"I have no data yet. It is a capital offense to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts"

--Holmes to Watson
A Scandal in Bohemia
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ian, let me first off say, for the thousanth time. I DO NOT buy the NTSB CWT scenario re: Fl. 800. Hence, based on the progression of logical reasoning I CANNOT support your EMP theory-----even if it were provable-----which it isn't. You have tied your EMP weapons burst into an overload thru the FQIS system as the IE for the "spark" which the NTSB says it cannot identify.

Below you will find info. and references re: EMP. Quickly you will discover EMP is largely the product of Nuclear detonations.

United States Patent 5,251,550 upon which you theory rests is apparently tied to a different principle, ie., the generation of EMP by MHD means.

I contacted a very qualified source, who's name I will redact for the reasons previously given re: the Sander's residue. His comments on US Patent 5,125,550 are:

John,
I know nothing about it - however, the idea would likely be that an MHD warhead would be used to blind and destroy with "EMP" small solid-state components over a very large area. Therefore it would be detonated far out in space where its effects would cover a large surface area on Earth. The fear has always been that the radius of effectiveness is hundreds of miles. At this altitude it would not likely interfere with aircraft much more than with automobiles-EXCEPT, that the reduced atmospheric attenuation could cause more radiation to strike the aircraft and its electronics than humans on earth. The immediate danger would be to the aircraft electronics and its ability to function for position determination, radar, landing, autopilot and communication. At these distances, negative effects on living things are not expected. If an aircraft were within a few thousand feet, I'd expect it to at least experience severe turbulence.

At -least I think so, I'm not one to quote on this.

I've seen other concepts of MHD - such as mechanically driving liquid metals (I think it was sodium) - that have nothing to do with nuclear weapons or EMP.

The EMP is just some of the radiation resulting from the nuclear reactions. Any such radiation from chemical detonations has not been written of (or to my knowledge, measured) in the "West" and would be limited (by the nature of chemical reactions) to wavelengths of X-radiation and longer. The radius of effect - if it even exists - is small.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From your webpage:

SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES
United States

The February 1991 budget (FY92/93) included initial work on a magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) warhead. Such a weapon would presumably generate an intense electromagnetic pulse, to burn out the circuits on board an attacking weapon. The FY95 [1994] program began overwater tests against representative seekers. [3]

I would first comment, that you MUST connect the patent in reference as the one upon which the military has budgeted for and apparently tested. You have not done this.

The fact that the military is investigating this type of weapon is far from a secret.

1968-2000 USAF spent approximately $ 5.2 billion between Fiscal year 1968-2000 on applications of directed energy weapons for offensive and defensive applications and plans to invest a further $4.6 billion by financial year 2007.

-2000 USAF is continuing its development of the following projects:-

l Air Borne Laser (ABL) to be deployed on C-17, C-230 and KC 130 . It would be known as Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasure. (LAIRCM). Also, the USAF will deploy seven Boeing 747-400 Fs that could engage ballistic missile at its boost phase from stand off ranges of more than 400 kms. The ABL passed its critical design review in April 2000.

http://www.idsa-india.org/an-feb-7-01.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The overwhelming majority of available reference material relating to EMP weaponry is based on Nuclear detonations. Also these weapons invariably target large areas ie., which is NOT the scenario you envision in your theory.

There is no evidence that I can find that would specifically tie the fringe patent you reference to anything that has proven to have any commercial viability. Simply stated: a patent does not necessarily translate into an EFFECTIVE device, weapon or otherwise. The US Patent office is the repository to many a man's failed dreams.

As a good indicator selected quotes from the following may apply:

Nuclear Weapon EMP Effects
By John Pike, Intelligence Resource Program, 12/21/98
...."The first recorded EMP incident accompanied a high-altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific and resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii. A large device detonated at 400-500 km over Kansas would affect all of CONUS. The signal from such an event extends to the visual horizon as seen from the burst point. The EMP produced by the Compton electrons typically lasts for about 1 microsecond, and this signal is called HEMP. In addition to the prompt EMP, scattered gammas and inelastic gammas produced by weapon neutrons produce an "intermediate time" signal from about one microsecond to one second. The energetic debris entering the ionosphere produces ionization and heating of the E-region. In turn, this causes the geomagnetic field to "heave," producing a "late-time" magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) EMP generally called a heave signal.

The "acid test" of the response of modern military systems to EMP is their performance in simulators, particularly where a large number of components are involved. So many cables, pins, connectors, and devices are to be found in real hardware that computation of the progress of the EMP signal cannot be predicted, even conceptually, after the field enters a real system. System failures or upsets will depend upon the most intricate details of current paths and interior electrical connections, and one cannot analyze these beforehand. Threat-level field illumination from simulators combined with pulsed-current injection are used to evaluate the survivability of a real system against an HEMP threat.

Finally, in a tactical situation such as was encountered in the Gulf War, an attack by Iraq against Coalition forces would have also been an attack by Iraq against its own communications, radar, missile, and power systems. EMP cannot be confined to only one "side" of the burst.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Admittedly some of the above would not be applicable based on YOUR EMP scenario. However, one would certainly think such a weapon would produce at least some residual effect to other planes in the area of Fl. 800........Perhaps the Orion P3 or Flight 900?......No such events were reported. Neither was there ANY evidence of untoward effects on Fl. 800 navigational, autopilot, or communications systems. No erasure of data from either the CVR or FDR, which MIGHT be expected, (though admittedly not necessarily)

Additionally, I will point you here:

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Reports/EMI.html

This sight is maintained by Prof. Peter B. Ladkin who rebutted Prof. Scarry's hypothesis of EMP affects on Fl. 800. It's an excellent education in the intricacies of EMP effects.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In conclusion Ian, I can find no evidence of a direct or supportive nature for your theory. Quite to the contrary, the animation on your webpage reminds me of the CIA cartoon represented to depict the destruction of Fl. 800. Basically, nice graphics, buttressed by NO FACTS.

This will be my final response on this subject. You of course are entitled to your opinions. Many brave people have died around the world defending your rights to believe essentially what you want, and to exercise your right to free press.

In my personal opinion, however, you are fueling much speculation and conjecture. You have simply re-muddied the waters surrounding the Fl. 800 investigation. You are guilty of what you accuse others---VASCILLATION---You state, you recant.....you unrecant......and NOW you RESURRECT, albeit in a new form your initial "the Navy did theory."

My respect for your methods has been permanently diminished.

John,

You're turning out to be a mighty weapon here, rather than listen to the windbags and know-nothings, it seems we have another technical guy, not before time too!

Offensive? Perhaps, but some of these idiots need to get focussed on the object of this exercise. Bullshit is cheap, ego's are unwelcome.

Come back George Donaldson, all is most definitely forgiven.

Who is Ian Goddard?

Oh yes:

'Dear Navy and the rest of the planet, I am wrong - in future I will play games with words'

Sheesh..............

John, the crux of your rebuttal appears to be that "EMP is largely the product of Nuclear detonations," therefore no non-nuclear EMP warheads exist. However, the warhead technology in question uses magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) generators. MHD generators convert thermal energy in a hot flowing gas stream into electrical energy by means of an electromagnetic field. The process is non-nuclear.

Your very qualified source apparently did not read the patent he was commenting on, which is linked to in my references. The patent describes how the warhead's EM pulse is directed at a single aircraft target, not across an expansive area of the earth as your source suggests must be the case.

Furthermore, the Naval Institute guide clearly describes the Navy's MHD warhead as being used against a single target, an attacking weapon. The Navy's MHD missile is an anti-missile missile. There should, therefore, be no confusion that all EMP warheads are nuclear warheads designed to impact broad areas.

In closing I'd like to note that, by raising the EMP-warhead theory I raise the possibility that the rocket(s) so many witnesses saw had an EMP warhead. One cannot reduce the EMP-warhead theory to zero until one knows there was not an EMP warhead involved. By rejecting the theory and even portraying it as so dreadful it's scandalous, you declare that you know an EMP warhead was not involved. While my database pertaining to the EMP-theory is larger than your database, I still don't have a sufficient database to reach your state of knowing -- I am still exploring the matter.

As I see it, the missile theory cannot be rejected until all possible warheads are investigated, and there is no evidence in the NTSB report that this warhead was investigated by the official investigators, even though the official investigators diagnosed a crash scenario that fits an EMP profile. I'm sorry that my entering this area of inquiry has "permanently diminished" your view of me, but my primary goal is not to please you by avoiding areas of inquiry you defined as improper, but instead to explore possible explanations for the Flight 800 crash and the witnesses accounts thereof.

John,

You're nothing if not thorough, and not a little tenacious! It's refreshing to see these second (professional) opinions on these claims. The red residue has stood unchallenged for years, one says its glue, (Allegedly) the other says it's rocket fuel.

I'm interested in the flare reference, some time ago I brought up the link between the red flare and the red residue, but it pulled no chains - 'cept the toilet it went down. Maybe it was blood, which is why they're so sensitive about identifying it.)

There's an odd consistency to the agencies analyses of elements in this 'investigation'. They seem to have sent stuff to labs for tests, but avoid tests which could be conclusive or lead to meaningful results. There's the splatter, the red residue, the positive explosive hits which turn out to be negative elsewhere. From what I've read, after 6 days in seawater, any positive reading would be reason to jump up and down.

There's holes, spike-tooth fractures, missing pieces, ballistic anomalies, missing magic spark evidence, hundreds of deluded witnesses, people who have been told unequivocally that it was a missile, insiders who saw evidence of external penetration of wing leading edges, insiders who accuse the FBI of removing or altering evidence - the list goes on and on.

A lot of it is hearsay, but not all of it. Why not carry out proper autopsies, what happened to the foreign body material removed from the victims? Why were so many of them hit by these fragments? Where are the fragments - no criminal cause, but the physical evidence has not been released as to what these fragments were. No side X-rays taken to determine depth and velocity of fragments, no tympanic membrane tests - mandatory to determine proximity to an explosion, or did they decide that decompression occured so it aint necessary? The prime object of the medical operations was to release the bodies to the families as quickly as possible???????

It isn't what they did, so much as what they didn't do in this case, convention was thrown out of the window in so many areas, and then they wonder why people don't swallow their conclusions. (If they really have any beyond the fact that the aircraft was destroyed with the loss of all occupants.)

What happened at that meeting between Schulz and the NTSB? Noone seems to know, all we know is that it took place, but 4 hours is a long time to say nothing - although not for Bernie Loeb I guess. Why hasn't Schulz posted a report on the proceedings? Does he still think there are 4 seconds missing from the FDR or did he accept their rebuttals?

That subject, like many others has died a death, it's produced with great fanfare, then it just fizzles out as if it was a rumour or a hoax. Personally, if I believed that 4 seconds were missing, and that I could prove it, I'd be shouting at the top of my voice still, or has he decided that noones listening?

Yada yada yada, welcome to the padded cell John, don't worry, it's soundproof - you'll be in good company here, we're all nuts and have our own pet theories - even if some of them change on a daily basis.

What particularly irks me about a certain new theory is that it panders to the claim that there was no physical evidence of anything untoward, when for years people have been claiming that's not true. (Including those on the inside). For someone to produce this nice cozy acceptance of that fact, yet bring up another missile cause is bizarre in the extreme.

Sanders and his hundreds of photographs are worth nothing, Mayer lied when he said he saw 1" holes punched in a piece of the aircraft he transported, Terry Stacey had ulterior motives, Kunz was delirious etc etc. Russels tape was a work of fiction, Stan didn't see a 747 sammed on CNN, etc. Ians theory accepts all the above and offers to back it up by producing something which makes it so.

But it's okay, the witnesses have been covered, there WAS a missile, just one that left no evidence. I bet those witnesses are relieved..

Shame about the rest.........