Roger

Dear Cindy, My source is an old newsletter that I have somewhere in my files. I am going to write myself a note to make a quick search when I get home and will let you know tomorrow.

L

As far as ruling anything out, as I said, NTSB never decided on ignition cause ... although they had some favorites. You're now read Hall's summary, and you see that for yourself. For the overall, however, I think somewhere in Logic 101 we must have discussed the idea of keeping in any possible notions simply because one may not rule in or out a specifc causation. We cannot rule a in thus we cannot rule b out. Terrorist? Errant missile? Empty tank issue? A/C pak issue? And there must be others.

By the way, Roger, I believe NTSB did address the issue of the paths and speeds of various parts of the 747, although I do not recall what they said. I do seem to recall that some initial conclusions about that issue were changed later. Ciao

lee

bu bu but what about the "grassy knoll"???? some of you people KILL me!!!

David

I'm surprised most of you people aren't at home salivating over the new(?) Star Trek series.

Jym

IMO, TWA 800 was an accident not a terrorist attack. 747 are OLD planes and any little itty bitty short etc. could have caused the catastrophic explosion that caused the plane to come down. Secondly, terrorists always claim responsibility and people in the MidEast and elsewhere always jump for joy when a terrorist act is committed. I never heard of anyone claiming responsibility and I never saw any anti-American, the plane deserved to be downed chants of glee anywhere.

Roger

The source of my information is an article by Ian Williams Goddard printed in an obscure newsletter called the Rothbard-Rockwell Report May, 1999. Goddard quotes from CIA video: "Just after the aircraft exploded it pitched up abruptly and climbed several thousand feet from its last reported altitude of about 13,800 feet to a maximum altitude of about 17,000 feet ... Flight 800 reached the peak of its ascent about 20 seconds after it exploded." More, in Goddard's words, "So the CIA says the truncated airframe flew upwards about 3,200 feet in 20 seconds, or 50 meters per second. The problem with that claim is that the 747 in question has a listed climb rate that is five times slower, at only 10 mps. When I asked veteran 747 pilot Captain Richard Russell about the maximum climb rate of an aerodynamically sound 747, he told me, 'If you let the speed build up to the barber pole (maximum operational speed) and then gave the maximum rapid back pressure on the yoke, you might get 4,000 fpm(20 mps), but only for a very short time-a few seconds. The kinetic energy would be dissipated very rapidly.'" And later in the article, Goddard notes that "... aeronautics engineer Edward Zehr has proven mathematically, around 5 seconds after the center-of-gravity shift resulting from the loss of Flight 800's forward section, the remaining airframe would stall and the force of lift would fall to zero." Further along, Goddard writes, "Air National Guard pilot and eyewitness Major Frederick Meyer said the CIA scenario 'isn't what happened', he also said it's a 'pure fabrication'"

I don't know the reputations of Goddard, Zehr or Major Meyer. I'd like to know. However, the final explanation seems implausible. The explanation could not be recreated in laboratory. Something smells in the final governement explanation of why TWA 800 blew up.

Pardon?

Where in the terrorist handbook do you find the instruction that terrorists must always take credit publicly for acts of terror? For that matter, how do you know no one took credit for TWA 800 but the reports were deemed to be a matter of national security and thus not made public by our government? Indeed, if it is true that no one claimed responsibility, that in itself sounds funny, as you'd think a fringe group might do so just to boost its credentials in the terrorist world.

Bin Laden never took credit for WTC, did he? Indeed, his spokesman initially denied his involvement.

mel

What about the photo they showed? You know, the one where the people were having a party on a deck on Long Island and they happen to have the plane behind them with a long white flash racing towards it? I saw that picture on the news and I have no idea how any one can deny that it looks like it was hit with something.

Roger

Did a little research on this Goddard fellow. He seems to be more a free-lance journalist than a scientist. Though he is still highly critical of the government findings, he discounts a land-to-air missile.

L

Roger, that's a very intersteing description of what occurred with the increase in acceleration. Just for a moment we assume it is correct, and it is what occurred, please explain the significance. Specifically, does it suggest a missile ... a bomb ... or something other than a fuel tank explosion. I am asking because I would like to know what conclusions this analysis support. I do believe the NTSB addressed this facet, but do not recall what they said (I will check on this), as well as the picture that suggest an errant missile or other object streaking toward TWA. Thanks, and ciao

Roger

Though no expert myself, I have read that TWA 800 was too high in air for a surface-to-air. Not even close. My own humble opinion is that a small bomb blew up the plane and could not be detected due to it blowing up over water. It is amazing what the government was able to do to re-piece the plane but perfection can't be expected. I only wish they were honest enough to admit it.

Not Saying

I think it was an incendiary device attached to the fuel tank (or somehow placed inside it) due to sabotage. (I believe the plane took off at night, so maybe that's why no one saw the device?). That might explain the first flash of light people saw before the main explosion.

I am at a loss to understand how anyone could accomplish this sabotage, but then again, WTC shows that a lot can be accomplished by someone who has resources and is determined.

The only possible "cover-up" theory would be that one of our own military jets shot it down by mistake, but that's too outlandish even for me to accept.

Monique

FWIW I found this interesting article.
I have to say I try and give the investigators the benefit of the doubt but I am open to the possiblity due to the fact that it wouldn't be that hard to hide from an american public that for the most part just goes with the flow and believes every single thing that comes out of the biased media and politicos of the world. Most of you that seem to questionit seem very thoughtful and contrary to some peoples opinions I doubt have ever been to Star Track the Experience at the Las Vegas Hilton. LOL I hate that show and can't believe they ever revived it. Here is the link.
http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/articles/twa2.html

L

Yesteday, I took another look at some of the NTSB final report. Assuming NTSB is being truthful, they said some things that are pretty convincing for eliminating bomb or missile events. They recovered 95% of the plane and reassembled it. They said they found no "signatures' of explosion, and they described what that would look like. They also could not find an entry hole big enough to suggest a missile. However, there were photographs and eyewitness statements, including some military helicopter pilots, that reported seeing a streak and then a series of explosions. I was not able to locate anything definitive explaining away those sightings. I do not know where this leaves us ... except that NTSB has in effect setlled on what they consider the most likely occurrence and causation. I'm not NTSB expert ... so I do not know whether they ever reopen investigations, and what the procedure for doing so might be. I would much prefer to think NTSB would not guess or lie or cover up ... but this entire issue, now in the new context of the 11th, is preplexing. And needs to be reexamined within our new awareness. I'll defer to someone else on that question. I have no ideas about that whatsoever. Ciao