posted 04-18-2002 11:15 PM               

by the way pacer, the AF sparrow is not a completely autonomous radar-guided system. it requires a lock-on from the firing a/c for the majority of its flight until it is close enough for its own radar to track the target. can a sub maintain a radar lock-on to an aircraft 30 miles away while submerged. from what i understand it doesnt detect the presence of a/c overhead by radar. it does so by listening for them.

posted 04-19-2002 10:23 AM               

While it might not be the norm for a sub to fire a missile, until quite recently, there were no land based facilities to train sub personel how to use the VLS systems as is mentioned on the NAVY's own web site.

New VLS Trainer: Hands-on Wins Hands Down
by Bill Kenny, U.S. Navy Submarine School

In many ways, the introduction of the Vertical Launching System (VLS) fundamentally changed the tactical capabilities of the U.S. Submarine Force. Now, some eighteen years after VLS and the Tomahawk weapon system appeared on submarines, VLS training has caught up.

The new VLS Trainer in the Torpedoman "A" and "C" School at Groton, Connecticut brings unprecedented realism to the learning process for operations and maintenance of a complex weapon system.

As instructor TM1 (SS) Joseph Nagel explains, the trainer - so large that it cost a little over a million dollars and required the classroom ceiling to be cut open to install it - will pay for itself in improved learning. "It's a duplicate of a submarine's vertical launch tube, and we use it for training "A" and "C" school students, as well as for hands-on "just-in-time" training for Sailors from the waterfront. It provides a Weapons Department the ability to practice maintenance, as well as tube loading and unloading, in a real world/real time environment," he said.

Enthusiastic at having it on board, TMC (SS) Paul Leone, Division Director for TM "C" School, recounts the story of the trainer's development: "Quarterbacked by the Naval Systems Command (NAVSEA) over the last two-and-a-half years and working with a lot of different agencies and people, it's been a real labor of love to create the VLS Trainer. We can simulate Mk-1, Mk-2 and BSY-1 fire control systems, and it will be able to emulate the systems aboard the new USS Virginia (SSN-774)-class submarines."

Until now, getting vertical launch weapons on-line and keeping them there has presented significant challenges since there were no land-based trainers, and the whole burden of spinning up Sailors to operate VLS systems fell to on-the-job training. "Now we have the first VLS Trainer in a Navy schoolhouse at Groton, with Pearl Harbor standing by to receive theirs shortly," said Chief Leone. "We need to demystify the maintenance and operation of Tomahawk and VLS, and this is just the training tool to do that." ... http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_8/vls.html

The cost for this land based trainer was over a million dollars and will train something like 140 people a year. Before this facility was constructed, I would think that a lot of their training was done on the job while at sea firing missiles with dummy warheads as was done in 1998.

"Two submarines participated in unusual Tomahawk exercise launches in 1998. USS Atlanta (SSN-712) conducted a dual launch consisting of a TLAM-C and a TLAM-N Quality Assurance Test (QAST). This was the first combined conventional and unarmed nuclear test launch from the same platform. USS Minneapolis- St. Paul (SSN-708) also fired a successful TLAM-N QAST during Exercise GLOBAL GUARDIAN ’99, marking the first time that the European Command exercised unarmed nuclear command and control authority over a LANTFLT SSN." http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_3/pullout/submarine_strike.htm

The one reason that the NAVY might have wanted to keep things quiet, besides the fact that the Olympic Games were scheduled to start in the very neaar future and that another jet had done a nose dive into the Florida Everglades under suspicious circumstances, was because of the heat that they were feeling from the administratioon at that time. The fleet had already been cut in half and might have been cut even more if it were known that it had shot down another jet.

"Fleet requirements for submarines on the front lines have not gone down. In fact, they’ve gone up, and they continue to increase. As our SSN force has been cut nearly in half since 1989, the volume of ISR mission tasking undertaken by submarines has doubled, due to the increased national need for information uniquely obtainable by submarines in many new trouble spots around the globe. With 58 SSNs today, and still falling toward 50, we’re already stretched thin by our efforts to meet all the demands. As I said earlier, you submariners who are doing it, know it. Our national leaders are fighting over you, to get enough submarine mission time to meet their needs, and our Fleet Commanders-in-Chief have repeatedly stated needs for a force level of more than 70 SSNs to carry out their heavy, multi-mission tasking. They know that our stealth, endurance, agility, and firepower make SSNs crucial assets in an unstable world, today and for the future. You respond rapidly to any crisis anywhere in the world, giving our national leadership great flexibility. You do what no other platform can do – while on station and forward deployed continuously for months – you can operate either covertly when required, or overtly if desired. " http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_3/new_world.htm

