archive-com.com » COM » T » TWA800.COM

Total: 669

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • US Stinger
    Man Portable Air Defense System MANPADS Stinger Statistics Military Analysis Network CNN Afghanistan On the Hunt for a Stinger Missile Newsday Missile Theory is Still Aloft ABC News Tools of

    Original URL path: http://twa800.com/pages/stinger.htm (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive


  • mistral
    French Mistral Missile

    Original URL path: http://twa800.com/pages/mistral.htm (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • conference

    (No additional info available in detailed archive for this subpage)
    Original URL path: /news/conference.htm (2016-02-13)


  • The Flight 800 Investigation
    Creek California Gaetke Daniel of Kansas City Missouri married to Stephanie Gaetke Gaetke Stephanie of Kansas City Missouri Gallagher Claire Galland Jean Paul Gasq Claire Gasq Francis Gough Capt Donald off duty TWA pilot of Mill Valley California married to Ana Leim Graham Steven 38 of Napa California Gray Charles Hank 47 president and chief operating officer of Midland Financial Group Inc Greene Renee Griffith Donna Griffith Joanne 39 off duty TWA employee of Brooklyn New York Grimm Julia Grivet Cyril Gustin Anne Hammer Beverly of Long Island mother of Tracy Hammer Hammer Tracy graduate student at Michigan State University of Long Island Hansen Lars Groenbakken Harkness Eric 23 off duty TWA employee Harris Lawrence Home Page available Haurani Dr Ghassan of Grosse Pointe Shores Michigan married to Nina Haurani Haurani Nina of Grosse Pointe Shores Michigan Hazelton Sandra Hettler Rance Hill Susan police detective in Portland Oregon Hocharo Jeanpierre Hogan David of Paris Holst Virginia Holst Eric Hull James 48 off duty TWA employee of Southampton Pennsylvania Hurd James III Glen Burnie Maryland Ingenhuett Lonnie 43 off duty TWA employee of Scottsdale Arizona Jacquemot Benoit Jensen Susanne Johns Courtney 18 of Clarkston Michigan Johnsen Arlene E 60 TWA Flight 800 flight attendant of Grand Junction Colorado Johnson Eleanor Johnson Jed 47 of New York Johnson Leonard Jones Romana Karschner Amanda Kevorkian Capt Ralph G 58 TWA Flight 800 pilot of Garden Grove California Krick Oliver 25 TWA Flight 800 flight engineer of St Louis Krikhan Margot Krukar Andrew 40 of Bridgewater Connecticut Kwan Barbara 40 off duty TWA employee of Scottsdale Arizona mother of Alec 7 Kwiat Patricia Kwiat Kimberly Labys Jane of Morgantown West Virginia Lacailledesse Antoine LaForge Alain Lamour Yvon Lang Ray 51 TWA flight 800 crew of North Massapequa New York Leim Ana off duty TWA flight attendant of Mill Valley California Lockhart Maureen 49 TWA flight 800 crew of Merriam Kansas Loffredo Elaine 50 off duty TWA employee of Glastonbury Connecticut Loudenslager Jody Lohan Britta Loo Patricia Lucien Dalila 17 Luevano Elias 42 off duty TWA employee of Albuquerque New Mexico Lychner Katie 8 of Houston Lychner Pam 37 of Houston mother of Shannon and Katie Lychner Lychner Shannon 10 of Houston Manchuelle Francois Maresq Etienne Maresq Nicolas Martin Betty Ruth 69 of Belleville Ill Mazzola Salvator 36 of Palermo Italy McPherson Pamela 45 off duty TWA employee of Atlanta Georgia Meade Sandra 42 TWA Flight 800 crew of Camano Island Washington Melotin Grace 48 TWA Flight 800 crew of Corona New York Mercurio Giuseppe of Palo del Colle Italy married to Anna D Alessandro Merieux Rodolphe Meshulam Avishaim Michel Pascal Miller Amy 29 of Andreas Pennsylvania married to Kyle Miller Miller Elizabeth in her 50s of Tenafly New Jersey married to Robert Miller Miller Gideon 57 off duty TWA pilot of Sarasota Florida Miller Joan Miller Kyle 29 of Andreas Pennsylvania Miller Robert 62 Tenafly Borough Administrator of Tenafly New Jersey Murta Angela Nelson A Unnamed passenger flying with A Nelson Nibert Cheryl Notes

