TWA flight 800 Ten years ago

What are your thoughts on Capt. Lehrs theory?

  • He is dead on right

    Votes: 1 2.5%
  • Eh Not really sure but I tend to agree with him

    Votes: 8 20.0%
  • No Way just another conspiracy nut

    Votes: 29 72.5%
  • Has some good points but I'm tending not to agree with him.

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • Total voters
    40

AdamZ

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
14,866
Location
Montgomery County PA
Display Name

Display name:
Adam Zucker
I got this email today and it got me wondering is this guy really on to something or is it just another Oliver Stone Conspiracy nut?

What really happened on the evening of July 17, 1996, off the shore of Long Island?

With sincere apologies to those who may not wish to be reminded, this is what I believe happened.

On a pleasant summer evening, TWA800 was making a normal climb on its flight to Paris.At about 13,800 feet, it was hit by one or two missiles.A missile ignited the CWT (center fuel tank).The explosion blew off the nose section, ruptured the front wing spar (which is also the front of the CWT), and broke the keel beam that runs under the bottom of the CWT. The wing separated and the aircraft fell in two flaming balls, each ball fed by the fuel from the separated wing.

Does this sound at odds with the CIA/NTSB scenario that says that a spark of unknown origin ignited the CWT and blew off the nose, and that the crippled aircraft then made a z oom-climb that the eyewitnesses mistook as a missile?Yes, in my opinion there was no zoom-climb.However, a missile was politically unacceptable, so the CIA invoked the zoom-climb in a desperate attempt to dismiss the missile seen by the eyewitnesses.Please consider what the eyewitnesses saw.

Major Fred Meyer saw a missile arc across the sky from right to left.It culminated in at least two ordnance explosions (bright white flashes like flash-bulbs).His copilot, Captain Chris Bauer, was sitting on the left side of the cockpit, and he looked up in time to see a second missile rising from left to right. Then came the huge fuel explosion, and all of the debris fell downward out of the fireball in two flaming streams.

Captain David McClaine and First Officer Vincent Fruschetti on Eastwind Flight 507 were inbound descending to 16,000 feet.They were head-on toTWA800 which was climbing outbound and was limited to 15,000 feet until they were past each other.The East wind crew had been visually tracking the oncoming landing lights of TWA800 for a few minutes. As Captain McClaine reached up to turn on his own landing lights,TWA800 just blew up and the aircraft fell down to the water in two balls of flames. This was confirmed by two other airline crews on nearby flights.

Chief Petty Officer Dwight Brumley was a passenger on U S Air 217.He had a window seat and he watched the missile rise and arch over prior to the explosion of TWA800. The debris fell downward.

Mike Wire, Lisa Perry, Paul Angelides, and William Gallahger all saw the missile rising from near the surface towards TWA800 prior to the explosion. The debris fell downward.

The list goes on.However, not a single eyewitness saw the CIA scenario of an explosion, a zoom-climb, a second explosion, a dive, a third explosion, and then a plunge into the ocean.

In support of the eyewitnesses, Captain Richard Russell received a video tape of the ATC radar scope showing four rapidly approaching blips just prior to the explosion.

So how does the NTSB respond to the eyewitness reports?The NTSB simply says that all ofthese eyewitnesses were wrong and that they didn't understand what they were seeing.The radar blips were anomalies. Furthermore, the NTSB did not allow a single eyewitness to testify at either of its public hearings.

Now mind you, with rare exception, the NTSB did not interview the eyewitnesses, even though the NTSB is charged with that responsibility by Congress.Instead, the NTSB was shoved aside by the FBI, and the FBI conducted the interviews by itself, not even allowing the NTSB to participate in the interviews.Then, in order to discredit the eyewitnesses, the FBI called in the CIA, the master for cover stories.The CIA likewise had not interviewed the eyewitnesses.Instead, the FBI provided the CIA with a selected portion of its 302 forms (a 302 form is the interviewing agent's written recollection of an interview). The witnesses were assigned numbers by the FBI so that their identities could be kept secret. The interviews themselves were not video taped, or audio taped, or even transcribed verbatim.

