Warbird Information Exchange

I have a copy of the info released to the group that is trying to prove that is was not a center fuel tank explosion. I have two CD's full of data, of which the NTSB only looked at a quarter of before making their final decision. I am working with the man who led the group to take the NTSB to court and won. There are some really interesting facts.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

O.K. he was an airline pilot (bear with me as I am still reading all of this data.) How does that change the fact the a pilot is an eyewitness to the crash and that is not important. "What I saw in there was a cartoon. It had nothing to do with what I told them, and it is like they just made up what they wanted me to see"-that very pilot talking of the computer sim they made to describe what happened.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

I assume you have not read the full NTSB report and also not studied very hard in physics and aerodynamcis. There is a ton of science in that report and it is hard the nullify real science and investigation.

The witness you refer to as having seen the airplane just go straight down is the HH-60 pilot.

The FBI and CIA were the first to interview the witnesses. The NTSB got the statements from them and then also interviewed the most credible witnesses again later.

From NTSB Report:

"For a missile to have initiated the TWA flight 800 breakup sequence, it would have had to have been fired at least 41 to 49 seconds before the initial development of a fireball (555). However, the pilot of the HH-60 helicopter indicated that he saw a fireball developing just 1 to 5 seconds after he first saw the streak of light (556). Therefore, he must have been observing the late stages of the airplane's breakup and not a missile attack(557). The captain of Eastwind Airlines flight 507 also could not have seen a missile attack because the explosion that he reported having seen occurred about 34 seconds after the CWT explosion. Therefore, he must have seen the development of the fireball, not the earlier CWT explosion. Further, the Eastwind captain stated that he did not see a missile or anything coming up at or hitting the airplane.

555 - This would comprise a 7- to 15-second missile flight plus about 34 seconds from the time of the CWT explosion to the outboard wing separations.

556 - Although the Safety Board recognizes that witnesses frequently provide inaccurate estimates of time, the Board considers it highly unlikely that the HH-60 pilot would have reported seeing the streak of light for only 1 to 5 seconds if he had actually seen the streak of light for 41 to 49 seconds.

557 - In addition, the HH-60 pilot stated that the fireball followed the same trajectory as the streak, which is consistent with the streak and the fireball both representing the airplane."

[quote="mustangdriver

I have a copy of the info released to the group that is trying to prove that is was not a center fuel tank explosion. I have two CD's full of data, of which the NTSB only looked at a quarter of before making their final decision. I am working with the man who led the group to take the NTSB to court and won. There are some really interesting facts.[/quote]



The problem with trying to prove that it was not a center tank explosion is that it is virtually impossible to prove that one thing didn't happen unless you prove that one of the alternatives did happen. So, unless someone can prove it was something else, the center tank theory is still on the table.

Similarly, you can't prove that UFO's don't exist. One hasn't landed on the White House lawn yet, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. Doesn't mean they do either.

On the topic of eyewitnesses, people try to fill in the blanks in what they see. Someone sees a streak of light, then an airplane goes down. Aha, it was a missile!! So they tell the FBI that they saw a missile streak up and hit the airplane. Fortunately, the FBI, NTSB, etc. are smart enough to realize that unless you saw the AIM-7 markings on the side of the missile and wrote down the serial number as well, all you really saw was a streak of light, which you interpreted as a missile. All because that is what fit your mental pattern recognition program. This is one of the issues which makes eyewitness reports so unreliable.

I actually agree with alot of what you guys are saying. I am not sold an a missle, but something went down here. As far as aerodynamics go, I have studied them, and even graduated from flight school. And I can tell you that what they are saying took place is amazing. They say that without the forward fuselage that the plane climbed for several seconds, and then rolled over. That is not what is going to happen. With out the weight of all of that area the plane would pitch up and torque over. In a matter of tenths of seconds not for 5-7 seconds. Do a search on Flight 800 on youtube. there was a special on there abou tthe witnesses speaking out about having their stories changed. if this is all straight forward, why change people's stories? I don't want you all to think I am arguing I am not. I just want to know the truth, and I also think that someone should look at ALL the facts before making up their mind. Something the NTSB did not do.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

"Torque over"? What force creates a torque? Why tenths of seconds and not seconds? Do you know how much a 747 weighs (with or without the forward fuselage)? The mass involved will not change direction significantly in a matter of tenths of seconds. There is too much momentum. This isn't a Sukhoi 26 doing a snap roll.

You are talking about a plane that weighs like 358,000 lbs. When it looses the nose, this thing is going to pitch up violently, and not a coordinated climb. It would have stalled the wing and rolled over instantly. When you read the NTSB report, remember that they did not use many of the eye witnesses that saw this thing. You have a guy said that he saw what looked like cheap fireworks leaving the beach and arching up as they went out to sea, and then minutes later the explosions of the 747. Then you have the NTSB that said that what he saw was the zoom climb. He mistook cheapfireworks for a exploding jumbo jet. THey only used the parts of his story they wanted. Also somthing to keep in mind, that the wires t hat are in question, carry no curent. They are sensors. So where did the spark come from?

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

They are low voltage wires they are talking about. The theory is that aging wires caused a short where a high voltage wire contacted a the low voltage wires are carried the current to the CWT. improper wire separation was the culprit.

I spent a year having to go through all of our heavy aircraft STCs to determine if correct wire separation was present and that there was no chance of a high voltage condition carried to a fuel system.

I am sure that you are right. But still why not look at all the evidence. If it was a fuel tank explosion why was debris found outside of the wreckage area. That is all that the people want. They only looked at 19% of all the evidence. In the long run, it may turn out to be the center fuel tank, but the case has been reopened. I am not that close with the group doing it, but I am volunteering time when I can, and trying to do a few things for Mr. Lahr. But whatever was said in that court room made a judge go with the pilot group.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager