Skip to comments.9-11 Commission stonewalls TWA 800 author
Posted on 03/16/2004 12:17:55 AM PST by JohnHuang2
9-11 Commission stonewalls TWA 800 author
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Dear Chairman Kean,
Al Salzenberg of the 9-11 staff suggested I write you a letter to express my dissatisfaction with the progress of the 9-11 Commission.
On or about Feb. 20, I talked to Mr. Salzenberg at some length about one very specific concern I had with the commission. I was impressed with the time he gave me and the fact that he seemed, at least, to take my information seriously.
My concern was with the presence of former Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick on the commission. Immediately after the crash of TWA Flight 800 in July 1996, Justice Department attorney Valerie Caproni fully ignored existing statutes and gave the FBI power over the National Transportation Safety Board in the management of the investigation.
In a stroke, as I explained to Mr. Salzenberg, the Clinton Justice Department hermetically sealed the investigation and silenced the independent voices of the NTSB. Ms. Caproni could not have acted on her own authority. As the "political officer" equivalent in the Justice Department, Ms. Gorelick likely orchestrated this takeover one that all parties now acknowledge to have been illegal.
On Aug. 22, 1996, just a few days before the start of the Democratic National Convention, Ms. Gorelick oversaw a critical Justice Department meeting with the FBI. Immediately after this meeting, as it happened, all serious inquiry into the fate of TWA 800 came to an end.
On the next day, for instance, the FAA began to inquire whether any dog-training exercises had ever taken place on the plane that would become TWA 800. On the same day, as CNN reported, the FBI now claimed publicly for the first time that the explosive residue found along the right wing "could have been brought on the plane by a passenger and was not part of a bomb." Likewise, after the meeting, the FBI would do no more eyewitness interviews, at least not for the next two months. The Bureau only did a handful after that and all of those for the wrong reasons.
The search was now on for a rationale to explain away both the explosive residue and the stunningly specific testimony of 270 eyewitnesses. This fully misdirected inquiry would result in the two most egregious corruptions of the investigation.
The first was the FBI's claim that a dog-training exercise in St. Louis six weeks before the crash resulted in the spilling of the explosive residue found on the plane. The second was the CIA's claim that a 3,200-foot climb by a nose-less TWA 800 fooled the eyewitnesses into thinking they had seen a missile.
The CIA based its theory on an eyewitness interview that never took place. This can be easily proved. The FBI based its theory on a dog-training exercise that never took place. This, too, can be easily proved. Both fabrications were conscious.
As I explained to Mr. Salzenberg, mine was not a crank call. I had written a book on TWA Flight 800. I had just the day before undergone a smart three-hour interview by the History Channel on the subject. I understand the political dynamics of the investigation better than anyone who was not actively complicit. As I explained, too, there is excellent reason to believe that Gorelick's dubious role in the TWA 800 investigation contributed to New York's vulnerability in the days leading up to Sept. 11.
I suggested that Gorelick may have been appointed to the panel to discourage any connections from being made between July 1996 and September 2001. I could see no other reason why she would leave her cushy gig as vice chairman of Fannie Mae to serve as one of only five Democrats on the commission.
Mr. Salzenberg promised that he would look into the Gorelick issue and get back to me. Three weeks later, on March 10, I called him. I explained again who I was and what my concern was.
"I have talked to 400 people since then," he said gruffly. He did not remember the call. I explained in more detail.
"Oh, you're that freelancer," he added dismissively.
"If it matters," I said, "I'm the executive editor of a respectable Midwest business magazine, and I've written a book on the subject at hand."
Mr. Salzenberg asked me what I wanted. It struck me that he did not even take notes on the last call or any call. I told him I wanted to share my information with the panel, and if need be, I would be happy to testify.
"Lots of people like to testify," he groused. "We can't handle them all."
"I know this subject better than anyone," I responded.
"If you want to make charges," he said, "you are free to use the public air waves or write books or letters to the editor."
"I'm trying to do my good citizen thing," I said. "I am trying to go through established channels."
"Well, we are trying to wrap up and get out our report," he said curtly, implying there would be no time, regardless of the quality of my information.
"Do I have any other official recourse?" I asked.
"Write a letter to the chairman," he snapped.
