponder, and according to the Air Traffic Controller(s) on duty that night, they only got intermittent radar returns on it. At times, when the transponder was on the fritz, it was invisible to their radar. The Controller states that such a condition is not unusual, given the malfunctioning transponder.
However, if the radar was unable to get a return from the P-3, with its 95 foot wingspan, it stands to reason that the theorized terrorist plane and/or missiles would have eluded the radar, as well. That sounds like an apologist argument, I know, but with regard to the question upthread about radar data indicating a missile or ‘other’ plane, it seemed pertinent. As with everything else, it doesn’t prove anything.
Seriously though, y’all…if you read nothing else, have a look at the documents containing the witness reports. Very, very interesting stuff, and there are some pretty credible witnesses scattered among them.
the eye witness reports are an interesting read because a number of them saw events from the air.
I found this discussion after Googling “TWA 800 Message Board”.
What I don't think some realize in this discussion is that Ray Lhar, a retired United 747 captain and aviation science Phd, actually did the math on a 747 losing its nose and made it public. The science shows a nose-less 747 immediately loses its center of gravity to such an extreme degree that it pitches up violently, stalls, and drops like a rock. Lhar sued CIA for the data on its "zoom-climb". CIA did its best to stonewall Lhar by saying the data was Boeing proprietary information and therefore a company secret. But aviation industry experts say the plane, which was first designed in 1969, is old technology that has been surpassed by most competitors, all of whom already understand any technical detail Boeing could possibly possess. So, in other words, the CIA claim is rubbish and is just being used as an excuse to not show Lhar their science. Boeing's public statement distanced themselves from any information shown to the public from CIA's "Zoom-Climb" scenario.
But part of Captain Lhar's case is based on the radar data which doesn't show altitude but does show rate of speed. Science requires a climbing aircraft to trade off speed for altitude under the circumstances of the alleged zoom-climb. The radar shows no decrease in speed as the nose-less 747 continues forward. This is key evidence disproving the alleged CIA zoom-climb. But Lhar also contends the engine controls are linked to the cockpit by wires. When the nose separated it severed all the wires between the cockpit controls and the engines. Lhar said this would cause the engines to automatically throttle back to idle. Idle engines are incapable of thrusting a nose-less 747 upward in any climb.
Lhar did the math to show as soon as the nose separated it would cause a radical center of gravity shift that would immediately thrust the front upward causing a stall and flip of the remaining fuselage. It would then plummet from the sky as was witnessed by many.
So far, with all known science working for Lhar, and Lhar having full background qualification and credibility, CIA has managed to stymie the case. The judge should force CIA to reveal its data but hasn't. Without the "Zoom-Climb" the entire official cause theory fails and the crash investigation legally becomes re-opened and the cause undetermined.
Lhar's formulas are available on the Association Of Retired Airline Pilots TWA 800 website.I missed this last time I read it. A transponder transmits a coded signal that identifies itself in response to a radar strike. The code is set by the pilot either as a generic code or one assigned by a radar center. It can be enhanced by pressing the “ident” button at the request of a radar center. Saying a Navy P3 becomes invisible without a transponder is a misstatement. It’s **TAG **disappears from a radar scope but not the radar return itself. It still shows up as a reflected object.
I’ll say what I said before regarding eyewitness accounts. Many of them described a rising missile’s contrail which would be a thin light trail versus what a burning plane would produce which is a billowing black trail. The 2 cannot be confused under any circumstances visually regardless what the witness thinks he or she is looking at. It’s comparable to describing a vehicle as a light colored car versus a dark colored truck. A person may not know the manufacturer but will be able to discern the basic information.
Blake wanted to limit the topic to radar information so the most pertinent issue would be the ejecta caught by radar exiting at mach 4 from Flight 800’s exploding fuselage. By science, fuel explosions are known as ‘soft’ explosions because they blow-up at a scientifically-determinable rate of 300 feet per second. Any center fuel tank explosion on TWA 800 would have exploded at that rate. The fact that ATC radar caught materials exiting Flight 800 at mach 4 proves that something else exploded in or near the 747. It can be safely said that a center fuel tank explosion could not, and most definitely did not, cause any mach 4 ejecta. The reason they use high explosives in military ordnance is because they are looking to blast things and cause their destruction. Missile warhead high explosive blows-up at a rate closer to 2000 feet per second. This level blast would be more likely to cause ejecta to exit at mach 4 from Flight 800 and be caught on radar. I’m sure we can research the radar data showing this and the credentials of the people analyzing it. I’d be particularly interested in the answers of some of the posters asking for missile evidence.