It might not have been the norm for subs to fire missiles, but times are changing. Below is a little bit of information that I found on the NAVY's web site about the attack capabilities of 688-class subs.

posted 05-08-2002 07:24 AM            

On to another cover up....what are your thoughts on the plane that crashed shortly after the WTC..the one that supposely crashed due to another jet that had just taken off or landed before it. The one that crashed where the NY police and fireman lived. That story sure disappeared off the news scene fast. I think it was terroist and it was covered up to save the airlines from more hardship and so people wouldn't stop flying again.

i'm 99.9% sure that flight 93 was shot down, why? because the 2nd plane crashed into the 2nd tower at approx 9ish. Flight 93 went down at 10:10 approx. If there was a fighter jet approx 2 mins behind the 2nd plane that crashed into 2nd tower... You dont think that fighter went looking for flight 93? and then couldnt find it in an hour...I dont think so... they found it...gave it a warning shot to the wing to cripple it..and it flew for a few more miles then went nose down...how else would they have found personal effects and parts of the plane....miles from the orginial crash site. Why were reporter kept 3/4 miles away from site? Why only a hand full of photos of site, when there were zillions of the other plane crashes? I've only seen 3 at the most. Why in the hours right before the 93 crash and there after did reports keep saying they had no idea where that flight was, when they did know, cause the pilot turned on his equipment without the hijackers knowing. Why aren't they making public the voice recordings in the moments before the crash? Too many inconsistancies, in these stories. (reminds me of JFK)

Our government WILL NOT put no fly zones around our nuclear reactors. Why? because it will cause to much financial and economical hardship. What kinda logic is that. How hard is it to fly around something? We are sitting ducks..bottomline.

Those are my thoughts, love to hear yours.

posted 05-08-2002 06:09 PM               

How about this scenario.

posted 05-08-2002 08:55 PM               

Krissa,

Certainly sounds more plausible than the CIA cartoon depicting a fuel tank explosion and the rise of the cockpit/nose section (created with public funds).

posted 05-08-2002 10:02 PM               

At sea aboard USS O'Brien, Feb. 8, 2002 — The special drone missile team makes final preparations for the launch of three rocket-propelled BQM-74E target drones on fantail of USS O'Brien (DD 975) . The drones are painted orange so that they will be easier to see in the water during recovery. Nine U.S. Navy ships took part this training, an anti-ship missile defense training exercise (MISSILEX 02-1) as part of a Commander Task Force Seven Five (CTF 75) Multi-Sail battle group interoperability exercise. All participating ships are forward deployed in Yokosuka and Sasebo, Japan. U.S. Navy photo by Ens. Lyn Niemeyer [020208-N-0000N-001] Feb. 8, 2002

At sea aboard USS Vandegrift, Feb. 7, 2002 — A standard missile leaves a trail of smoke as it is launched from the starboard side of USS Vandegrift (FFG 48) and heads on an intercept course with an incoming "hostile" drone. Nine U.S. Navy ships took part this training, an anti-ship missile defense training exercise (MISSILEX 02-1) as part of a Commander Task Force Seven Five (CTF 75) Multi-Sail battle group interoperability exercise. All participating ships are forward deployed in Yokosuka and Sasebo, Japan. U.S. Navy photo by Intelligence Specialist 1st Class Matthew C. Ruble. [020207-N-0000R-001] Feb. 7, 2002

At sea aboard USS O'Brien, Feb. 7, 2002 — A BQM-74E target drone launches from the fantail of USS O'Brien (DD 975) and will act as a "hostile" anti-ship missile during a missile training exercise. The drones are painted orange so that they will be easier to see in the water and can be recovered. Nine U.S. Navy ships took part this training, an anti-ship missile defense training exercise (MISSILEX 02-1) as part of a Commander Task Force Seven Five (CTF 75) Multi-Sail battle group interoperability exercise. All participating ships are forward deployed in Yokosuka and Sasebo, Japan. U.S. Navy photo by Ens. Lyn Niemeyer [020207-N-0000N-001] Feb. 7, 2002
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/images/ima-weps6.html

posted 05-09-2002 03:00 AM               

quote:

---

It's known that at least two photographs were taken purporting to show an object in the sky at the time of the 747 explosion. One photo, held by the FBI and never released, is described by the lady who took the picture as showing a sguiggly white trail rising from the water and moving upward, a description that fits a missile.

As for the photograph that did make it to the press, it is reproduced below under "fair use" for educational purposes.

---

The "raw" Kabot photo.

quote:

---

General Observations

The bright plume argues against an air breathing engine which excludes all cruise missiles and air breathing drones that simulate cruise missiles. Cruise missiles also have an air ram scoop on the belly, which is missing from the Kabot photo. If the object in the Kabot photo is a real object in the sky, the lack of the scoop and the bright plume argue that it is a rocket propelled missile, such as the Sea Sparrow. It is far from certain just what the object in the Kabot photo really is. Based on the sky gradations, the view is slightly east of North.

---

posted 05-09-2002 09:48 AM            

You said, "One thing I forgot to mention. Boeing took the exact plane to a secluded place in the desert and simulated the exact conditions in order to recreate the senario, but could not cause the fuel tank to explode. They even intensifying the conditions beyond those of twa 800 and still could not produce an explosion. NTSB was VERY upset boeing did this without their knowledge or partipation."

I am very interested in finding out more on this. Can you tell me where you got this information?

Thanks for your help.

posted 05-09-2002 05:05 PM               

Am I the only one that finds this ODD.

That being said, we all know that Kunz says that he is willing to change his mind IF provided scientific evidence that meets his exacting standards.

posted 05-09-2002 05:31 PM            

I assume you mean "couldn't care less".

And I am not in the least surprised that some people here don't bother to ask for verification. It is a hallmark of those folks to buy into anything anyone says without asking for the source. Or, as they might reply:

"Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full."

posted 05-09-2002 06:22 PM               

I found this image of the left side of flight 800 that is said to show evidence of a missile impact. According to the site I found it on, the missile penetrated the cabin of the jet at a shallow angle. Note what appears to be a hole wih scrape marks on the right hand side of the fuselage. It was also reported that traces of PETN residue were found on the seats in this section as well as explosive residue consistent with the combustion byproducts of an aluminum / ammonium perchlorate solid fuel rocket motor.

More information can be found here. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/CHART/chart.html

posted 05-10-2002 03:31 AM               

Someone Has Finally Talked
Reed Irvine
Jan. 31, 2002

Those who accept the government’s claim that the crash of TWA Flight 800 was caused by a fuel-tank explosion dismiss the evidence that the plane was shot down accidentally by missiles launched in a Navy exercise off the Long Island coast. They say that such an accident could not have been covered up because a lot of Navy personnel would have known about it, and some of them would have talked. One of them has finally done so.

He recently said in an interview that I recorded that he was on the deck of a Navy submarine very close to the crash site and saw TWA 800 shot down. He was brought to my attention by an acquaintance of his who told me that this retired Navy petty officer had said he was "underneath TWA 800 when he saw a missile hit it and the 747 explode overhead."

He had told this acquaintance that he had given a statement to the FBI when they returned to their port, and that the FBI had checked all their torpedo tubes and all their missile silos to make sure they had all the missiles on board that they had when they left port. Asked if there were other military vessels in the area, he had said, "Yes, several."

When Pierre Salinger, at a press conference in March 1997, declared that TWA Flight 800 had been shot down accidentally by a U.S. Navy missile, this former presidential press secretary, U.S. senator and ABC News correspondent was mercilessly attacked by his former colleagues. They accused him of peddling unsubstantiated Internet gossip. Salinger said that his information had been confirmed by a source who learned of the Navy’s involvement from a friend who had a son in the Navy.

The son was said to have personal knowledge that a Navy missile had downed the plane, but his father did not want to be identified, fearing his son would suffer retaliation for disclosing information the Navy was hiding. There are hundreds of Navy and Coast Guard personnel, as well as some FBI, CIA, FAA, NTSB and former White House employees, who know that the real cause of the crash of TWA 800 was papered over with a tissue of lies. Two of them, James Kallstrom and George Stephanopoulos, have made statements that indicate an official cover-up.

Stephanopoulos, a Clinton adviser who is now an ABC News correspondent, mentioned on the air a secret meeting in the White House situation room "in the aftermath of the TWA 800 bombing." Kallstrom, who headed the FBI’s TWA 800 investigation, told me – and I have this on tape – that three radar targets close to the crash site were Navy vessels on a classified maneuver.