    Original URL path: http://twa800.com/pages/victims.htm (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • mann-6-7-00
    there were two indications of word 27 stabilizer trim in the 10second record and while this is possible you and I both know it is not possible with the inter record gap as shown on the NTSB blue page I am not asking you to explain this discrepancy and in my opinion you should not be asking other private investigators to accept it or explain it as I know you have done Everyone connected with this investigation should be asking the NTSB to explain this impossibility On another more serious matter which you mentioned and then seemed to ignore is the indication of time seconds being registered twice in the 10 second record We know that is possible if the two indications are consecutive ie 2 3 4 5 or 7 8 but indications of 3 seconds and 8 seconds recorded in the same record within 7 10 of a second as you have shown on record 20 31 10 would indicate that there are 5 seconds missing from the tape and I would expect the NTSB to explain that In case you did not know at the same time these discrepancies are indicated on the Flight Data Recorder Tape

    Original URL path: http://twa800.com/news/mann-6-7-00.htm (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • parkes-10-17-00
    the alleged bomb In any event the positioning of this alleged device or 50 cm is now totally irrelevant My main concern with the position issue is because it appears to have been an attempt to cloud the remaining facts within the AAIB report as to whether the outboard rail is broken through or not My conclusion is that a length of forward inboard support rail was seriously if not completely destroyed by this event and the substitution of this was to deny a second explosive event had taken place in the cargo hold This event along with the second event had almost certainly split the bottom of the container in half I base this on the following a Within the 2 photographs of the containers base there appears to be a concerted attempt to draw the eye away from a non existent area of the outboard face From bridging the gap with a severely damaged and alien item of wreckage perhaps even the missing section from the inboard side rail to some kind of tape being wound around the side rail The underlying timber support frame also draws away the eye and gives the illusion that the container member is continuous This vanishing rail act is quantified on the sketch drawing of this production at Fig F4 Viz Areas not recovered unq It is first hatched signifying not recovered and then coloured over in red to signify severely blast damaged The lost components WOULD HAVE probably exhibited a mainstream components signature b Black lettering appears all over the container floor which is not apparent on the top photograph which was been taken in another locus Writing on productions with a felt tip marker is not my idea of preserving evidence c The floor of the container is SPOTLESSLY clean but there would have been undeniable evidence of black sooting or weapon fragment splashing Again this is not my idea of preserving evidence 5 Forward face of AVE 4041 PA Fig 7 This again displays signs of 2 separate forces reacting upon it The Inboard half of this face is forced inwards and towards the rear of the aircraft and the outboard half has been forced outwards towards the front of the aircraft The lower left edge exhibits heavy sooting and the outer lower rail has been heavily impacted from the outside This sooting is synonymous with the detonation of oxygen deficient high performance explosives I am convinced that this photograph has been deliberately taken off centre to hide this area Why when we clearly see a square piece of aluminum on the aft outer strut are we not shown this from the other side in a photograph We are shown 2 struts but no evidence of the remaining skin of the container One can fully appreciate that the aft face was the open side of the container and that the open faces of containers are only closed off with a tarpaulin but we should be shown the aft facing view or at least the inside of the remains of the container This is extremely odd The lower left section of the containers skin including the supporting strut shows a break which is not depicted on the sketch There is a foreign object laid against or attached to the strut for no good reason There is no mention of any blast vent holes which could have allowed soot to escape from the inside of the container so we can deduce that this area of the container was blasted with soot from the outside Indeed the sketch of the panel showing what aluminum skin was actually recovered indicates no sign of lost material or puncture wounds of any description Quote e Forward face panel complete with top left and lower edge members unq A ragged section of outer skin is also seen half way up the inboard strut which seems to appear again and authenticate that this is the same strut I am concerned also by what appears to be an engineered cut near the top of this strut however this may simply be tape No aluminum paneling appears to be wrapped around the protruding strut at the lower left of the picture however aluminum paneling appears to be wrapped around the leg when viewing the inboard face of the container The appendage on this strut on figure F7 looks like a box or something similar It may even be an alien corner piece Inboard face of AVE 4041 PA Firstly what is the section of paneling shown to the extreme left The alleged left hand strut shows straight marks or possibly tape at the area of the bend What is this and why was it done The angle of this element is consistent with the panel being blown outwards as would happen when the blast wave exited that container at a low level The SQUARE hole shown left of centre top exhibits many features consistent of being blown inwards namely inward pettaling and shear bending however the section of paneling lying at the 8 o clock position does not marry up with the damaged container skin