Though not radar information, this leads directly to Ironworker Mike Wire's statement following his witnessing of the crash. The ironworker Wire was working on the superstructure of a road bridge on Long Island near the crash when he saw what he thought was a cheap firework rising from the horizon that shortly after ended up in an explosion and fireball. Wire testified that the explosion was so strong that it shook the bridge on which he was working. At the time, Wire wasn't aware that he had just given critical forensic evidence in his description. You see a soft fuel explosion happening at 300 feet per second isn't strong enough to violently shake a highway bridge at 20 miles. A 2000 foot per second missile warhead explosion would however. We could literally take a retired 747 from its junkyard and fly it up to exactly where Flight 800 exploded and set-off its center wing tank and it wouldn't shake the bridge Mike Wire was on that evening. That, my friends, is missile evidence plain and simple - and also something you won't find in any NTSB reference.
As far as not finding the short circuit in the wreckage, when aviation wiring shorts from moisture penetrating insulation cracks it causes a large burned boil on the wire that is very noticeable. If you websurf examples of aviation wiring short circuits or research it you'll find investigators speak of this kind of cause as being relatively easy to find because of this. If the wiring recovered from Flight 800 had such a thing it would have been noticed. How much of the wiring was burned I don't know. Nor do I know if this short circuit boil would be noticeable even in burned wire?
Not to be confrontational, but some of the people being described as 'conspiracy theorists' here are actually quite credible pros whose credentials can be easily established like pilots, aviation insiders, Aviation Engineering PhD's, journalists, investigators, military, police, scientists and others.If it was strong enough to shake a bridge at 20 miles then wouldn’t it register on a seismic graph?
Can you link to the “fact” that “ATC radar caught materials exiting Flight 800 at mach 4” exists?
This is just bullshit. The center fuel tank was empty, so its contents would have been a large volume of air saturated with fuel vapor. Here’s a little YouTube of a fuel-air explosion:
No, that’s a video of a high explosive used to detonate a flamable liquid into a fuel air bomb. The point that you’re contesting is the detonation of vaporized jet fuel with a spark which is a different animal all together. It does not have the energy of what you’re citing. What is being alleged is that the tank exploded at an accellerated rate and therefore was not a jet fuel vapor explosion.
I too, would like a link from Jetblast that ATC radar caught materials exiting Flight 800 at mach 4.
I suggest any further questions be addressed to Dr Stalcup. He’s no “tin-hat”. He is associated with investigating the crash from the beginning and is in amongst people with serious credentials and backgrounds. But it’s hard to establish ‘fact’ when one side (NTSB) is allowed to omit or withhold data completely while the other is held to a strict level of scrutiny:
http://ntsbwatch.com/ballistics.pdf I'm not sure. The Lamont Doherty facility may have a record from that day. I would guess aerial shockwaves might be mitigated somewhat by buffering forces, especially if they happened over water.As a former Navy officer, I’ll add this to the discussion. It is simply beyond consideration for any U.S. Navy ship to have fired a non-exercise missile without word leaking out from multiple sources. It’s just too big of an event.
Firing a non-exercise Standard Surface-to-Air missile from a Navy ship is a very unusual event–it cannot be hidden from any crewmember. All personnel have to clear the launch area, and the missile leaves char all over the deck that has to be cleaned up. Of course, the ship also has to account for expending a missile costing several million dollars.
In any event, it would be absolutely impossible to prevent every one the 350 or so crewmembers quiet about such a launch, especially after all this time.
Heck, I was aboard a guided-missile cruiser once that fired an exercise missile, and the memory of that is something that I’ll never forget.
So you think, that if you were on a ship that fired a missile that night, and then there was a 747 that exploded shortly thereafter killing everyone on board, and then the government investigators blamed it all on faulty fuel tank wiring, that you may not participate in the cover-up?
No? Well I’m sure that your ethical stance is very rare, and every one of those hundreds of sailors who were on the ship would have no problem with doing their part to shield the killers from facing justice.