We know they were submarines because the radar tracks disappeared when TWA 800 crashed.Our newly found talker was on one of those submarines. The Navy claims that it was at least 80 miles from the crash site, but he says it was very close, and that is confirmed by the radar tracks. In our taped interview, he was more guarded than he had been with his acquaintance. He said he didn’t want to do anything that might "mess up" his retirement.

He said he saw "something come up." "I don’t know what in the hell it was," he said, "but that’s what it looked ..." Not completing what he started to say, he said, "You know, something went up."

He estimated that it went up about a mile from his location, which was only a few miles from the shore. He said there were a couple of other subs nearby. When told that the radar tracks of all three disappeared because they submerged when the plane went down, he said, "Yeah, that’s what we did."

He acknowledged that a number of Navy vessels were heading for W-105, a large area of the ocean south of Long Island that is used for naval maneuvers. He said that nothing they did off Long Island was classified, but he was not comfortable in discussing it.

When I called him a few days later, he was scared to death. He feared the Navy would withdraw his pension if I reported what he had said. It was not possible to convince him that the Navy couldn’t do that. Not wanting to worsen his anxiety, his name and other details are being withheld as we try to get his and other interview reports that the FBI has withheld.

posted 05-10-2002 06:38 PM               

The Original CNN Story.

TWA crash investigator won't comment on explosives report
August 23, 1996

Web posted at: 2:00 p.m. EDT

(CNN) -- A key investigator of the crash of TWA Flight 800 declined Friday to
confirm or deny a CNN report that a trace of explosives had been found in the
wreckage of the passenger cabin.

Robert Francis of the National Transportation Safety Board also refused to
comment on a similar report in The New York Times.

The chemical PETN (pentaerythritol tetranitrate) was found on the right side
of the forward passenger cabin between rows 15 and 25, a source told CNN.

The Paris-bound flight exploded and crashed on July 17, killing all 230
passengers and crew aboard. Francis said the NTSB and the FBI were still
trying to determine if the explosion was caused by a bomb, a missile or
mechanical failure. "We need more evidence," he said.

PETN is often used in blasting caps or small detonators, explosives expert
Jack McGeorge said on CNN Friday during a live interview. But he said it would
not be the "majority explosive" in a bomb or missile warhead.

McGeorge described PETN as a "common" explosive that is "typically used together with other things." When investigators find residue of the "other things, they
will be a lot more confident" about what caused the explosion, he said.

There has been no credible claim of responsibility for the downing of Flight
800. "It hasn't moved an inch," one U.S. intelligence official told CNN,
referring to the investigation into a possible international link to the
explosion.

posted 05-11-2002 12:52 AM               

quote:

---

The final readings show chaos in the sky -- with airspeed dropping instantly by almost 200 knots, the pitch angle jumping five degrees, altitude dropping 3,600 feet in about three seconds, the roll angle going from zero to 144 degrees (the plane almost inverted), and magnetic heading changing from 82 degrees to 163 degrees.

The small vane that measures wind angle striking the nose -- situated on the left forward fuselage -- goes from 3 degrees to 106 degrees back to 30 degrees.

---

posted 06-01-2002 12:56 AM               

TWA 800 Findings Challenged
Reed Irvine
May 31, 2002

On the heels of the release of Accuracy in Media's award-winning documentary, "TWA 800: The Search for the Truth," FIRO, the TWA Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization, has petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to reconsider its decision on what caused the plane to crash.

The NTSB's rules provide for such petitions if new evidence has been found or it can be shown that the NTSB findings were erroneous. FIRO's 19-page petition, supported by 71 pages of attachments, can be found on FIRO's Web site, www.flight800.org. It shows that the NTSB's finding that the crash was initiated by a spontaneous explosion in the center-wing fuel tank was erroneous, pointing out that the investigators were unable to find any source of ignition that could have caused the empty fuel tank to explode.

The board's finding was based on an assumption, not evidence. Attachment II of the FIRO petition discusses an analysis of radar data by an FBI consultant who concluded that a component of the plane was blown out of its right side as soon as electric power was lost.

It was the first part of the plane to hit the water, a quarter of a mile closer to the shore than the next closest part. This cannot be explained by the NTSB's fuel-tank explosion theory.