The NG letters may be significant This rough section is shown to be under the Pan Am logo and again it does not marry in with the localised damage One can quite clearly see the letters AV bent inwards The central area of paneling has been forced against the central strut and shows crease lines Again consistent with having been forced against the bracing strut Looking to the right of the picture one sees that the skin has separated from the outer edge and has either impacted against luggage by an external force or has been impacted with luggage from an internal source This characteristic buckling was caused by an outside influence as the top right hand corner displays clear signs of being pushed inwards The real problem here is reconciling the REPAIR PATCH with the fixed area of paneling behind the same and which displays quite obvious signs of being pushed inwards This convenient patch is taped or tied onto the damaged area with tape twine or whatever but this patch did not originate from this area in the first place If it is a patch it certainly is a rough patch and one would have expected PanAm s artisans to have made a tidier job of it The bending of the patch is not commensurate with the bend of the fixed panel below it nor is the damage to the paneling commensurate with the patch This so called patch could not have remained undamaged while the material that is was reputedly repairing is so seriously damaged and torn Directly below this patch there is a section of paneling called E in the sketch which does not marry up to the REAL fixed section of panel Again the bending of this piece is not consistent with the bending of the fixed section above it The lower section of the right leg shows signs of a section of paneling wrapped around it and this could not have happened in this area In the sketch we see a wavy edge of torn paneling attached to the corner strut but this wavy section paneling is not visible on the actual strut so I conclude that this strut is completely alien to this area Again a straight mark is evident at the top of the strut and we must ask the question if this is tape or a saw cut and if it is only tape then what is it doing there This section of the container is highly suspicious and lies directly above the alien section of the containers base Namely the section with the 2 distinct saw cuts though it Something is seriously wrong in this whole region and has been fabricated to fit a false chain of events Outboard face of AVE 4041 This clearly indicates that a lot of the explosive energy exited the container in this area and the Aircraft s outer structure bears witness to that Regularly shaped crease lines are evident on the recovered paneling and I conclude that most if not all of these were caused by fairly solid objects impinging on the inside face However I am concerned about the attitude of this panel We appear to be looking up at it rather than directly at it and this is because there is something to hide on the topside Indeed strange marks and or writing are visible what are they Nothing is shown of any other element of this container except a strut on the left hand side to which a rectangular section of paneling appears to be fastened to I suspect that could we see the top section properly we would definitely find evidence of a hole being blasted from the inside This contentious area marries up with the SQAURE hole in the inboard face My conclusion here is that an object was propelled through the top of the container and that object originated from with the starboard container containing the explosive material or materials Again I have no dimensions to work with but this can be easily quantified Summary There is overwhelming evidence to indicate that a minimum of two high explosive events took place onboard PAN AM 103 One inside a container located on the Starboard side and one located inside a container on the Port side In the light of what I personally witnessed in Locherbie Ice Rink and after an in depth study of the AAIB report leads me to the following conclusion The first device detonated in a starboard container and did the following damage 1 Severely disrupted the cabin floor and sent high velocity fragments into that area some of which impacted upon the victim I personally witnessed This event also blasted luggage through the fuselage floor forward and below of the container position Region E figure B20 I then interrupted my report at this stage to state what I now believe to be the case 0330 HRS 7 6 00 Young girls socks come to mind THERE WAS NO IED INSIDE CONTAINER AVE 4041 THAT AN EXPLOSIVE EVENT TOOK PLACE IN OR AROUND THIS CONTAINER IS NOT IN QUESTION BUT THIS EVENT WAS UNDOUBTABLY CAUSED BY A MAIN STREAM MUNITON WHICH WAS MOST PROBABALY A H E A T ROCKET PROPELLED ROUND HIGH EXPLOSIVE ANTI TANK I was blinded by certain things but now I see the truth Like so many others I was side tracked by DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION Based on what little evidence and enlarged photographs I can glean from the AAIB report and my own observation in Locherbie Ice Rink Temporary morgue my findings are A A catastrophic explosive event took place in a container located STARBOARD SIDE FORWARD see immense damage to floor in this area plus missing structural elements This was either the accidental self detonation of main stream MUNITONS or the deliberate explosively promoted detonation and or functioning of the main stream munitions The initial sequence would have blasted into the cabin area with tremendous force hence the fragments in the wee girl the other phenomenon I witnessed namely the minute holes burnt in the young girls socks bears witness to the fact that burning rocket propellant was undoubtedly in this area B It is impossible at this time to say how many mainstream weapons were involved certainly more than one probably three and possibly more A mixture of high temperature gas was produced which opened up the starboard side of the aircraft and blew a hole in its underside pieces of wreckage from the