from..http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/twa800.htm

That takes us to the "HOW" of the TWA-800 scam:

Perhaps the most damning portion of the investigation was the faked center-tank explosion demonstration. It would have been relatively simple to re-create the proposed (and probable) conditions of the TWA-800 flight.

However, to do so would quickly have proven what DIDN'T happen - unacceptable!

The center tank "test" allegedly "proved" that a center tank full of jet fuel vapor could be made to explode with a 1/4 milli-joule of energy, back-fed to a fuel probe.

To prove their theory, the lab DID NOT use a fuel probe; nor did they use jet fuel vapor. Nor, did they utilize a realistic voltage/current. Instead, they used a tungsten filament from a light bulb, using thousands of times as much energy, in a much smaller tank filled with a mixture hydrogen, propane, and air.

Beyond the elementary heating characteristics of the tungsten filament, any electrical engineer will advise you that an electrical arc occurs at a temperature of 10,000 degrees, Fahrenheit! In a sentence, they built a hydrogen-propane bomb, detonated by a high-energy electrical spark. There is nothing scientific, nor forensic about that "test."

For those not familiar with the 'close-in' technical details:

1. Given the wiring and circuit board construction of the B-747 Fuel Quantity Indicating System (FQIS), the 'quantity averaging' and also the 'temperature compensating' circuitry, there is no way to get the necessary electrical power (claimed by the NTSB) to the fuel probes. The component manufacturer, Honeywell, confirmed that fact.

2. Any residual fuel (300 pounds) would have surrounded at least part of one probe, providing a non-volatile (energy dissipating) current path if the alleged current could have made it that far. Only such a current path would be possible for any 'stray' energy. An open-air spark was impossible.

3. The alleged back-fed current would have been distributed equally among all the probes, diminishing any possible danger from the current.

4. The proposed electrical current requirement would have tripped at least one circuit breaker or burned any associated low-current component, wire or printed circuit board 'track.' [Lightning strikes would have done this type of damage to many aircraft before. Contrary to popular belief, aircraft are not the electrically insulated 'Faraday cage' they are desired to be.]

5. Until the aircraft had enough time to 'cold-soak' at a cruise altitude, the fuel mixture would have been more 'rich' as a result of the climb, not leaner. The fuel tank vapor is vented in the climb - to prevent the tanks from rupturing from the expanding trapped air. Thus, the climb was actually providing significant cooling, as the vapor vented overboard.

6. If the theoretic NTSB center-tank explosion did happen, the blast-pattern damage doesn't fit.

As has been illustrated before, if the center tank had exploded as the initiating event, it would have punched a force downward, through the weaker belly of the aircraft. The associated debris (such as the air-conditioning 'packs') would have marked the starting point of the debris field. Instead, that particular debris was found miles INTO the debris field.

Also, bodies above the tank would have been badly burned during the alleged initiating event - they were not.

The obvious damage in the aircraft remains strongly suggests tthat at least one missile entered from the right front, exploding in the vicinity of the left wing root. (The PA-103 wing center section came down in one piece. TWA-800's left wing was blown off.) Given the closure rates, the missile was probably doing a progressive explosion, maximizing in the left wing root area.

Here, we come to an interesting mystery. The damage to the aircraft, as well as the debris pattern suggest three separate explosions in three separate locations. The shattered cockpit is a mystery by itself, given the remains of PanAm Flight 103. That cockpit section was in one piece after striking solid ground.

In the TWA-800 aircraft reconstruction in the warehouse, it is interesting that the tail, wings and cockpit are seemingly 'unimportant.' They are not!

While the center tank fuel burned, it didn't explode. The missile blast (from the left side) would have caused the damage cited by the NTSB. Otherwise, the fuel could not have been ignited.

Independent studies indicate the IMPOSSIBILITY of the NTSB scenario!

Note:


Pictures of the recent Thai B-737 blast/fire show so much black smoke and flame (with no damage to the fuselage in the time frame of the picture) that the center tank couldn't have been so empty as to cause a vapor ignition. The same 'loaner' investigator as TWA-800 asserted that it was a nearly identical event.

Interestingly, the FBI certified the discovery of traces of a blasting substance, known as PETN in the aircraft interior of TWA-800. The 'official' claim was that the 'traces' came from a recorded test exercise of a bomb-sniffing dog.

The particular TWA-800 aircraft (per Sander's documents) was being prepared for flight to Honolulu at the time of the so-called bomb-dog test. Another blatant fabrication.