Working only from the 302 forms provided by the FBI, one individual CIA agent concocted the zoom-climb hypothesis to explain away all of the eyewitness missile reports. A zoom-climb is a rapid pull-up into a steep climb utilizing the forward speed of the aircraft.Such a steep climb is much beyond the capabilities of the engines alone on a large transport aircraft. This CIA agent proposed that after the nose was blown off, the flaming aircraft zoom-climbed from 13,800 feet to about
17,000 feet.The eyewitnesses supposedly mistook the flaming B747 for a missile.Never mind that the eyewitnesses saw a missile rapidly rising from the surface, not a lumbering aircraft rising from a point two and a half miles in the sky.The CIA agent passed his zoom-climb c onclusion to the FBI the following morning.Then the NTSB was brought on board.From that moment on, the investigation was shaped to fit the zoom-climb hypothesis.

The CIA created a video animation of its hypothetical zoom-climb and presented it to the FBI.In turn, the FBI presented the video to the world in a prime-time national television program in November, 1998. Boeing wasn't pleased, and it issued a statement the following day saying that it had no knowledge of the data used for the video. The FBI declared there was no evidence of criminality and that it was withdrawing from the investigation.However, the FBI did not release the evidence that it had gathered and analyzed, nor did it release the lab reports that it had prepared.The FBI was not a cooperative partner regarding the sharing of information.

There is reason to believe that something exploded in the passenger cabin of TWA800, and foreign objects were imbedded in some passengers. Red residue wa s found on a row of seat backs. James Sanders, investigative reporter, had some samples analyzed. The residue was consistent with rocket fuel.The FBI stood by during the autopsies and confiscated all of the foreign objects as they were removed.Those objects were sent to the FBI's own lab for analysis.Reports were written but never released, not even to the other agencies. A determination that the objects were explosive fragments from a missile would have undermined the predetermined cause as being a spark of unknown origin.

Graeme Sephton, an engineer and citizen investigator, submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the FBI lab reports.Mr. Sephton was denied.He initiated a lawsuit.Surprisingly, he won and the court ordered the FBI to produce the reports.Subsequently, the FBI came back and said it had searched for the reports and couldn't find them.The court then ruled that the FBI had made a good faith effort, and Mr. Sephton was denied.The most widely publi cized and most expensive accident investigation in the history of aviation, and the FBI loses its own lab reports?That is highly unlikely.Presumably, the objects still exist.Obviously, the FBI does not want the public to know what it found.

When I saw the CIA video animation on national television, all of my experience told me that the zoom-climb was impossible.An aircraft cannot continue to fly if the center section of the wing blows up, andthe nose, including the cockpit, rips off.Even if the wing had remained intact for a few seconds, the pitch-up after the nose departed would have created an extra g force that would have collapsed the weakened wing.

In addition to assuming that the wing remained intact, the zoom-climb scenario had to make additional assumptions about the condition of the aircraft in order for the zoom-climb to be viable. Let's explore those assumptions.

First, we must also assume that the thrust of the engines remained balanced- all engines had to maintain the same thrust or all had to quit simultaneously to keep the aircraft from yawing and flipping.Remember that when the cockpit left, all engine control cables and electrical wires were ripped away.Which cables snapped first?Was each engine calling for full thrust or shut-down?It is highly unlikely that the thrust remained balanced.

Second, we must also assume that the control surfaces of rudder, elevator, and ailerons remained balanced and neutral.Again, all control inputs to those surfaces were ripped away with the departure of the cockpit.In flight, all of those surfaces are constantly being manipulated either by the pilot or the autopilot.Unfortunately, the pilots and autopilot departed with the cockpit.