aircraft and the container including most of its contents were blown into the atmosphere to become what I suspect the first separate radar blip This high pressure high temperature gas was most likely caused by an all burnt on launch propellant and perhaps a mixture of the gasses from a detonating high explosive C The aircraft s controls were severely effected in this area if not completely destroyed causing the aircraft to immediately dive to the port side D Within Milliseconds THOUSANDS OF A SECOND NOT MILLIONTHS OF A SECOND the warheads from these weapons went propulsive and at least 2 and perhaps even 3 of these impacted the now infamous AVE 4041 container on the port side E One of these warheads either functioned inside the container and caused the effects seen to the port side adjacent to same or functioned against the aircrafts side and damaged container 4041s outer port gable end One possibly went through the container at high level and another went through the forward in board bottom corner I also suspect that a further weapon functioned further aft on the port side See cabin floor damage in that location FIG B 18 AAIB report What we do know is that one impacted the inner forward lower container rail hence its substitution This warhead may have then functioned under the container when striking the under cargo floor area or traveled further aft and functioned in the area of the hold where the pallets were stowed Station 900 It is difficult to see how such a projectile could have been propelled down the hold without functioning but I am convinced an explosive event also took place in that area There will be clear evidence to indicate what caused the aft event even if some materials have been accidentally LOST F Due to the catastrophic failure and separation of the nose of the aircraft I suspect that both if not three of these warheads functioned in the forward port area but I cannot say for certain until I see further evidence Everything now falls into place The deliberate hiding of damage the substitution of damaged of components or the LOSS of components bearing weapon signatures and the undeniable and deliberate attempt not to photograph certain areas and or adulterate photographs of these areas the cutting and bending of components that could not have been caused by an explosive event in the aircraft destruction sequence I describe G There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I am on the correct track here I have wasted six valuable days either looking for the wrong thing or following the official line with a great degree of skepticism The evidence is all contained within the AAIB report without me having to say if I saw fragment impacts in a victim or whether I witnessed minute holes in her socks or not H The aft fibre Glass container behind AVE 4041 also gives clear indication of the secondary effects of a mainstream muniition Sections of this container appear to have been SURGICALY removed 18 6 00 I have just discovered another adulteration within the AAIB report figure F 8 I Inboard gable of AVE 4041 I can no longer trust that this view represents a true gable element belonging to container AVE 4041 I have no wish at this time elaborate on this adulteration but it is significant and quite obvious If the reputed inboard gable end of this container is not the original gable from 4041 then we must ask the question then from which container is it from However the square hole depicted top left of centre top still shows definite characteristics of having being punched inwards Looking at the sketch of the recovered container skin it claims this hole to be square I can see no reason for a square hole to have been formed other than by hand A Rocket projectile would produce a fairly round hole in taught aluminum and cause the edges to petal inward Hitting a soft target such as a container side may not necessarily cause the warhead to function however as I am ignorant of the particular weapon we can only guess at the detonation mechanism Having seen the effects of shaped charge warheads or HEAT rounds on miscellaneous targets I do not need to guess at such a weapons performance I fully appreciate that container AVE 4041 also impacted the ground after being separated from its host never the less explosive blast damage and or weapon impact damage is entirely different from that produced by mechanical trauma by whatever means J As I am reliant on the AAIB report which is seriously flawed I have no way of effectively plotting the flight path of the projectile that destroyed the spar cap on the port side Fig B 22 Furthermore if we are to believe the tremendous power of this REPUTED device it not only totally shattered and dislocated this Spar Cap it also melted the aircrafts skin after blasting its way out of a container It is impossible for this melting to have taken place within the time available from the heat energy released from such a small charge What is for certain is that the pre impacted spar cap could not have been totally destroyed by the energy generated by the reputed Net Explosive Quantity of explosives contained within the reputed Improvise Explosive Device Not withstanding destroying this heavy structural element it blasted it out of the aircraft I claim that this is a physical impossibility and this fact can be empirically proven Summary 1 There is clear evidence that the reputed container AV 4041 has been adulterated after recovery 11 There is clear evidence within the AAIB report to show that a catastrophic explosive event took place on the Starboard side of the aircraft This is also backed by my own observation of the body of a young female victim seated in the starboard side of the aircraft forward of the main event 111 There is evidence to show that more than one explosive event took place in the aircrafts hold 1V The AAIB report is inconclusive where it relates to container damage V The AAIB report relies on computer generated images to present its findings V1 The AAIB report mentions the power of an explosive that is yet