And so Chairman Kean, I write this letter. As a Garden State native myself, and the son of a Newark cop, I appeal to your sense of justice. If you refuse to even look at the fate of TWA Flight 800, you will have done your country a disservice. You will have justified the cynicism that now plagues the nation and especially the aviation community. And you will have lost your own shot at greatness.
It is not too late. If you're game, I'll buy my own plane ticket.
"...nor could they allow the public to know that a terrorist act had succeeded on American soil.
Well, no. That doesn't really mean a lot though, maybe they were better than other terrorist groups, that can't help bragging later.
It's worth noting that treating the case like a crime or an attack is exactly what Cashill argues for in other places and times. He's logically inconsistent. Actually, like most tin-hatted conspiracy dweebs, he's all over the place, and capable of arguing contradictory points one after the other.
Likewise, after the meeting,
There's that logical fallacy again....
The Bureau only did a handful after that and all of those for the wrong reasons.
I bet it would be a terrible shock to Jack Cashill if he were to learn what the guys at the Federal Bureau of Investigation think of his expert advice... the people that were reinterviewed at this point, were the ones whose information had left interesting gaps the first time. The vast majority of the witnesses heard a bang, looked, and saw a fireball.... some of the ones interviewed in depth are ones like the fellow in the seat of the other airliner, who physically could not have seen what they claimed to have seen. There is an appendix or annex in the witness section of the docket with some of these cases in it.
...and the stunningly specific testimony of 270 eyewitnesses. If you read and try to classify the eyewitness reports, there is no "stunningly specific testimony of 270 eyewitnesses." To get to the number 270 you have to include everybody that saw something like a streak or something trailing flame. This includes people who saw it going left, right, up, down, north, south, east and west, from the water and from the land. Including people who turn out not to have been in a place to observe the craft at all.
By now I forget the name of the guy at the 9/11 Commission that blew Cashill's latest attempt to publicize his book off, but all America should be grateful to the guy for focusing on the real issues of 9/11 -- Islamist terrorism, and how it pulled off the terrorist attack of all history -- and not getting sidetracked in various CIA-bashing, government-hating, wild-eyed conspiracy freaks from the Internet.
I've known real people in the CIA who put the minds to work against our nation's enemies every day -- some of them with their lives on the line. It bugs me when some hack writer who can neither argue logically nor state his facts honestly bashes that organisation, or the NTSB. A NTSB investigator working out of Washington, DC, one of the most expensive places to live, makes 40 or 50 grand and has, in most cases, as many years' experience and education as a neurosurgeon. They aren't doing this to get rich or be famous (name one career employee of NTSB -- I defy you to!) Every time you fly somewhere your life is safer thanks to CIA officers hunting terrorists, and NTSB investigators hunting dangerous conditions, unsafe equipment, and unsuspected training deficiencies.
If anybody is interested in factual information about TWA 800, there is a very great deal of it here. It will take at least a week to read it all:
This site is also useful:
Criminal Number 18F
Exactly how does the chemistry report disprove Sanders' claim?
Let's look at it.
Source: Kay Pennington
TEST ONE RESULT is from the red residue visible on 15 seats of the reconstructed TWA 800 in Calverton Hangar. The test was performed at Santa Fe Lab in California under the direction of James Sanders, which he printed in his book "The Downing of TWA Flight 800" and the Press-Enterprise, Riverside California, March 10, 1997 edition.
TEST TWO RESULT is for 3M 1357 adhesive from an UNSOAKED sample performed by Coffey Labs, Portland Oregon, and supervised by Austin Stephens.
TEST THREE RESULT is from Atlantic Ocean water obtained by J Greg Miller , and soaked - 22 days - fabric from sister ship to TWA 800. Tests were performed under the supervision of researcher Thomas Stalcup.
|Test One||Test Two||Test Three|
|ELEMENT||Sanders Sample||3M Glue||Seat Fabric|
|Antimony||.53%||None Detected||Not Tested|
|Nickel||.38%||None Detected||None Detected|
|Copper||.053%||None Detected||Not Tested|
|Silver||.032%||None Detected||None Detected|
|Chromium||.032%||None Detected||None Detected|
Below is a list of explosive/rocket fuel properties of the components of the Sander's analysis. The presence of so many different kinds of metals are indicative of rocket propellant more than some type of explosive. The compound that is missing is ammonia, which is a primary component of many solid rocket mixtures; but this will react during the burn and would not likely be found in any residue. Results available upon request.