Third, we must also assume that the aircraft did not stall during the zoom-climb.A stall would not have left enough forward speed to reach the point where the aircraft impacted the ocean.Now this assumption was impossible. When the 80,000 pounds of nose departed, the c.g. (center-of-gravity) moved about 11 feet toward the tail. The aircraft immediately pitched up and stalled (a stall is when the wing no longer produces lift). The stall was inevitable with the aft c.g. After the aircraft stalled, the aft c.g. would continue to drag the aircraft deeper into the stall and pull it down tail first. There was no way to recover from the stall. The aircraft could never get its nose down and dive as depicted in the CIA video.

When the aircraft exploded, there was enough forward speed to free-fall to the impact point.But let's assume that there was a zoom-climb and that the zoom-climb was almost complete before the stall.The zoom-climb had to come at the expense of forward airspeed.A zoom-climb is a trade of kinetic energy (speed) for potential energy (altitude). Without a dive and some help from an un-stalled wing, the aircraft could not convert the altitude back into the required forward airspeed.It would have crashed short of the actual impact point.

Thus we see that the CIA adopted an impossible set of assumptions in order to make its zoom-climb scenario feasible.The wing had to remain intact.The aircraft had to remain in lateral balance and trim.The aircraft could not be allowed to stall.In my opinion, none of these assumptions were valid.

There was one other step that had to be taken to protect the zoom-climb scenario.The last four seconds of the flight data recorder had to be removed.Those four seconds probably showed the break-up sequence and the loss of the wing.Mr. Glen Schulze, an expert in that field, carefully studied the timing blocks on the FDR tape and established that those four seconds were indeed missing from the tape.Commander Wi lliam Donaldson discovered that the very last recorded data segment indicated an external explosion in the vicinity of the external sensors for the flight instruments.

I have been struggling for most of 10 years trying to get the CIA and NTSB to release the data and calculations used for the hypothetical zoom-climb.They have steadfastly refused.My lawsuit is scheduled for another hearing on July 10, 2006.It is almost too much to hope for, but there is a slight chance that we might get some good news for the 10 year commemoration.

Although I am a former Navy pilot, and a retired United Airlines pilot, and a former Safety Representative for the Air Line Pilots Association, I no longer represent any of those organizations. This presentation represents my own personal opinions.

Captain Ray Lahr
 
They dragged what amounts to about 90% of the plane off the bottom of the ocean and reassembled it. No evidence of a missile hit. I haven't heard any of the conspiracy theorists try to explain away that physical evidence. They just ignore it.

-Skip
 
I think Skip is right. A tragic accident that seems to defy any logical attempt to figure out. Just more from the "Paul is dead" crowd.
 
Two missiles, two guys on the grassy knoll -- coincidence? Or were they at it again on Long Island? Hmmmmmm.

OK great. But why? Cover-up a Navy mistake? Doubtful. The only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead. Terrorist attack? Sure, ok, but where are the triumphant claims from the responsible parties? Why haven't they struck again if they were so successful? Or, was someone on that plane that the government wanted dead?? Yeah, that's probably it, that's why the CIA was involved.

I'll tell you what -- you find this guy and you've found your perp! No doubt about it, and they have the pictures to prove it...

http://www.bertisevil.tv/pages/bert063.htm
 
Having been involved in the post-800 work on fuel flammability and having spent quite a few years investigating fuel tank ullage explosions and combat aircraft battle damage, I am 100% sure that what happened was an ullage explosion resulting from an explosive fuel/air mix in the ullage space in that tank being ignited by an internal ignition source of unknown origin, but (for reasons not related to the damage) most likely a shorted electrical wire. The missile theories are poppycock, as no missile striking the aircraft can cause the type of internal explosion damage that occurred (as evidenced by the recovered wreckage), and had it been an external warhead detonation, there would have been unmistakeably characteristic damage to the aircraft that was not there.
 
Skip Miller said:
They dragged what amounts to about 90% of the plane off the bottom of the ocean and reassembled it. No evidence of a missile hit.
-Skip

Maybe the CIA suppressed the evidence. Maybe the missle went
into the fuel tank and exploded.