    Original URL path: http://twa800.com/news/parkes-10-17-00.htm (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Annimation
    is recorded as time of day The common piece of information we have is altitude and time he adds and we try to marry those up Once the time history files are created they can be exported to a personal computer for further analysis as well as to a Silicon Graphics Onyx workstation where most of the final animations are created On Bower s PC which runs the Windows NT Operating System he uses multiple software packages to manipulate and animate the FDR data in a variety of ways We have some flight performance software that allows simulations with three four and six degrees of freedom explains Bower Within that software and other packages Bower can animate the data as charts and graphs using an airplane model or as cockpit instruments changing over time While these animations don t offer the level of detail or realism that comes from the SGI they are used to illustrate factual data in the best way possible The software that Bower uses can also output data in the format used for the SGI based animations Once the data is moved to that machine one goal is to make the animation look as realistic as possible For this process detailed models are used backgrounds are carefully constructed and terrain models are incorporated into the scene A lot of time is also devoted to determining which viewpoint or viewpoints to use for viewing the animation Since there is no FDR information to use for the final portion of the simulation other data must be examined According to Dr Vern Ellingstad the NTSB s Director Office of Research and Engineering this process was particularly complex and time consuming in the case of the TWA 800 flight For the initial analysis radar data from five different sources was used explains Ellingstad Some of the pieces after the initial explosion were big enough to follow on radar However the flight path that s established by radar is a lot less precise Essentially there s a hit every 4 5 seconds rather than every second Using that radar data aerospace engineers performed a trajectory analysis using the aerodynamic properties of the pieces We tried it a few ways adds Ellingstad One way assumed the engines continued to run another didn t Essentially what they were doing was driving those aerodynamic studies to fit the radar data In some cases results from the salvage effort provided final location information for pieces of the plane In other cases initial trajectory analyses helped steer the salvage crews to the areas they should search As long as that process continued the trajectory data was updated to reflect as accurate a path as possible The data we develop from those analyses are the vital part of the animation explains Ellingstad Once it exists the final animation is used to accurately visualize the event At the NTSB they pair their Silicon Graphics Onyx with Vis Lab animation software from Engineering Animation Inc in Ames Iowa EAI

    Original URL path: http://twa800.com/news/annimation.htm (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • boeing11-18-97
    determine what happened and we will keep providing whatever information and resources we can to help in that effort including participating in the upcoming public hearing Boeing provided information about the design operation and performance of the 747 to the FBI throughout their entire investigation However Boeing was not involved in the production of the video shown today nor have we had the opportunity to obtain a copy or fully

    Original URL path: http://twa800.com/news/boeing11-18-97.htm (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •