TWA 800 CRASH DAMAGE ANALYSIS: Parts 1 & 2
From: Lloyd Miller, Research Director
Date: Thu, Feb 6, 1997 2:33 AM
Subject: TWA800: Crash Damage Analysis
To: A-albionic Weekly Up-date
A-albionic Research Weekly Up-date of 2-5-97
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(free 2 copy (*)--------------------(free 2 forward)
TWA 800 CRASH DAMAGE ANALYSIS
(PART I)
(c) 1997 Ian Williams Goddard
The following report presents overwhelming evidence
that TWA 800 was destroyed by a missile, and that
the missile -- as determined previously by TWA 800
researcher Marshall Houston and Brigadier General
Benton K. Partin -- was a radio-frequency guided
continuous-rod warhead missile.
_________________________________________________
ANALYSIS 1_______________________________________|
IF a missile struck TWA 800,
THEN an object would have been
seen racing toward TWA 800
moments before it exploded.
FACT 1: An object was seen
racing toward TWA 800.
EXHIBIT A: According to the Associated Press [1]
"Radar detected a blip merging with the jet short-
ly before the explosion."
EXHIBIT B: According to the Times of London [2],
spy satellite images showed "an object racing up
to the TWA jet...and smashing into it." About the
spy satellite over the area, the Boston Globe [3]
stated that "the satellite was probably the CIA's
Satellite Data System II...equipped with a long-
range, high-resolution TV camera with a sensor,
known as the Heritage, that detects objects by
the heat they emit."
EXHIBIT C: At that same time, according to FBI
investigators, "More than 150 'credible' wit-
nesses -- including several scientists...saw
a missile" flying toward TWA 800 [4].
_______________________________________________
[1] ASSOCIATED PRESS: FBI Searches For Evidence
in Crash. Rick Hampson, 07/19/96.
[2] THE LONDON TIMES: Investigators Look at New
Theory of Missile Fired From Boat, 07/22/96.
[3] THE BOSTON GLOBE: Officials Give Conflicting
Reports on Flight 800. Fred Kaplan, Pamela
Ferdinand, 07/24/96.
[4] THE NEW YORK POST: TWA Probers: Missile
Witnesses "Credible." Murray Weiss, 09/22/96.
_________________________________________________
ANALYSIS 2_______________________________________|
IF a missile struck TWA 800,
THEN something would have
blasted through TWA 800.
FACT 2: Something "blasted
through" TWA flight 800.
EXHIBIT A: The Associated Press [1] reported that
a crash investigator disclosed the fact that "about
41 seconds before [TWA 800] was engulfed in a fire-
ball... something blasted through the right side
of the aircraft."
That "something blasted through the right side of
the plan" is entirely consistent with the wide-
spread eyewitness accounts of a missile hitting,
and therefore blasting through, TWA 800.
With satellite reports indicating that the missile
struck the underside and with witness accounts in-
dicating that it struck from the left side, plus
other evidence upcoming in this report, the clearest
reading is that "blasted through the right side"
means that the missile come in from the lower left
side and exited, or "blasted," through the upper
right side.
________________________________________________
[1] ASSOCIATED PRESS: TWA Tape Adds to Suspicion
of Bomb or Missile. Larry Neumeister, 07/27/96.
_________________________________________________
ANALYSIS 3_______________________________________|
IF a missile struck TWA 800,
THEN it should have been knocked
off its projected flight path,
with debris falling off its pro-
jected flight path corresponding
to the observed angle of missile
collision.
FACT 3: The plane was knocked off
its projected flight path, with
debris falling off its projected
flight path corresponding to the
angle of observed missile impact.
EXHIBIT A: Witnesses accounts indicate that the
missile was fired from very close to the Long
Island shore and to the NW of TWA 800, which
suggests that the plane would be hit on the lower
left side, with the missile smashing through the
upper right side. This should thrust the debris
to the right of the flight path, which is exactly
the case, as indicated by several maps showing
the orientation of debris relative to the flight
path. One of the most detailed maps to be found
is on the front page of the New York Times
(07/29/96), which shows that the largest bodies
of debris landed about four miles to the right
of the flight path.