I've always felt that there was someone on that plane that the
govt wanted dead so they shot it down.
 
Ron Levy said:
Having been involved in the post-800 work on fuel flammability and having spent quite a few years investigating fuel tank ullage explosions and combat aircraft battle damage, I am 100% sure that what happened was an ullage explosion resulting from an explosive fuel/air mix in the ullage space in that tank being ignited by an internal ignition source of unknown origin, but (for reasons not related to the damage) most likely a shorted electrical wire. The missile theories are poppycock, as no missile striking the aircraft can cause the type of internal explosion damage that occurred (as evidenced by the recovered wreckage), and had it been an external warhead detonation, there would have been unmistakeably characteristic damage to the aircraft that was not there.

Well see, there's my question as well, where did the oxidizer for the explosion come from? Are the pressurized with fresh air? In my experience with tanks holding volitile and semi volitile fuels of various quantities is that unless you are actively force venting fresh air in, you aren't going to get Down to the UEL. On ships we test for this and if there's a problem with it getting explosive levels of O2, we just intal an inerting system.

Plus in the first video I saw, I could see the missle home in on IIRC the left inboard engine. I'm not drawing conclusions, I saw tape, not live, but within minutes. If it was altered, they did a good job, but even back then it would have been relatively easy to forge if you were ready.

As for covering, depends who and what was at stake. Could they? You bet. 8 years investigating Clinton and all they came up with was a Hummer skid on a dress? Give me a break, a retarded 16 year old could do better than that. Covering over a missile hit on an airliner is within capabilities. As to the wreckage report, someone said 90% of the wreck was acounted for, and I find that amazing, that was a huge diving effort, but it leaves 10% unaccounted for, and thats big, and most likely the area that would indicate a missle hit, are by the nature of missle hits, the parts not found.

The question then leads to "who and why", and to that I say "who cares", but most likely IF that is what happenned, it was most likely a military training exercise, in that case, we know the hardware works.... OR it was shot from the Cartel Navy, former Soviet submarines chartered through the Russian Mafia, chartered by the Calais Cartel to run coke straight into N.Y. Harbor. If you're a good conn you have water to make a fair way up the Hudson. There are some Cartel members who would enjoy an all out publicized forum here and would do things to provoke reaction. They would cover for the same reason they ignored the Clinton- Cartel connection. Too much money at stake, and by this point it would have caused a huge credibility problem.
 
Last edited:
RogerT said:
Maybe the CIA suppressed the evidence. Maybe the missle went
into the fuel tank and exploded.

I've always felt that there was someone on that plane that the
govt wanted dead so they shot it down.

You don't think the CIA could manage to kill someone they wanted dead without blowing up an airplane full of people?

And if a missile caused the explosion, it must have been specifically designed to ignite kerosene fumes without leaving any trace evidence of the missle or it's warhead. While that does sound plausible, the fact that no one has ever brought such a missile to light would require a coverup that's beyond believable.
 
Henning said:
Well see, there's my question as well, where did the oxidizer for the explosion come from?
From the air in the tank.

Are the pressurized with fresh air?
The tank was unpressurized at the time.

In my experience with tanks holding volitile and semi volitile fuels of various quantities is that unless you are actively force venting fresh air in, you aren't going to get Down to the UEL.
There is a long history of similar fuel tank ullage explosions in large Boeing aircraft including 737's, B-52's, and KC-135's, traced to frayed/shorted electrical wires or static discharge during maintenance in virtually empty tanks just like the virtually empty center body tank in TW800, including a Philippene Airlines 737 on the ramp at Manila not long before TW800. Further, the heat generated by the a/c packs directly under tanks substantially increased the flammability of the fuel/air mix. Post-event analyses based on air temps, tank volume, fuel quantity, and flight profile showed that the mixture in the tank at the point at which the explosion occurred was dead in the middle of the explosive range for maximum explosive overpressure.