Even if there had been such a spill of 'test' material from the alleged bomb-dog test, it should be noted that blasting PETN is white in color, as opposed to the reddish-brown PETN samples illuminated by James Sanders and his wife. However, U.S. military solid rocket propellant is reddish brown.

For particularly interesting photographic evidence, a New York Times picture of the lower left front (below first-class) shows three distinct combat exit holes (petalled sheet metal). That same piece has quite obviously been altered in the re-assembly, to disguise the nature of the damage (labeled as "L-1" in the warehouse reconstruction). Other 'combat' damage has also been documented.

Also indicative, is the Presidential Executive Order which muzzled a single Navy unit in the area. The timing on the order was far too perfect to be unrelated. To be brief, it is necessary to identify the total of sub-units affected by that order.

We must also pay attention to the fact that if the TWA-800 explosion could have happened the way the NTSB wants us to believe, the CIA couldn't have legally interviewed witnesses, produced the video which scammed the viewing public; nor, could any government agency request CIA assistance, nor use the tape.

That takes us to the interesting question of, "Then, just how DID the CIA get and stay involved?"

The answer lies in an exchange of letters with Representative Trafficant. In those letters, some interesting details are revealed:

1. Presidential Order 12833, issued by President Reagan. In that order, like others, the President bypasses the Constitution and U.S. law to create an independent authority - so long as it's accepted. In EO-12333, Reagan granted sweeping powers to the CIA to do anything they want, so long as it's 'justifiable.' With a few words of psycho-babble; it became "justified."

2. The responses to Trafficant's direct questions were skilled double-talk which were terminal non-answers.

3. Some of the responses were disguised lies attesting to the arrogance of the CIA, in particular. While they alluded to the science of aerodynamics, their video was nothing more than a visual presentation of Plausible Assertion, but a lie, none-the-less. Otherwise stated, the video was NOT based on aerodynamics or Flight Recorder data. The CIA style was epitomized by their statement, "...[the CIA] consulted Boeing engineers to obtain some of the Boeing 747 technical parameters used in the CIA's modeling."

The reality is that the 'Boeing parameters' couldn't possibly have resulted in the video presentation - if applied in an honest or scientific fashion. Note that the Agency did NOT claim to have actually used the parameters in the video production - psycho-babble.

4. Likewise, the NTSB responses cleverly and methodically distorted facts and logic to an extreme.

In another set of events, Pan Am Flight 103 activist, Victoria Cummock, filed a suit against former Vice President Al Gore for pressuring her position on the airline safety issues. In that lawsuit, a CIA memo turned up, indicating that Victoria had been the subject of a CIA psychological profiling. Thus, the CIA was conducting activities against a U.S. citizen, in the domestic environment, independently of any national security interest. In theory, that was a felony.

Beyond the distortion of facts and deficiency of logic, it is shocking that the media presented the TWA-800 CIA video. The CIA video showed the aircraft exploding, then the aft section climbing 3,000 feet - impossible!

It is important to realize that the front end of the aircraft was separated. At a climb speed of approximately 300 knots, the forward pressure on the nose would have been tremendous, thus the primary internal force (causing the separation) would have had the effect of decelerating the remaining aft section. Essentially, the aft portion of the fuselage was blown backward.

The force necessary to separate the nose would decelerate the aft portion of the aircraft to an instant stall airspeed regime, coupled with the forces of the 'cup' effect of the exposed fuselage remains. The broken necks (autopsy reports) of the passengers above the shoulders tells us that's exactly what happened.

Given that the horizontal stabilizer has a built in aerodynamic downward vector (to ensure a pitch-down [stall prevention] in the event of any un-trimmed deceleration), the wings - at best would have almost have instantly stalled.

In the best-case scenario (both wings rigidly attached) the aft remains MIGHT have done a very fast loop around the center-of-lift, then stalled. No circular pyrotechnics were observed.

Such an abrupt pitch-up would have also caused the engines to have 'compressor-stalled,' killing any significant thrust.

The Defense Department 'primary' (no transponder) data clearly shows an immediate deceleration and descent of all parts.

Returning to the CIA video presentation, imagine the integrity and quality (convenience) of intelligence critical to national security being supplied by the CIA to any government agency - including the President. In a sentence, the collective effort and obvious intent of the CIA is damned frightening!

