WAS FLIGHT 800 FELLED BY AN ELECTROMAGNETIC-PULSE WARHEAD?
How could so many witnesses see a missile intercept Flight 800
and yet the only evidence found suggests that an electrical surge,
not a missile, ignited the center fuel tank? Could there be a war-
head designed to destroy aircraft with a powerful electromagnetic
pulse (EMP) that would only leave evidence of an electrical surge?
Looking for the answer at the Library of Congress I found it...
The US Navy began developing a magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) warhead
for antiaircraft missiles ten years ago and was test firing them
two years before the Flight 800 crash. An MHD warhead kills an
aircraft by burning out its circuits with a powerful electrical
surge induced by a electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from the warhead
detonating near the aircraft. The systems from Flight 800 were
riddled with evidence of a powerful electronic surge. In fact,
the official cause was declared to be an inexplicable surge
strong enough to put a spark into the center fuel tank.
Goddard's Journal introduces and explores the theory that Flight
800 was downed by a missile equipped with an EMP warhead, offering
an explanation for both eyewitness testimony and physical evidence.
The report is replete with photographic evidence and an animation:
Even though you are pointing to the use of a "Navy" Electronic Warhead as the possible cause of the Fl. 800 disaster. Your premise STILL rests on the CWT explosion as the cause, although you now contend not the initiating event for the disaster.
Even though you have supplanted a Missile as the IE, your theory rests on the CWT explosion as the cause of:
Nosegear door damage
Nosegear tire shredding
Fuselage rupture (right side forward of wing)
Prior departure of the forward cargo floor
Damage to left side of CWT
Decapitation of the aircraft
Even though you point to a "missile" as the IE.....You REALLY intimate that the IE was STILL the CWT explosion theory, which simply put, just DOESN'T fit the available evidence.
You may want to also read Prof. Ladkin's rebuttal of Prof Scarry's EMI hypothesis. Although granted a missile of the type you describe would certainly alter the basis of his findings, I believe they are nonetheless pertinent.
Witness accounts suggest two missiles, so there could have been a conventional and a nonconventional missiles. However, I'm persuaded by the physical evidence that the CWT explosion initiated the break up sequence (but was itself initiated by an external influence). You cite evidence to the contrary....
* Nosegear door damage
NTSB sub-docket DCA96MA070LG has 36 photographs of the nosegear doors. There is nothing resembling a missile impact. Some of the nose-gear doors were slightly dented, apparently in an inward direction. However, while that's indicated in the notes, it's hardly visible to the eye. Remember, all the debris slammed into the water traveling 100-300 mph.
* Nosegear tire shredding
The photo of the nose gear assembly shows one intact tire, the other is not visible. However, at least one from another landing gear assembly is also in there and is shredded. While the damage is dramatic, I don't see how a missile shreds them and leaves the surrounding gear assembly and doors relatively undamaged. Not logical, for the missile would have to rip through the doors to get to the wheels, but there's no evidence in the docket that that happened. It appears that some of the wheels and landing gears where knocked out of their bays and fell free, according to the descriptions. If a tire hit the water and was then struck by addition falling debris traveling 100-300 mph, that might rip it up.
* Fuselage rupture (right side forward of wing)
I used to present that damage as possible missile evidence, but careful analysis of that damage proves beyond doubt that it was caused as a result of water impact. It's a fairly complex analysis. In short, the conclusion of it is the outward blasted holes were caused by internal contents that were falling 100-300 mph, slamming into and through the right-side fuselage wall after that wall had hit the water, coming to a stop. The contents inside the forward section, however, kept falling, like a person in a car that hit a wall keeps going forward, smashing into the window. In the same way, the still-falling the internal contents smashed into the stopped fuselage wall. This is not an assumption analysis but can be proven by damage patterns. The outward blasted holes in that region are also very low-velocity penetrations, not like missile-fragment-impact damage. NTSB Exhibit 15B has a good description of what high-velocity impacts are like: http://www.ntsb.gov/events/twa800/exhibits/Ex_15B.pdf
* Prior departure of the forward cargo floor
What's the source for that claim?
* Damage to left side of CWT
What about it?
* Decapitation of the aircraft
The fuselage wall on either side of the CWT, forward, is blasted and curled outwards. Interior fuselage wall forward of the CWT is burnt. Clear evidence that the CWT exploded and ruptured the fuselage. Logically, this should result in the aircraft splitting in half, which was the nature of the "decapitation."
The only evidence of a conventional warhead I've found is described here, and it's pretty solid evidence:
Hi - I've been accused of being you by Elmer Barr, because I used a (yawn) once!
The ntsb report has it that 3 of the nose-gear doors departed early in the sequence, and they were not damaged by impact with the ocean. There were however indications of damage to the hinges caused by overtravel in the closing direction. (After they left the aircraft apparently, quite how that can happen is beyond me).
I'm surprised you would miss that one, but one of the parties to the investigation (CVR) made the same mistake once. It seems they don't talk to each other about their findings, or don't read their own reports.
Could you link me to the photographs of the nose-gear doors please?
I believe that an explosion beneath and to the right of the nose is responsible, based upon the ntsb report mainly, and the damage patterns contained therein.
It had to have been forward of the R/L2 doors, since they retained the glass in the windows. The L1 door retained its glass too, but the R1 door was cut in half and severely damaged.
The nosegear doors were- apparently - blown inwards, and were found in the first debris field - this came out very early in the story, even Tom McSweeny of the FAA admitted that to me on Compuserves Avsig forum.
The passengers in the front of the aircraft sustained the major injuries - as reported early on, and the only severely damaged carpet was from Zone A 'severely torn'. Zone A is the front, as I'm sure you know.
Galley A exhibited an extraordinary ballistic coefficient - see trajectory study, as did a few more items, RF35, LF74, CW504, A102 and A413 - check out where these items are on the aircraft.
Whatever happened, it occured between the cockpit and the R/L2 doors, shredded the lower right half of the front of the aircraft, embedded an arm rest in a passenger - hearsay maybe - Donaldson.
Ever wondered why they didn't reconstruct the front of the aircraft? Obviously they wanted to concentrate attention on the CWT, but they couldn't have done it anyway. Point is, the best evidence is there, at the front, but it's in tiny pieces, the cockpit is a tangled mess of wires and bent toggle switches - think about those bent toggle switches, they're small, they can't be bent easily, even by hitting the ocean, they're some 1" maximum length, the only way you can bend so many of them is to have something flying around hitting them or......
You say you're surprised I missed that there were indications of damage to the hinges caused by overtravel in the closing direction. But that doesn't strike me as compelling evidence of a missile. During the break up the plane was invariably, bending, folding, buckling and being struck by 200-mph winds in ways it was never designed to. That some hinges might be found bent in ways they're not designed to bend does not strike me as particularly anomalous, although one might postulate an external pressure wave in this case.
One possible curiosity with the doors is that the metal is discolored. It might be seafloor sediment staining, or perhaps burning. If the discoloration is from burning, there's an anomaly with respect to the official theory.
You ask: "Ever wondered why they didn't reconstruct the front of the aircraft?" Yes. I believe I was one of the first people asking just that question. There were many media reports suggesting severe damage to the forward section. Now I have photos of almost every pieces of the fuselage, including the forward section. Granted some photos leave a lot to be desired, but in what I've reviewed to date, nothing has jumped out as "there it is" for anything unique in the way of missile-like impacts in the forward area. But I can't say I've viewed every photo.
The contents of the sub-dockets are listed in the NTSB's F800 CD under "Structures," the Exhibit 7A section, at the end under the heading "list of related documents not on this CD." I got those documents from the NTSB, and they constitute "sub-dockets," ie, the Flight 800 docket with all the Exhibits is NTSB docket DCA96MA070, then these subdockets have the extensions, RLW, EM, ES, J, LF, ME, RF, and CW. There are hundreds of photos in them, over 200MB of data.
My best suggestion is to do what I did, get it from the NTSB Public Inquires Office at 1-800-877-6799.
Let me try and address some your rebuttals to my response to your initial post. The problem again, simply for me is time, so I will be a little "hasty" with my answers. I just wish there was another forum where detailed ?'s and answers ( discussions) might be had in realtime. That being the case.....briefly......