On ships we test for this and if there's a problem with it getting explosive levels of O2, we just intal an inerting system.
Exactly what the Air Force, Navy, and civilian aircraft survivabilty experts (including, by invitation, me) told the FAA at the Transport Aircraft Fuel Flammability conference in Washington DC. However, the airlines do not want to pay the price in dollars and weight for an interting system or foaming the tanks.

Plus in the first video I saw, I could see the missle home in on IIRC the left inboard engine.
The damage to the aircraft was completely incompatible with well-documented effects of an IR missile homing on a wing-mounted engine. The only damage to the engines was impact damage, and there were no inward fragment holes in the fuselage. The explosion originated inside the center body fuel tank, and the tank must have been intact at the time of the explosion or pressure venting through the wound would have substantially lessened the damage from what was observed in the wreckage.

Folks, keep in mind that the aircraft was carefully examined by people with twenty and thirty years' experience evaluating combat aircraft battle damage. They know the "fingerprints" of all sorts of anti-aircraft weapons from small arms/automatic weapons bullets to nonexplosive and explosive AAA gun rounds to proximity- and impact-fuzed missiles ranging from small shoulder-mounted IR SAMs to the biggest SAMs the Soviets ever built (and they had some real mother buggers). Those characteristic damages just weren't there.

I realize that one could argue that every scrap of the real TW800 wreckage was snookered off by whatever dark and evil force shot it down before anyone else could get on the scene, and some other 747 was on only hours notice destroyed by an internal fuel tank explosion and dropped in its place for the NTSB and others to find, and there's no way anyone can convince a "true believer" that's not what happened, especially since there's no evidence that it did, and the less evidence there is, the more "proof" of a cover-up/conspiracy in the eyes of such folks. But the wreckage that was examined was 100% definitely not that of an aircraft hit by a SAM, and it was completely consistent with a center body fuel tank ullage explosion ignited by an internal ignition source.
 
Ron Levy said:
Exactly what the Air Force, Navy, and civilian aircraft survivabilty experts (including, by invitation, me) told the FAA at the Transport Aircraft Fuel Flammability conference in Washington DC. However, the airlines do not want to pay the price in dollars and weight for an interting system or foaming the tanks.

There's nothing extravegant about an inerting system, you just feed a bit of exaust gas into the tank.
 
Henning said:
There's nothing extravegant about an inerting system, you just feed a bit of exaust gas into the tank.
That works with diesel engined ships but it's a bit trickier with turbine powered aircraft. Various other solutions are used on other combat aircraft. The C-5 was the first plane to have an ullage inerting system, which produced nitrogen enriched air to pump into the tanks to keep the O2 concentration down below the explosivity limit. The C-17 has a similar system, but the C-130 H and J models have open cell foam in their tanks to absorb the energy of an explosive event and contain it to a small volume, and this is also the most popular tactical jet ullage explosion control method. The F-16 has Halon 1301 in bottles to inject into the tanks when going into combat.
 
From AvWeb 5/2006

The right wing fuel tank on a Transmile Airlines Boeing 727-200 apparently blew up while the plane was on the ground at Bangalore, India, last week. ... The FAA is now preparing a final rule (from this NPRM) that may require systems to prevent fuel-tank explosions to be retrofitted on all airliners. But the rule applies only to center tanks and not wing tanks like the one that cooked off last week. The proposed rule is being opposed by the Air Transport Association. The ATA says cash-strapped airlines can't afford the retrofits. Rather than trying to eliminate sources of ignition, the proposed rule sets flammability standards for the vacant space in fuel tanks known as the ullage. The most likely way of meeting those standards is to pump inert gas into that space to displace the oxygen. Boeing's working on just such a system and hopes to have it certified this year. There have been 18 documented fuel-tank explosions in airliners and the FAA predicts at least nine more over the next 50 years if something isn't done.


From AvWeb 2/2004

In March 2001, a Thai Airways 737-400 exploded while sitting on a hot ramp at Bangkok's domestic airport. The NTSB released information that the recorded sound of the explosion was found similar to that of a Philippine Airlines 737-300 that suffered a center-wing fuel-tank explosion in May 1990. In November 2002 Emergency Airworthiness Directives were issued for Boeing 737 models. The system takes compressed air from the engines and passes it through a membrane that separates oxygen and nitrogen. The FAA's system dumps oxygen into the atmosphere and pumps nitrogen into the fuel tanks. The extra nitrogen cuts oxygen content by almost half, making combustion of fuel vapors virtually impossible. The systems cost $140,000 to $220,000 per plane and need about $14,000 worth of maintenance every year. They weigh less than 200 pounds. The NTSB, which has been pushing for some sort of action on fuel-tank explosion hazards, applauded the FAA proposal.

1999 FAA study on inerting systems for aircraft fuel tanks which reviews 13 prior incidents [big]

http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar99-73.pdf


From 6/2004 Flight International article:

Boeing has selected Hamilton Sundstrand to supply a nitrogen generating system (NGS) for the 7E7, making it the first commercial airliner to be designed from scratch with a fuel-tank inerting system.

Unlike the systems in development for current Boeing models, the NGS will inert all the fuel tanks in the 7E7, and not just the centre wing tank. Hamilton Sundstrand is prime contractor and will supply the environmental control system (ECS) -side of the NGS, which takes air from the aircraft's electrically-driven ECS, compresses it and cools it and supplies it to the air separation modules. These, in turn, will be supplied by Carelton Life Support Systems which will provide three membrane-based separation modules per aircraft. The nitrogen-enriched air then goes to a fuel tank nitrogen distribution and venting system, supplied by FR-HiTemp, which is already providing the 7E7's fuel pump and valve subsystem.
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
The FAA is now preparing a final rule [/I](from this NPRM) that may require systems to prevent fuel-tank explosions to be retrofitted on all airliners. But the rule applies only to center tanks and not wing tanks like the one that cooked off last week.


Ya know, I'm torn. Would we be better off with years of regulatory process and stifiling rules to prevent 9 crashes a year, or would we be better off with a tort system that penalizes companies that - in light of the overwhelming evidence - decline to install such systems thereby causing the crashes?
 
9 accidents in 50 years bill, not one year.
 
what i could NEVER understand about how they determine how an accident happeend by looking at the wreckage is, for example...i was watching the discovery channel seconds from disaster on the flight 800 crash and they show how they peiced the plane back together in the hangar...and the guy was pointing out how he figured out from damaged and bent/twisted metal where the explosion came from...what i never understood about ANY investigation and they seem to never take it into consideration, is doesnt anyone ever think that some of the damage that they are seeing was done on the way down..i mean the plane exploded and then broke apart and fell from 14000 feet..isnt it possible that the metal he was examining didnt get damaged by an explosion and maybe it just got damaged becasue it was blown apart at 500 mph and fell 14000 feet in a ball of fire and other twisted wreckage...

i always think that a few of the accident reports are totally wrong because of parts that were examined, then assumed that the damage was from the initial failure, when in reality the peices examined had nothing to do with the crash and were simply damaged from impact or the fall to the ground...
idk if its just me that thinks this or what..but it seems that they assume the parts that are damaged are directly related to the crash and were not damaged otherwise..

Ant
 
There are courses available on the subject and members of the NTSB and other interested parties (regulators, insurance, law enforcement, military, etc.) obtain formal training on it.

Some of the civilian courses available:

http://www.ntsb.gov/academy/CourseInfo/AS101_2006.htm

http://www.academy.faa.gov/cgi/course.cgi?cn=00035&INDEX=TSI

http://www.scsi-inc.com/air_acc_inv.html

http://www.avsaf.org/case/programs_events.html

SupraPilot said:
what i could NEVER understand about how they determine how an accident happeend by looking at the wreckage is, for example...
 
Back
Top