The damage in the aircraft remains clearly indicates that the left wing was blown off by the missile. In any case, there would be insufficient airspeed in the fall to separate the wing.

With the wing separation, the remains would roll, not climb. As a minimum, when the front-end separated, the wing spar would have lost a major portion of it's rigidity, with the breach of the fuselage cross-section. If anything, the wings should have folded, upward.

Examining the remains of the engines, the isolated damage to the right side of the No. 2 engine and the forward bend to a 1/3 segment of the titanium 'fan blades' of the No. 2 engine speak to a powerful explosion from the rear.

The last of the (known) valid Flight Data Recorder also indicates a massive event which is inconsistent with the center-tank explosion scenario.

There is also the 'conveniently' missing 4 seconds on the Flight Data Recorder. The ATC transponder returns indicate four seconds more power than the NTSB presented FDR data. Those four seconds would show a tremendous amount of information; yet, it's conveniently "missing in action."

The 'official' Cockpit Voice Recorder data seems to be highly questionable as well.


So, the remaining question goes to the "WHY" of the cover-up.

Let us settle for the obvious conclusion that money is typically the only motive for government agencies to indulge in such fabrications. Whether it was a matter of covering for the military, so as to protect their budget (very possibly civilian contracts), or justifying investigative agency budgets, money is the only probable issue. Typically, military careers mean little; scapegoats are easy to create.

Assuming that the electronics firm involved with the Navy defense / attack systems had a flawed product, they would be hunting for business today. Now, there's some BIG money!

The national security arena leaves another possibility. Certainly, the TWA-800 event would demonstrate the typical Navy ineptness as found with the USS Vincennes and the USS Stark incidents in the background. More recently, the USS Cole was another continuing deadly and glaring demonstration of intelligence failures, as well as military impotence and incompetency.

If TWA-800 was demonstrated to have been taken down by terrorists, the CIA would have been demonstrated to be extremely ineffective at their assigned intelligence task. Given the details of "Millenium Bombing" plot, the CIA was clearly demonstrated to have been oblivious to the plan, regardless of the later shown connection to the World Trade Center bombing. The chief character in the "Millenium Bombing" plot was caught exclusively by either a chance inspection - or alternate (non-CIA) intelligence) at the Canadian border-crossing. While the CIA attempted to take credit for the 'catch,' the reality was identified to the embarrassment of the CIA.

Most strange in the case of TWA-800 was the criminal prosecution of James Sanders and his wife, Liz. While they were able to identify evidence which cemented the missile theory, their evidence was confiscated, debunked in a totally amateur and criminal fashion; and, they were prosecuted in the style of the Gestapo or KGB. It is also worth noting that the news media surrendered the matching evidence they were holding, without a fight.

Another amazing fact in the periphery, is that court records clearly demonstrate that the BATF / FBI informant, Carol Howe - of the OKC bombing, received the same "silencing" treatment, which precluded her testimony. She had accurately warned of the Murrah bombing and it's timing. The FBI and BATF agents responded by not dropping off their children at the daycare, on that deadly morning.

While the OKC bombing might normally be regarded as extreme and totally unrelated, the Sanders-style witness and evidence treatment being nearly identical, is NOT to be separated.

Against that particular history is the passionate FBI claim that there was no evidence of a criminal act. That claim is shocking, just given the known terrorist claims to the disaster. The terrorist motivation is unquestionable, given the USS Vincennes shoot-down of the Iranian A-300. Thus, the terrorist claims cannot rationally be dismissed for any valid reason.

The terrorist claims are also clearly supported by an ambitious terrorist plot known as "Project Bojinka." One of the "Bojinka" participants, Ramzi Yousef (American Spectator - Sept. 1997), made the TWA-800 claim. He was well known to the FBI as a reliable terrorist, later to be prosecuted for the World Trade Center bombing.

One has to question what constitutes "evidence," if Ramzi Yousef is to be disbelieved.

If one cannot accept the claim of a criminal, perhaps it is worth noting that the director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism, Yousef Bodansky, in his book “Bin Laden - the Man Who Declared War on America,” cites a list of Arabic editorials, and communiqués, which claim or cite TWA-800 as a terrorist act. In a sentence, it was criminal to not have investigated the terrorist angle with a vengence. Instead, we got a video cartoon.

The frightening reality is that no amount of paranoia or conspiracy theory can match the undeniable and certified horror in cover-up of the TWA-800 case - among others. Intelligence must prevail over propaganda.


"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth."




| HOME |