FIRO charges that the NTSB withheld from the public and parties to the investigation the results of the analysis of a strange loud sound recorded on the cockpit voice recorder.

The tape was sent to England to be analyzed by sound experts at the University of Southampton to determine if the explosion was high velocity from an explosive device or low velocity from a fuel-air mixture. The conclusion reached by the British experts has been withheld by the NTSB on the grounds that it "would create a safety hazard."

Translation: it was high velocity.

Another important example of evidence that was classified secret and was withheld from the public was the discovery that metals of "unknown origin" were found in the bodies of many of the 230 who died in the crash on July 17, 1996. The FBI asked the Brookhaven National Laboratory to analyze one of 20 small pellets found in one of the bodies. They contained zirconium and barium, indicative of an incendiary device foreign to a Boeing 747 airliner. The FBI made no effort to determine the source of these pellets.

Retired Brig. Gen. Benton Partin, who helped design missiles for the Air Force, has said that the Brookhaven Laboratory's analysis of the composition of the mysterious pellets suggests to him that they came from a missile. The FBI never showed Gen. Partin or any other missile experts the Brookhaven analysis. They were content to describe the pellets as "origin unknown." Throwing a secrecy blanket over this evidence and failing to determine its source indicates that they knew that sourcing it accurately would undermine their claim that a spontaneous fuel-tank explosion caused the crash.

The Suffolk County coroner, Dr. Wetli, found shrapnel in 89 of the bodies he examined.

The FBI compiled an eight-page list describing the metal found in each body, classifying it secret. FIRO has sued under FOIA to obtain this list. The court ordered the FBI to release it, but the bureau is trying to get the order reversed on privacy grounds, claiming it invades the privacy of the dead. That is a spurious argument because the dead have no privacy rights, but FIRO is not arguing that point. What it wants is the description of the metal found in each of those bodies. It is believed that a lot of it will be pellets. The names can be redacted.

The penchant of the FBI and NTSB for classifying, hiding and altering the TWA Flight 800 evidence shows that they knew the evidence did not support their findings. Last summer the NTSB, headed by a Bush appointee, secretly sold the TWA 800 wreckage, except for the mock-up of the fuselage and one engine, to a recycler. The buyer had to promise to keep it secret to get the contract.

The NTSB says the secrecy requirement was to keep away scavengers and souvenir hunters. Baloney! Why should they care about that once the wreckage was sold? Because what they were really destroying was evidence that could have been used to prove that their explanation of the cause of the crash was wrong. Some of it was so revealing that the FBI would not let even the NTSB investigators see it.

posted 06-01-2002 02:15 PM               

Plots are from 11 minutes before the explosion until 14 minutes after the explosion. The data comes from raw NTSB radar data originally released under FOIA and now publicly available on NTSB CD dated August 2000

Chart Showing Location of Military Exercise Area on 7-17-96

quote:

---

Debris Pattern
The path of the main fuselage and wings of flight 800 is clear through radar sweep 8 when it disappears from radar. There are multiple hits at each sweep of the radar due to debris from the initial explosion. There are four main areas of debris.

The first is from the initial explosion (orange debris field), which happened after 20:31:12, but before 20:31:16.7. This explosion ejected several pieces of debris at high velocity, at right angles, which show up in radar sweeps 1 and 2. Some of the parts were blown as far as 3,200-ft. by Sweep 2, in less than 9.4 seconds but more than 4.69 seconds. By carefully measuring the course of he ejected material and back tracking to its intersection with the aircraft's track, the time of the explosive event can be estimated at 31:13.8. The lead ejecta therefore covered 3.200 ft. in 7 seconds.

The second area of debris is from the separation of the nose section ( red debris field). It appears to have separated from the aircraft at approximately Sweep 2, 9-10 seconds after the last transponder return.

The third area of debris are a cluster of hits as the nose section falls (yellow debris field) from 13,750 ft. These continued to show up sporadically on the radar through radar Sweep 20, or approximately 94 seconds after the initial explosion. There is a significant anomaly in this debris field as the radar picked up an object on radar sweep 1 that was over 1.5 nautical miles from the aircraft's path in 4.69 seconds. In addition, as the nose of the aircraft fell from 13,750 ft, because of its size, it should have been visible on every sweep of the radar and it was not. It appears that some data is missing from the radar data file.