(1)* Nosegear door damage
I think you are underestimating the value of this evidence. Trevor's reply to you for instance is quite succinct. Even the NTSB admits this damage WAS NOT caused by water impact. THEIR words, not mine.
* Nosegear tire shredding
Again, respectfully, I believe you are missing some pertinent data indications.
I don't see how a missile shreds them and leaves the surrounding gear assembly and doors relatively undamaged. (Interesting to note the Admiral Moorer asked nearly the same ?, except he was asking how a CWT explosion could blow in the NOSEGEAR doors, while leaving the other landing gear doors CLOSER to the CWT undamaged)
Not logical, for the missile would have to rip through the doors to get to the wheels,(not really, if they were "blown off" and they were,( probably by a pressure wave) it would only take a fragment to cause the shredding)
"but there's no evidence in the docket that that happened"
No, I don't suppose there would be, or we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion
* Fuselage rupture (right side forward of wing)
I used to present that damage as possible missile evidence, but careful analysis of that damage proves beyond doubt that it was caused as a result of water impact.................. The contents inside the forward section, however, kept falling, like a person in a car that hit a wall keeps going forward, smashing into the window. In the same way, the still-falling the internal contents smashed into the stopped fuselage wall. This is not an assumption analysis............
This is BEYOND assumption analysis, and is inherently FLAWED.......(1) Your car crash reference is like apples and oranges......What you have failed to analyze is the EXTERNAL pressure ie: pressure against the fuselage by water impact which would most certainly prevent any "internal contents" from rupturing the fuselage.(Denting or concavity may occur, but not rupture) In your car crash scenario there is no such EXTERNAL pressure, other than the equal air pressure which exists on either side of the window. (2) Ever seen a bullet fired into water?.......It's a good example of what I'm referring to.
* Prior departure of the forward cargo floor
What's the source for that claim?
The source is the NTSB Report!
4.11 Front Spar Sequence
"As discussed in section 4.10, SWB#3 rotated forward impacting the vertical stiffners on the aft surface of the front spar."......."The potable water bottles Centered on the front surface of the front spar) sustained relatively minor damage on their aft sides from impact with pieces of SWB#3......"The forward sides of the bottles did not display obvious impact marks from contact with the CARGO FLOOR STRUCTURE."..............A geometric layout indicates that only about 10 DEGREES of rotation of the front spar would be needed to force contact between the bottles and the CARGO FLOOR STRUCTURE." "The LACK of DAMAGE......indicates that the FRONT SPAR rotated LESS than 10 degrees BEFORE the CARGO FLOOR STRUCTURE HAD BEGUN DEPARTING THE AIRPLANE."
Apparently, you didn't read my post which was prior to yours.
* Damage to left side of CWT
You may want to refer to Donaldson's remarks on this one. I simply would like an explanation for the INWARD damage to the left side of the CWT. There MAY be a simple logical explanation. However, on surface you would think an overpressure ORIGINATING in the CWT would cause OUTWARD concavity.
* Decapitation of the aircraft
Clear evidence that the CWT exploded and ruptured the fuselage. Logically, this should result in the aircraft splitting in half, which was the nature of the "decapitation."
Here, I simply think you are mistaken. The "decapitation" ie: nose section has no logical connection to any CWT explosion. You may want to view the Bruntingthorpe films. Although there were several differences between the actual flight scenario and the tests. You will quickly see there was NO DECAPITATION of the type seen in Fl. 800.
"The only evidence of a conventional warhead I've found is described here, and it's pretty solid evidence:"
Yes, I agree with you here. (and what lovely ROUND holes they are!)......Perhaps those pesky tungsten balls released by a particular type of missile?
I hope this hasn't been too brief. I welcome your input.
John, the small holes in Exhibit 15B are more likely natural fragments (fragments resulting from warhead disintegration) than from preformed fragments like tungsten pellets. While the circularity of the hole shown suggests tungsten, the very low fragment-hole density speaks to natural fragments. In other words, a fragmentation warheads creates dozens of such small holes in a given region, like a shotgun blast, turning an area into Swiss cheese. The very-low fragmentation density (number of fragment holes per unit area) in fuselage panels and interior structures supports a non-fragmentation warhead theory.
About the right side blow-out. Observe the following image from that region. All along the forward right-lower side you see the stringers (internal ribs) of the aircraft pressed into the fuselage skin, making the skin look like a Ripple's potato chip, and you can see this in the photo below. This is the result of water impact, of the weight of the forward section smashing into the ocean and the ocean pushing back, pressing the skin back into the striking fuselage, curving it around the stringers.
If you examine this photo carefully you will be able to determine that the giant hole and skin tears were made after the water-impact rippling was created. This is essentially proven by the fact that bent outward panels have the ripple damage in them. Therefore, the ripple deformation was in the panels before the hole and tears were made, and thus the hole and tears were made after the water-impact damage was created. They scenario I described above is therefore the only logical conclusion.
Furthermore, the holes blasted out the right side do not have any of the characteristics of high velocity holes and are classic examples of low, indeed very low, velocity holes (see 15B for discussion of high-velocity characteristics). If the holes were from missile fragments, they were very large fragments indeed. The missile-fragment velocity chart here shows us that the larger the fragment, the longer it will maintain its velocity. So if these large penetrating objects were from a missile exploding very close to or in (as I once theorized was the case there), they should produce very-high velocity damage characteristics, but instead they don't.
I disagree with some other points you raise but this is as much as I care to get into now.
That an explosion took place in the centre tank, leading to the structural disintegration of the aircraft, is not in dispute – but it’s a moot point if it was not the initiating event. I don’t have a definite scenario for the initiating event, whether it was a projectile or a missile, but I have no time for the CWT as the initiating event for many reasons.
The disintegration of the front spar was more likely caused by excessive wing box loading perhaps in response to a snap roll. Unlike some, I do not dismiss the 12 second line of the FDR, the figures are within plausible limits for the various parameters. That would not be true if it were garbled data, or data mixed with previous flight data. The chance of random or garbled data maintaining valid (If extreme) values for each of those parameters is highly dubious.
Taking this single item and trying to rebut the suggestion that it is garbled or out of sync data:
A 12-but word can have a value between 0 and 4096, so garbled data can be any number within that range. The units for some of those parameters and their maximums are as follows, along with the 11-second line versus 12 second line value(s):
Airspeed: 0.5 Knots – 2048 knots 298/100
Vert accel: .009 G – 36.864 G 0.9/-0.89
Long accel: .009 G – 36.864 G 0.1/0.18
Attack angle: 0.15 – 614 deg 3/106/30
Heading: 0.356 – 1458.176 deg 82/163/276
Pitch: 0.356 – 1458.176 deg 3.6/8.3/2.2
Roll: 0.356 – 1458.176 deg 0 /144/0
Rudder: 0.09 - 368.64 deg 0.72/77.76/-36
Elevator R: 0.0549 – 224 40.1/11.2/0.2
You can see that not one of those values is ‘unreasonably’ high, or exhibits impossible levels, it is unthinkable that garbled or out of sync data could maintain such ‘discipline.’ The fact that the NTSB originally chose to include this data proves that it is there, I suspect they wanted to illustrate the change from normal to erratic values.
Once one accepts that data to be valid, then a whole new ballgame opens up. Bill Donaldson has done a far better job of analysing that data than I could ever hope to do, and I defer to his experience. One has to ask the question: what could produce such an upset in that timeframe? I’ve yet to see the NTSB response to Greg Schulz’s assertion that there are 4 seconds missing from the data.
First, let me go on the record as stating, I never indicated that a missile or missile fragment was responsible for the right side fuselage damage we have discussed. I simply don't think at this point it can be wholly attributed to water impact damage.
Re: Trevor's discussion of the FDR, I agree on surface with his postulations. However, not being an expert in this field, I am attempting to recruit an independent analysis of this data.
Just for the record, wasn't it you who sent the following e-mail to the NY office of the FBI dated 11/6/97 5:40AM?
"I believe promoting the Navy-missile theory was a mistake. I believe that the evidence is not sufficient to blame the Navy, and I wish to move away from that and all areas of conspiracy inquiry forever."
