TWA Flight 800 investigators break silence in new documentary, claim original conclusion about caus

reply to post by GArnold


I have actually recently come across a theory that I like, that would fit the evidence, including the fuel tank explosion, and a cover up. I just have to dig into the data to see if it can be supported.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Top marks for remaining objective and open minded, obviously interested to know what scenario you have in mind.

I know you have mentioned the lack of witness evidence to an actual launch but maybe a ship based launch from over the horizon wouldn't have been visible - would still have been well in range and flight time still only 45 - 75 seconds.

Isn't it amazing, that when when chickens die, or are missing, we pick the wolf to chair the official investigation as to what really happened? All official "Commissions" , name any one you want, all organized and populated by those factions that would have the most to lose, or gain, by the outcome of any official conclusion.

I think we really have to re-think how "Official Commissions" are selected in any tragedy or issues so important that they have an effect on the well being of the public and country. We need to come up with a methodology that never lets private interests bias the justice and objectivity that a Commission is designed to achieve.

Am I dreaming? Perhaps a good way to start would be to pick a panel using an equal number of 1.) Victims, and/or families of victims. , 2.) Recognized Industry Leaders, 3.) Academic subject area experts, 4.) Government officials. 5). Eye witnesses. (if any). These groups would be formed via a lottery between all that applied for a group seat.

The group leaders would be the result of a lottery in each group, and those people would elect the commission head from among themselves using a ballot system.

At least it would provide a level playing field with a much more likely possibility that it will reach a correct conclusion.

IMHO of course, but seems very democratic to me.

reply to post by chunder


A ship based launched would probably have been invisible to the shore based witnesses, but the pilots in the area would have had a much farther horizon than anyone on shore, and would probably have seen it.

It's possible (I'm still looking at the debris field) that the forward cargo door opened like in United 811. I went on the aircraft that was United 811 after the investigation ended, and that plane never should have landed. The only thing that saved them was a cargo container that they had to push the floor up off of to get out. As the door went up the side of the plane, the floor immediately collapsed onto the cargo container. If TWA 800 didn't have anything to catch the floor, it would have severed control cables and power lines running under it instantly, cutting power to both the CVR and FDR, as well as causing short circuits in wiring that could lead to sparks, and physical damage to the tank below the cargo hold.

reply to post by Zaphod58


That would be inconsistant with what the witnesses saw occur. Multiple witnesses saw a streak of light hit the aircraft in flight and then the aircraft exploded.
Regardless of what the CIA says happened any theory that explains the crash has to HONESTLY explain what those witnesses saw.

Lets break this down into what is actually known.
The aircraft was flying at 13,000 feet MSL.
Multiple witnesses saw a "light like a flare" rise up from a lower altitude and then a large white explosion followed by orange fireballs that fell from the sky. Multiple witnesses saw that "flare" strike an aircraft that was flying in the air. THEN it explode. Some witnesses saw more than one streak of light and heard more than one explosion
Radar tracked the aircraft then it tracked peices. The aircraft was completely destroyed and fell into the sea killing all onboard.

Any theory has to explain all of that.

reply to post by Dragoon01


It fits everything but the witnesses, including the debris field.

A single missile shouldn't have shattered a 747 that way. It also should have left more than small holes. There should have been at least one large hole.

Originally posted by Dragoon01
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

That would be inconsistant with what the witnesses saw occur. Multiple witnesses saw a streak of light hit the aircraft in flight and then the aircraft exploded.
Regardless of what the CIA says happened any theory that explains the crash has to HONESTLY explain what those witnesses saw.

Lets break this down into what is actually known.
The aircraft was flying at 13,000 feet MSL.
Multiple witnesses saw a "light like a flare" rise up from a lower altitude and then a large white explosion followed by orange fireballs that fell from the sky. Multiple witnesses saw that "flare" strike an aircraft that was flying in the air. THEN it explode. Some witnesses saw more than one streak of light and heard more than one explosion
Radar tracked the aircraft then it tracked peices. The aircraft was completely destroyed and fell into the sea killing all onboard.

Any theory has to explain all of that.

Exactly, and wires shorting in the center fuel tank does not explain all that.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
A single missile shouldn't have shattered a 747 that way. It also should have left more than small holes. There should have been at least one large hole.

The documentary posits that if the missile had a proximity fuse, it would have gone off near the plane before hitting it, and thus presumably not making a big hole. Possible?

Also I'm no missile expert, but the NTSB report claims that if it had been a missile, the witnesses would have seen a rocket motor burn, then once the missile was up to speed and had burned the fuel it would just "coast" to the target and witnesses wouldn't have sen the light streaking toward the target so that was the explanation in the NTSB report about why witnesses didn't see a missile.

One thing that occurs to me is that may be an over-generalization. I'd expect different missiles can have different burn times and operating modes, and some might have longer burning rocket motors.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Possible, but unlikely. They explode pretty close to the aircraft with a proximity fuse. There's not really a set distance from the aircraft, as a number of them go with a sensor that has to reach a certain level before detonating, so it depends on the size of the target, etc. But usually they're pretty close (you could be talking about just a few meters). But it is possible.

As for the motor, to use an analogy, if you were to look at SST designs from four different countries (pick four at random), all designed without any access to anyone else's design, you would swear that all four were copies of each other. Generally form follows function, and you can only pack so much into a shoulder fired missile. You'd get a longer burn from some of the ones that have a higher ceiling, but probably not a huge difference.

An SM-2 would probably leave a long trail behind it, but again, pilots at the altitude of TWA 800 should have noticed the launch signature of an SM-2.




That's not exactly the most inconspicuous signature.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Zaphod58
A single missile shouldn't have shattered a 747 that way. It also should have left more than small holes. There should have been at least one large hole.

The documentary posits that if the missile had a proximity fuse, it would have gone off near the plane before hitting it, and thus presumably not making a big hole. Possible?

The example often noted is the radar directed missile of the pair that shot down the KAL flight - it's proximity fuse set it off under the tail of the aircraft and 50 metres behind it. It had a 40kg warhead - much more than a manpad's which would have been fused to explode closer.

the shrapnel from the blast shredded the tail section, damaging out 3 of the 4 hydraulic systems and causing enough holes in the fuselage to cause a decompression alarm after 11 seconds - which enabled analysts to determine the damaged area at 1.75 square feet.

-source

Looking at the wiki page for FIM-92 Stinger manpad the description says the motor has a sustained burn, and the comparison table with Stinger and Russian missiles seems to show that most of them have sustained motor burn - ie no coasting.

One of the photos of a stinger launch shows a fairly large signature after the initial "pop" out of the tube.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Looking at the wiki page for FIM-92 Stinger manpad the description says the motor has a sustained burn, and the comparison table with Stinger and Russian missiles seems to show that most of them have sustained motor burn - ie no coasting.

So then is the "coasting" claim suspect?

Here it is from page 270 of the NTSB report in note 577:
www.ntsb.gov...

577 Because of the distance from which a hypothetical missile would likely have been launched, most direct-strike scenarios and any self-destruct scenario (for further discussion of a missile self-destruct scenario, see section 2.3.1.3) would require that the missile travel about 7 seconds in "coast" mode; therefore the missile would have been invisible before striking the airplane. Only if a missile had been launched from almost directly underneath the accident airplane (as close to vertically as possible) would the "coast" time have been significantly reduced or eliminated.

What you posted doesn't sound consistent with that claim, with the noted exception of the launch occurring nearly directly under the plane.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


If it's at the very end of its range, then it will coast for a little while, but not long before self destructing. It all depends on what type of missile it was. Some can reach higher than TWA 800 was when it exploded, so if it was one of those, it would probably have still been under power at impact. If it was one that had a ceiling close to where the plane was, then it would probably be coasting.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


As the note says, that would depend on the exact missile and it's range vs range to the target.

Missiles will always coast after the engine fuel is exhausted - however the engines have sustained burns for quite long periods of time that would be visible - they do not have a massive initial acceleration and then coast for most of their flight (except for some modern hyper-velocity types), and so the idea of a missile that was not visible for most of its flight because it was coasting is not viable.

Edit: apparently the test was done with a stinger

Edit 2: and apparently the stinger has an impact fuse - not a proximity one!

Edit 3: apparently the stinger has a 17 second time to self destruct - Stinger operating manual. Various places around the 'net say the missile has a coasting period after the motor burns out, but I couldn't find anywhere that gave a duration for the motor.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

As the note says, that would depend on the exact missile and it's range vs range to the target.

Missiles will always coast after the engine fuel is exhausted - however the engines have sustained burns for quite long periods of time that would be visible - they do not have a massive initial acceleration and then coast for most of their flight (except for some modern hyper-velocity types), and so the idea of a missile that was not visible for most of its flight because it was coasting is not viable.

So longer than eight seconds?

The NTSB estimate was eight seconds of motor burn, then up to 7 seconds of coasting:
www.ntsb.gov...

Investigators determined that if witnesses had observed an actual missile attack on TWA flight 800 (beginning about the time that an airborne missile would have become visible to the time that the wreckage from TWA flight 800 fell into the ocean), they would have seen the following:
(1) a light (the burning of the missile motor) ascending very rapidly and steeply for about 8 seconds (this rapidly moving light, which would have been visible for at least 12 nm from the launch point, would not descend like a firework or flare);
(2) the light disappearing for up to about 7 seconds;

I thought they might burn longer than 8 seconds but as I said I'm no expert on missiles.

reply to post by Zaphod58

They seem to base the coasting claim more on a basis of horizontal travel than vertical travel though of course both are considered. They mention near horizontal motion I suppose because that's apparently what some of the "streak" witnesses reported.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The FIM-92 Stinger has a flight motor time of 5.9 seconds burn time. It then has a 0.25 second coast time. You will probably be looking at something similar in terms of motor burn time for a similar Russian system. Sorry, but I don't have time to sit and hunt it down tonight, gotta get some sleep before I go postal on someone in the morning over this trailer we're hauling.

reply to post by Zaphod58


It doesn't fit the FDR data, which indicates an external explosive shockwave.

Or it did before it was subsequently edited to remove the relevant data.

As can be seen at that article it is speculated what could account for the data, the witness description, cause of breakup, debris field etc etc, which would be the detonation of 90lb odd of RDX at 60ft distance, specifically 60ft to the front left and below the plane.

If the calculations at the article are correct this also shows that the CWT couldn't be capable of producing that shockwave.

Whether proximity / self destruct or successful intercept doesn't really matter, nor does the actual physical process of how this caused a CWT ignition, it is sufficient (especially coupled with the radar data) simply to demonstrate that a missile was involved and therefore the investigation should be re-opened.

I know also you mention about no-one witnessing a launch and that if over the horizon it would still have been visible to plenty of planes. I'm not sure of this, it assumes visibility was good and that there were other planes with a line of sight. The actual break up and fireball of the plane itself is much more visible than a launch and at an altitude likely to be seen by more planes, but there weren't many who reported seeing it.

A sub based launch, especially if submerged, would be much less visible and also go some way to explaining alleged radar returns (an object appearing in a location where it should have been picked up on previous sweeps).

reply to post by chunder


If they saw something from shore then don't you think visibility was pretty good? Or was out different for the pilots of other planes?

If it was a sub launched SAM it is still launched on the surface (at least the launcher is on the surface). The sub has to have something sticking up to identify where the plane is to give the missile initial guidance. Once launched it can take over on it's own. But even if launched underwater the motor doesn't fire until it's clear of the surface, which means, guess what, a launch signature that everyone missed again.

Did you look at the rest of the data too? Or just the "outside shockwave"? If you look at that entire line, the aircraft was three thousand feet LOWER than just a couple of seconds earlier. They went from thirteen thousand feet to ten thousand it looks like.

reply to post by chunder


A couple of problems with the explosives theory though. An SM-2 warhead is a couple of hundred pounds. A MANPADS warhead is less than 10. So where did the 90 lbs come from? If you look at a comparison chart of just a few MANPADS systems, the majority of them use HMX, and have less than a pound, to just over a pound of actual explosives in them.

The SM-2 warhead is in the 137 pound range. So that's too heavy. So we have way too light, to too heavy. Even without exact specs on the amount of explosives, looking at other missiles we can figure that it is well under the required weight. A MANPADS with a roughly 15 pound warhead weight, has 14 ounces of actual explosives. That still would put the weight of explosives in an SM-2 out of the range required.

As for the data that shows an "outside shockwave", I would say that it shows better evidence of a mechanical failure than it does a shockwave.

I'm looking at the full report now. At 20:31:11, just before the alleged shockwave hit, the aircraft was at 13,772 feet, 288 indicated airspeed (298 knots), with a 3.6 degree pitch angle, and a 3 degree Angle of Attack and a vertical acceleration of 0.9G.

One second later, at 20:31:12 the aircraft was suddenly at 10,127 feet, 100 IAS, with an 8.3 degree pitch angle, and an AOA of 106 degrees, and a vertical acceleration of -0.89G.

Even with a vertical acceleration showing negative, being that low, there is no way in hell that the aircraft dropped over 3600 feet in one second. Even with a missile exploding directly below it. The data appears to show an electrical problem, giving spurious readings to the FDR at the beginning of the event that tore the plane apart.

The EPR data is another sign that something weird was happening. The entire flight, including take off, the highest EPR recorded was on number 2 engine, at 1.51. At the time the blast happened, the outboard left engine dropped to 1.14, while the other three jumped to well over twice what they had been. At take off, the EPR was 1.34, 1.33, 1.34, and 1.36. At the time of the explosion, they went to 1.14, 2.46, 2.36, and 2.44.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

The FIM-92 Stinger has a flight motor time of 5.9 seconds burn time. It then has a 0.25 second coast time.

It must be more than that if it has 17 seconds before self destruct.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


That might be for the earlier versions, but that was the only motor burn time I could find on it.