The last debris field (green debris field) is around the location where the main fuselage, wings and engines landed. There are hits on the main fuselage through Sweep 8 and then there is not another radar Hit until Sweep 14 where wreckage is recorded floating downwind through Sweep 20 at this location. There are also parts of the CWT and other objects more than 1 mile downwind from the last radar return and there is a large plume of debris emanating from Sweep 5. There appears to have been a significant final explosion between Sweeps 5 and 6 because the main wreckage splits into two pieces and a great deal of debris are blown downwind.

---

quote:

---

Evidence of a Missile

A Sweep by Sweep analysis of the radar data clearly depicts a plume of very high velocity metal exploding out of the aircraft's right side at approximately 20:31:13. The lead ejecta almost certainly has to be a missile body! With the aircraft on a heading of 071 degrees True, this radar contact separated laterally from the aircraft track on a ballistic trajectory of 190 degrees True, traveling about 3,200 feet in less than 7 seconds. This 119 degree change of direction and high velocity could not possibly have been the result of a Center Wing Tank explosion.

This is not theory or speculation, but hard physical evidence. It takes almost 2 seconds for a bullet fired from a military sniper rifle to travel that distance. Only a missile body, with it's hundreds of thousands of foot pounds (ft/lbs)* of kinetic energy would have the inertia to perform this way on radar. It only takes 6,000 ft/lbs of energy for a 50 caliber heavy machine gun bullet to punch through 3/8 inch thick steel plate. Boeing 747's are constructed of various aluminum alloys and rarely in thickness' exceeding 1/2 inch.

With this much energy, the missile body would slice through the aircraft "like a bullet through a tin can", just as I stated in my April 24, 1997 letter to the Wall Street Journal, in response to Chairman Hall's "It wasn't a missile" letter to the same paper. It is startling to note also that the trajectory of the ejecta (missile body & other parts) is on a direct line from an unidentified boat, 2.9 nautical miles to the Northeast of Flight 800 when it exploded.

* [ 15lb missile body @ 1500 ft/sec, apply 1/2 MV squared = 524,720 ft/lbs of energy ]

---

quote:

---

Eyewitness Accounts from USAir Flight 217

Navy Chief Petty Officer Dwight Brumley was on US Air Flight 217 from Charlotte, North Carolina to Providence, Rhode Island. Mr. Brumley was seated in seat 5F at the window on the right side of the aircraft. He saw a streak of light overtaking his aircraft from right to left. As he lost sight of the streak he saw a large fireball erupt going from his left to his right. He then lost sight of the fireball as it disappeared underneath the right wing

This witness disproves the CIA / NTSB theory that the streak seen by eyewitnesses was the aircraft climbing and burning after an initial explosion. He clearly saw a streak coming from his right to left and TWA Flight 800 was going from his left to his right.

---

Eyewitness Accounts from Boats in the Area

We have access to over 130 eyewitnesses who surrounded the crash. Most of these eyewitnesses saw a streak rising from at or near the surface and intersecting with Flight 800. The NTSB and FBI claim there were no witnesses closer than 8-10 miles from the explosion yet we have interviewed at least 8 eye witnesses who were within 8 miles of the crash. None of them support the CIA / NTSB version of events.

quote:

---

NTSB Eyewitness Group Factual Report - Exhibit 4A

Relevant data from the Eyewitness Group Factual Report:

Based on the data, 183 witnesses said they saw a streak of light, 201 said they saw one or more explosions, 100 said they heard one or more explosions, and 339 said they saw a fireball.
Of the 183 who observed a streak of light, 102 gave information about the origin of the streak. Six said the streak originated from the air, and 96 said that it originated from the surface. Of the 96 who said it originated from the surface, 40 said it originated from the sea and 10 said it originated from land.
One hundred and twenty-eight witnesses reported an immediate end to the streak, 85 described it ending in an explosion, 32 said it ended in a fireball, and 11 said it ended in a flash.

---

posted 06-13-2002 03:17 AM               

Revealed--SHRAPNEL Was Found In 89 TWA 800 http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000701.html

More information can be found in my 06-01-2002 12:56 AM post on this page.

posted 07-12-2002 01:53 PM               

The deadliest U.S. airline disaster prior to the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon was the July 17, 1996, midair explosion that destroyed TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island, N.Y. Six years later, while the official investigation has been closed (or forever forgotten in "inactive pending" status), the nature of the explosion that killed the 230 passengers of the Paris-bound jumbo jet is very much on the radar of independent investigators. Indeed, investigators now have used the government's own regulations to petition the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for a reconsideration and modification of official findings.

Having spent more than two years and $40 million, federal authorities had concluded that the probable cause for the crash of Flight 800 was an explosion within the aircraft's center-wing fuel tank. The investigators admitted that neither the ignition source nor its location within the tank "could be determined from the available evidence."

On the sixth anniversary of the downing of the jumbo jet, the Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization (FIRO), a nonprofit international group made up of professionals, engineers, scientists, former crash investigators and survivors of those killed in the explosion, believe the evidence of what happened now is clear. Based on physical evidence and eyewitness accounts, both those considered during the investigation and many that were not considered, FIRO is convinced it can prove the official determination was wrong.

Tom Stalcup, a physicist who is chairman of FIRO, tells Insight that it was "during a meeting with former NTSB chairman Jim Hall that we became aware of the federal regulation that allows us to file the petition [for reconsideration]. Hall met with us and said if we had more questions we should send them to him. We did have more questions, but our letters went unanswered. Then Hall left the NTSB and Chairwoman Carol Carmody responded to our letters, basically saying that we weren't going to get answers to the questions — that it wasn't in anyone's interest even to correspond with us."

Having established that the NTSB was unwilling to cooperate with FIRO, Stalcup challenged the ruling under NTSB Regulation 845.41(a)) and put together a 20-page petition, plus 70 pages of attachments. "The criteria for the petition," explains Stalcup, "is that you have to show that, based on the evidence, their findings were erroneous and that there was evidence that wasn't considered — that there is new evidence. We met each of these criteria and made at least 100 other points."

The petition, which can be found at www.flight800.org, touches on nearly every aspect of the official investigation, including eyewitness statements, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR), radar analysis and recently declassified FBI reports about the wreckage. One of the major points of the petition cites "the Brookhaven [National Laboratory] report [that] was classified by the FBI as 'secret'" and never was made part of the NTSB public docket. It contains the laboratory results of wreckage items of "unknown origin" that were sent to an external laboratory for examination. The secrecy undermined the NTSB's ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the physical evidence. According to senior NTSB investigator Hank Hughes, group chairman of the Airplane Interior Documentation Group, "there are still unanswered questions concerning evidence sent for examination."

Stalcup says, "One of the interesting points in the 'secret' report is that there were investigators complaining that they hadn't been given enough information about the wreckage," saying there was "little forensic documentation or guidance on large-body-aircraft missile engagements."

According to Stalcup, "More than that, we have information that shows that 20 unusual .2-inch-diameter round pellets that were found in bodies were withheld from the NTSB but analyzed by the FBI and found to have been made of aluminum titanium matrix and other elements like zirconium, barium and cerium. These are pyrotechnics or incendiary devices, and the matrix structure of these objects is consistent with pellets used in antiaircraft missiles."

The FIRO chairman continues: "In fact, I found a quote in National Defense magazine that was referring to warheads that said 'pellets imbedded in titanium matrix' are used in antiaircraft warheads. The 'secret' [Brookhaven] report analysis concluded that the origin of the pellets is 'unknown' and that one of the pellets was submitted for identification because of its dissimilarity in appearance with TWA 800 debris. ...'"

While the petition winds its way through the bureaucratic maze at the NTSB, a lawsuit also has been brought by FIRO against the FBI for failure to release information duly requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Graeme Sephton, a member of FIRO, brought the action in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts because of the FBI's refusal to produce information. "The essence of the problem," explains Sephton, "is that Dr. Wetli [the Suffolk County Medical Examiner] will confirm that the FBI never shared with him any of the forensic information even though it was taken from him during autopsy, and it is he who must have all the available information to make the determination of the cause of death."

Sephton continues: "One of the reasons for a safety investigation is to find out what is flying around inside the plane so they can eliminate those things in another crash that maybe people will survive. What we're looking for is the list of shrapnel that shouldn't have been in the aircraft, and the hope is that the FBI will explain these unknown foreign bodies and ultimately bring us closer to finding out what caused the explosion."

Apparently the FBI didn't feel compelled to share this information with the NTSB investigators and, short of a court order, it is unlikely to be provided to FIRO. Stalcup says, "I'm not convinced that the petition will go anywhere. Not because it doesn't have merit, but because the NTSB doesn't have the guts to honestly search for and report the truth."

Kelly Patricia O'Meara is an investigative reporter for Insight magazine.