Ian did make that statement, but there are ways to encourage such an admission. I've seen your government bully sick people into signing statements so's they can get treatment - in prison.
My government will do it too, under the 'right' circumstances. Only Ian knows why he said that, maybe he'd like to elucidate, but I'd respect his wishes on that.
To be honest, I don't disagree with this behaviour if it is in the country's interest.
There's little moral about any of this, it's what's for the greater good, and I will support that notion.
Ian has guts, that's for sure, and even though I don't agree with everything he says, I have a deal of respect for him. (For what that shit is worth)
Truck on Ian, some of us are behind you, as well as the nasties.
The debris field evidence clearly shows the first items to leave the aircract were seats, passengers and the overhead bins from Rows 17, 18, and 19, which were found far to the West from other plane debris items.
Then we have the case of CW 504, a nose tire and air conditioning unit. What is lacking in this area is major aircraft structural parts. Which would seem to indicate that the decapitation of the aircraft was NOT in fact caused by the CWT explosion.
One should remember that the bulk of the CWT was found at the END of the debris field, or approx 2.5 miles from the initial explosion. There you will also find the heavier parts of the rear section.
I would lean toward a CWT explosion at approx 8,500 ft which would fit the evidence much more closely. It also would corroborate many of the witness reports.
I have no convictions re: Ian one way or the other. My ? was not a personal barb, merely a ? for the sake of authentication.
Personally, I think there were (are) many "brave" people who have questioned the official line. Some however, may have "other motives."
For me, without sounding like a bleeding heart. One of the debris pictures of a child's sneaker started me off. Although at the time of the incident I was still involved in other investigations, I watched closely as the FBI, NTSB, CIA scenario began to unfold.
I didn't care for the obvious agency in fighting. The prosecution of James Sanders and his wife. The CIA cartoon. The Navy vacilation. The suppresion of the eyewitness testimony. The back and forth crapola as to the ORIGINAL source of the NTSB, CIA animation. The apparent ostrisizing of the people from IAMAW. The alteration or whatever term you would like to apply to some evidence stored at Calverton. The FBI we're out of it (the investigation), no we're really not actions.
And essentially the reliance on whatever evidence seemed to fit the official line, and the seeming indifference towards whatever didn't.
Frankly, it smells a little like fish to me. That's why I think we need a Congressional investigation.
I see the glitter/chaff argument has gone out of the window at last. Thank gawd for that, there are enough rumours and bad leads as it is. It had been suggested that the so-called glitter was chaff. This despite the fact that I had copied the manifest to the one making the claim. It is described as polyester/aluminium flake on that document.
Sanders has revealed that when he showed some to somone they confirmed it was the same stuff found on one of the bodies. Real theatrical glitter, very small, and round.
I agree with the smell of fish, something's very wrong here. Remember, the early days of the salvage effort were run by the Navy, it took them days to find the data recorders - or did it? If you haven't read Bill Donaldsons report on this site, I recommend it - it's a very well put together piece of work. (Even if you don't accept the shift of direction since it was written). You said you wanted an analysis of the FDR, there's a section in that report which is pretty convincing.
Since all the upper deck seats were deformed to the right, this supports the snap roll to the left theory. Any push to the left tail or front right is gonna make it yaw violently anti-clockwise which will flip the aircraft over due to the added lift from the right wing. This is a theory being pursued in another place, you said you wished there were somewhere else, here it is:
www.groups.yahoo.com/twa800
You can read it without joining, but you need a yahoo log-in to participate.
Thank you for the link, although I think those are the same buggers who won't let me join their group?...Anyway, re: "chaff"....I ALWAYS thought that was a pile of doodoo.
Ian: The evidence you pointed out re: the 2 holes in the pressure deck, and similar penetrations in the CWT certainly begs for more investigation........Just where the hell did these "fragments" come from?......You have the NTSB with their 196 hole scenario and the FBI stating 1,400 penetrations.....Which is it?.........Interesting that the initial NTSB report 11/28/97 (DCA-96-MA-070) has slightly different wording than found in the posting of page 8 I believe it was on your website.
"Similar examinations of the OTHER holes in the structure indicated that MOST of these were also classified as lower velocity holes.".......Just how many "unexplained " penetrations do you need before you begin to wonder just what the heck is going on?
I also wish someone would provide some simple map reading instruction to those people who still state that the 30 knot track headed "out to sea".......The bugger was making a beeline towards NJ!......Or, at least so it appears.
And how about that 400mph radar return which zipped thru the whole area, albeit coming ONLY within 6 miles of TWA 800?................Doesn't appear to have anything to do with the crash?...........But no one seems to care that objects, (jets, drones, whatever).........can fly thru heavily travelled airspace at 400mph and go "unidentified"........Just what the hell WAS that thing?
John, you're getting the controlled f800 forum mixed up
with the uncontrolled twa800 forum. FIRO's board won't let me read
their stuff either. The twa800 forum has no rules other than those
imposed by the host, Yahoo.
Yahoo also is set up for instant messaging for multi-way chatting and even
voice discussion if that is your bag. You mentioned the desirability
of this form of communication in an earlier post.
I think IAN's EMP Theory is the best yet, regardless whether that is
what that happened. The ntsb is cornered into accepting it as the
cause for the CWT spark since they have no alternative.
The critical factor is that IAN raised the possibility, not the feds.
It's the difference between an investigation and a coverup.
The Eglin test data makes the ntsb claim of no missile silly, and IAN
is agreeing with them on everything else. Brilliant!
The only honest conclusion the ntsb can reach is that an EMP warhead
probably caused the crash, but the ntsb does not have the authority to
investigate it. That would keep their nose clean - well, wipe it anyhow.
Someone asked for realtime interaction -- use TWA800 for that
March 20 2001, 2:09 PM
Someone asked for realtime interaction -- use TWA800 for that with no session login required. They're a bunch of social deviants over there but they DO have FUN!
I just posted ---
From: "Greg Salyards" <d-choma@a...>
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:46pm
Subject: There's a Worldwide Conference in Our Future
I intend to establish a new group entitled BB to explore what happened in the years prior to the IOWA explosion. If I am correct, relatively little discussion has been applied to that.
It should be a restricted group initially with people that have special knowledge or insight and then later it might be opened up at an appropriate time.
I intend to utilize the Voice Conference feature
( eorgeGay, HUH?) to increase productivity by letting everyone (up to 10) talk to each other.
If that proves out then we can have the first TWA800 Worldwide Conference here only George can't participate because he's playing dumb just so that he doesn't have to activate his voice capability.
Perhaps I'll just stay here. Doing too much hard work on this thing to get into any inane discussions. I'm not saying that's what goes on at other boards, but I just don't have the time to find out.
How's the weather "across the pond" Trevor old boy?
How many more people do I have to tell that we don't say 'Old boy' any more - if we ever did.
Weather questions are pointless, it's always raining - least for the last 2 years it is. Must be something to do with HAARP or Brookhaven - damned colonists.
Good decision John, Stan and Greg are classic examples of the sort of fruitcake you'd encounter over there. See how they both post comments they've made elsewhere? I think they like the sound of their own voices. (Don't tell anyone I said so though... )
I was very pleased to see Ian's research on the EMP/MDH warhead. Involvement of at least one of these babies has the potential to resolve so many puzzling things.
Especially if is carried on a KKV.
Aside from that, this subject seems to be pretty effective at causing 'Missile Theory' CRITICs to proceed more carefully.
On Saturday, 17 MAR 2001, I posted the following to sci.military.naval under the title
"Explain this, please."
========= BEGIN ============
"IAN GODDARD has gained a signicant insight into TWA 800 that ties up many prior 'loose ends'.
I think this is a brilliant piece of investigative research. Why couldn't the FBI or the NTSB figure this out? I really don't think they're dumb.
What is remarkable is that just last December in a TWA 800/Missile thread that I had started in smn, there were 16 response (almost all completely hostile) in just 7 1/2 hours.
In contrast, there have been exactly ZERO responses made to the above post since Saturday. The FBI might even be inclined to view such facts as "Consciousness of Guilt", but not on this case.