Sanders Test Results Rocket Propellant/Explosive Characteristics
|Magnesium||18%||Used as an igniter to increase combustion temp|
|Silicon||15%||Possible binder component|
|Calcium||12%||As nitrate, heat or shock sensitive explosive|
|Zinc||3.6%||Rocket fuel component|
|Iron||3.1%||As Fe2O3 - Burn accelerator|
|Aluminum||2.8%||Possible burn moderator, produces white flame|
|Lead||2.4%||Burn moderator; potentially explosive as azide, mononitroresorcinate, or staphynite|
|Titanium||1.7%||Igniter, increases combustion temperature|
|Nickel||0.38%||Diamine nickel nitrate - burn stabilizer|
|Copper||0.53%||As chromite - burn accelerator|
|Silver||0.03%||As azide or acetylide - heat or shock sensitive explosive|
|Chromium||0.03%||As ammonium bichromate - solid fuel catalyst|
HMMMMMMM. The red residue components don't look like 3M 1357 Adhesive components to me.
I cannot name him, of course,
Of course. Or the CIA might come with the saucers they keep at Area 51 and subject you to experiments.
but he is in a position of authority, especially concerning the 747 aircraft. In fact, he is one of their leading experts on it.
Uh, on what particular part or subsystem or technology on the 74?
NO ONE at Boeing believes the "story"
OK, now I know you're making this up. Not only did many at Boeing sign off on the report, not only was Boeing a full party to the investigation (in the legal sense of the word "party" I mention in my post above), but Boeing continues to work on fuel tank inerting and safety -- not only because of this accident but because of at least four other Boeing jets lost to fuel tank explosions, one a 747.
the center fuel tank explosion. It simply sounds impossible to the engineers who make it their life's work to make Boeing aircraft as safe as possible.
No, it sounds impossible to laymen. But the fact is, in almost any jet, the fuel tank ullage will contain an explosive fuel/air mixture at certain combinations of temperature and pressure (which is a function of altitude).
Boeing and other jet designers, knowing that the tanks will sometimes contain an explosive mixture, take great care to ensure that no ignition source is found in the tank. (In fact, the exact ignition source in the TWA 800 explosion is undetermined, but it was most probably an electrical short, possibly because of wiring with a previously unknown insulation flaw. (This type of wire has since been replaced throughout the US and civilized world airline fleet, as a result of this accident).
Here are some reasons we know it was the Center Wing Fuel Tank, though, even if we're not 100% on what sparked it off:
There simply is no other explanation, short of perhaps a falling meteorite
The meteorite idea is one theory that was investigated. It fails for the same reason as a missile -- a meteorite could not have destroyed the plane without making a mark on it. While the plane was blasted to pieces, about 98% of it has been recovered, and there is no path from the outside -- whence a missile or meteor would have to come -- in to the fuel tank, where the explosion began.
or an advanced alien craft deciding to destroy the craft (the last is pure fantasy, of course, but so is the government story).
Actually, the alien craft with unimagined technology (evaporating missiles?) is more credible than the missile, bomb or meteorite theory. But it's not a scientific theory, because it can't be tested with experiments to prove it true or false. The others can.
Criminal Number 18F
To begin with, Sanders, a thief and a jailbird, is not especially credible, and his supposed source on rocket fuel (1) works for a company that doesn't make rocket fuel or rocket engines, and (2) isn't identified by name. He makes noises about a "retired Hughes rocket engine expert" but Hughes never made rocket engines. So we can discount any credibility there.
Many of the chemicals identified are not found in rocket fuel. Magnesium is not used in this proportion (when it's used as an igniter, it's in trace amounts). Silicon is not used as a binder. Calcium "as a nitrate.. .shock sensitive explosive?" Nope. Zinc likewise does not find a home in rocket fuel. Elements that do (where's the Carbon? Sodium?) aren't found in the sample!
And these: Antimony, Manganese... and the traces of copper etc. What this sample is, is mud from the bottom of Long Island Sound.
If Jailbird Jim wants us to believe that this gunk is rocket fuel, let him show us a rocket fuel with 12% Calcium by weight (your snippet doesn't say, but these amounts are all by weight in Sanders's original fantasy).
Sanders initially claimed that this was explosive, and then when that was debunked he said it was rocket fuel. Since that was debunked he's wobbled around rocket fuel and explosive and suggested that it is a rocket fuel that remains classified.
What's really funny is the way that after 9/11 he and Cashill dropped the Navy missile story that they had been pushing with all their wobbly little might, and they are only now starting to trickle back to it now that they are getting enough cover from the anti-American left, which is far enough off the edge that it meets up with the anti-American right of Sanders/Cashill boosters like Jeff "Aliens ate my brain!" Rense and Michael "The Jews and CIA did 9/11" Rivero.
The typical TWA 800 tinhat still doesn't know the scientific method after it's been beating the tar out of him for six years.
Criminal Number 18F
it was a cover-up and can not stand the light of day
For which your evidence is...?
Many people know it intuitively
Ah, your intuition. Your feelings. Sure you're in the right place? The touchy-feelies usually hang out over at DU.
Look, I pick music to listen to by how I feel about it, but I tend to make decisions about technical matters rationally, by looking at what is possible under the laws of physics, and what is not. Intuition is of no practical use in aircraft accident investigation.
What did you mean by this? Try writing coherently.
...by observing Jim Kallstrom's actions!
And exactly what did Kallstrom do? As far as I can tell he was just trying to apply his cop skills (of which I am no judge) to an investigation for which the FBI's methods turned out to be not that well suited. If it had been terrorism, Kallstrom would probably be remembered as a hero today. Instead, the fizzle of the TWA investigation brought a sour end to his whole career.
Flying is pretty safe, because of investigations like this. But one result of that, is that when accidents do happen, they are often maddeningly complex, with intricate chains of causation that we've never seen before. To follow the investigation you need to have a high school science education, which most Americans don't have except maybe on paper, and you need to think rationally, which most people these days seem unwilling or unable to do.
Maybe a lot of that is the garbage curriculum in the schools, which has them look to their feelings first. I dunno. However much people want to feel a bomb or missile did it, they need to explain how it did it without leaving a trace. And no, seafloor mud on a seat is not a trace. A hole or some high-velocity gas damage would be a trace. We had no trouble finding that after PA 103, which was vastly more messed up by impact and fire than the TWA 800 wreckage.
Criminal Number 18F
But it turns out that "ullage" is a real word, so I guess it was just a false alarm, and I can go back to dreaming about finding out who fired the missile at EI-BZG.
Maybe someone should ask Ben Veniste, Fielding, and Gorelick what the problem is.
Read, in their own words, that there was no "explosion."
"An explosion is a vague term used to describe an event associated with rapid energy release (see the glossary). The type of explosion considered in our studies is technically a deflagration or propagating flame occurring in the premixed volume of Jet A vapor and air within a multi-compartment vessel (the CWT)."
You are mistaking scientific precision for explosion-denial. In fact, they call the event an "explosion" literally hundreds of times.
At best, they were able to set the fuel on fire and create enough combustion gases that, perhaps,..., there might have been enough pressure to create some structural failure.
in fact, the CalTech scientists demonstrated that there was a very significant overpressure, which Boeing engineers determined was many times that needed to fail the structure of the plane. You seem to imply the event took place slowly; in fact, it took about one and one half to two seconds.
See it on video here: http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/69.mpg
if the venting of the tank and many other things went wrong.
that's the clause I cut from the above to deal with separately:
" The vents in the CWT would prevent the pressure from building up during an explosion inside the tank.
False. The effects of venting were studied in the ¼-scale testing program and shown to be insignificant. The venting system area is too small to relieve the pressure from an explosion, even one that takes more than several seconds to pressurize the tank."
"Shown" means something very specific in scientific experimentation.
But they could not create such a failure in their model. Not even close.
another lie. I'll address it in two parts. 1. the common claim by 800-oids that they couldn't get an explpsion:
"The NTSB investigators were unable to make Jet A explode in any tests.
False. Several hundred combustion experiments with Jet A were conducted to determine the peak overpressure, flame speed, and ignition energy. The conditions of these experiments bracketed the range of conditions observed in the flight tests."
Okay, so they could blow it up. Could they get the structure to fail? Again, here's a video. In this case it shows the front spar (the main load-bearing part of the aircraft, without which it absolutely cannot hold together) being blown out the front of the model fuel tank: http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/69b.mpg
Note: video is slow motion.
Not after as many tries as they could do. The tank is vented, and even if the fuel caught fire, there is no way for enough pressure to build up in the tank.
"The measured peak pressure rises recorded during our experiments were between 1.5 and 4 bar (20 to 60 psi), sufficient to cause failure of structural components inside the CWT of a B-747 aircraft....
Our experimental measurements and numerical calculations have shown that combustion-induced pressure differences produce forces on CWT internal structures (span-wise beams and spars) that can cause deformation and failure of these components."
Source: Quarter-Scae Experiments.
So yeah, they could fail it, and they did. Routinely. Now, about the vents, I already dealt with that lie.
You will find that "explosion" means a slow-moving flamefront that took several seconds to traverse a small scale model
Lie alread debunked above. But even if it took 30 seconds, even 30 minutes, the end result is the same -- overpressure suddenly releasing, blowing the plane apart. Look at those two videos. They are both of the same test. That's not an explosion, eh? The Cal Tech Explosion Dynamics Laboratory calls it that, when they're not being absolutely pedantic.
...under optimal conditions that were unlikely to exist in the cold air of 15,000 feet.
Ah, a new lie.
" The fuel in the CWT of TWA Flight 800 was cold.
False. Fuel and fuel tank temperatures were measured in flight tests with a Boeing 747. The temperatures at the time of the explosion ranged up to 60 C in the fuel layer at the bottom of the tank."
There are numerous details on the "Misconceptions" page that address all "optimum conditions" arguments.
This was a coverup.
Riiiight. And you have no proof, because of course the coverup destroyed the proof. You going on intuition too? (I mean, that and your lies?).
The fact is that people like James Kallstrom deserve to be spit on
If he did what you say he did he should be in prison. But this "spit on" business tells me you are arguing your emotions again (still). ... until they are humiliated as puppets and liars, and their name equals SHAME for those lies.
Prove that he's lying. You made the charge. Prove it or shut it. So far, I've shown every one of your arguments to be a lie, or substanceless emotion. Using documents you claimed you had read yourself. The rest of your Kallstrom stuff just repeats your emotional, childish argument.
The fact is that governments lie all the time.
That's a pretty broad statement. Some people in government lie, get caught, and get hosed. But just because you say someone's lying doesn't mean jack -- especially when your own untruths are so trivially demonstrated.
In this case, it is the duty of all good citizens to take the liars they know about and make their lives a misery.
Again, you gotta prove the guy's a liar first. "I know cause I know, and I've always known and I always felt that guy was fishy" seems to be the core of all you guys' argument here. And you will not get far with that, not with a court, not with scientists, not with anybody that thinks before he types.
Have a lovely day. I have to go be a government tool for a couple hours.
Criminal Number 18F
Not quite all of them. There was one fellow who used to post at alt.disasters.aviation who had observed puncture holes in the wing which he claimed matched up with the rivets on one of the engine cowlings. If that cowling hadn't been secured, he opined, it might well have blown back and punctured the wing tank, causing a major fuel leak, which could very well have ignited via exhaust heat from one of the engines. Just a minute or so before the explosion, one of the crew was heard to mention an erratic fuel flow indicator. And long, intermittent streaks of flame from the ignited fuel might very well have produced what witnesses on the ground supposed to be a "missile," rising up to meet the aircraft.
Yeah, I should probably have defined a technical term like "ullage." It means "the part of the fuel tank that does not contain fuel, and that fills with vapor." The tank in question had about 300 gallons (unusable fuel) in it, which sounds like a lot till you realize that it holds 13,000.
In fact, one of the most immediate safety measures introduced after the accident was to carry more fuel in this tank. Again it may sound illogical, but if there is too much fuel, the tank can't explode (the mixture is too rich). Unfortunately the accidents we refer to had the right mixture (a perfect fuel-air mixture for combustion is called "stoichiometric.")
By the way, the FAA called last month for jetliners to have inerting systems like military aircraft do, so that this kind of accident becomes physically impossible. With the other measures that have been taken, it's kind of belt-and-suspenders, but it was one of the top rule changes on NTSB's wish list for the last several years.
Criminal Number 18F
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.