The Times suggests such significant lateral
debris displacement was caused by the mild wind
that evening, which we must believe blew these
massive pieces of plane four miles to the south.
See: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/path.gif
_________________________________________________
ANALYSIS 4_______________________________________|
IF a missile struck TWA 800,
THEN passengers would have
received severe whiplash,
indicating a collision and
sudden deceleration.
FACT 4: All passengers suffered
severe sudden deceleration-
induced whiplash.
EXHIBIT A: Newsday [1] reported that:
A majority of passengers aboard
TWA Flight 800 likely died in-
stantly of a violent separation
of the skull from the spinal cord
-- a sledge-hammerlike blow to
the head caused by a sudden,
drastic change in the aircraft's
speed and direction, the Suffolk
County medical examiner said...
EXHIBIT B: Reuters [2] reported that:
"The most likely injury, and I
think that happened to everyone
up there, is that they got a
phenomenal whiplash," he said.
"First of all, massive facial
and head injuries from hitting
the seat in front of them and
then a secondary whiplash back-
ward which basically was going
to sever all function of the
brain stem."
Such a sudden forward thrust of the head is proof
positive that TWA 800 smashed into something that
halted the forward motion of the plane, yet pas-
senger's heads continued moving forward, slamming
into the seats in front of them just as a child
without a seat belt would continue moving forward
after the forward motion of the car was suddenly
halted by a collision with another object. This
forensic evidence proves that something collided
with TWA 800.
If, as some have suggested, the neck-breaking
force was caused by the force of the wind suddenly
whipping through the opened cabin, then heads
would be blown only backwards. If this were the
case, not only would the high-backed seats stop
heads from bending backwards to a breaking point,
but most important, passengers would not have
suffered "massive facial and head injuries from
hitting the seats IN FRONT of them," as the
medical examiner reported to be the case.
EXHIBIT C: Knight-Ridder [3] reported that most
passengers died due to injuries induced by a
"sudden deceleration" of the plane. An explosion
on-board from an on-board source would not cause
such sudden deceleration.
CONCLUSION: This sudden change of direction and
speed, described by the medical examiner as akin
to "smashing into a brick wall" [4], clearly de-
scribes a collision that another object that
violently altered the forward motion of TWA 800.
Whiplash, or cervical acceleration/deceleration
syndrome (CADS), is proof of a massive force of
collision with an object traveling along a vector
contrary to TWA 800's vector. Case closed.
An on-board explosion where the source of the ex-
plosion is traveling at rest with respect to the
plane would exert force isotropically, or uni-
formly over the space in the plane, that would
not significantly, if at all, alter the plane's
motion except to the extend it caused the plane
to begin a downward trajectory.
This forensic evidence clearly confirms that the
catastrophic damage experienced by TWA 800 must
have resulted from a collision with another object.
When we factor in that over 150 people saw a mis-
sile-like object streak toward and collide with
TWA 800, logic dictates that TWA 800 was destroyed
by a missile, period.
___________________________________________
[1] NEWSDAY: Most aboard died instantly,
says examiner. Al Baker, 08/08/96.
[2] REUTERS: Pathologist Says Most TWA
Victims Died Quickly, (08/20/96).
[3] KNIGHT-RIDDER NEWSPAPERS: Investigators
Searching for Signs of Explosion. Aaron
Epstein and James R. Carroll, 07/19/96.
[4] ASSOCIATED PRESS: Coroner Says Injuries
Reveal Sudden Deaths. Larry Neumeister,
08/08/96.
_________________________________________________
ANALYSIS 5_______________________________________|
IF a missile struck TWA 800
utilizing a radio-frequency
(RF) guidance system,
THEN the electronics systems
should be destroyed immediately
and simultaneously.
FACT 5: Electronic systems were
destroyed immediately and
simultaneously.
EXHIBIT A: Under a headline reading "Devices Stopped
in Unison," The New York Times [1] reported:
The flight data recorder on board
...showed all systems functioning
normally until the device suddenly
stopped functioning -- at virtually
the same moment the cockpit voice
recorder picked up a final, loud
noise, Federal officials said...
At 8:31, about 12 minutes after
the plane took off...its trans-
ponder stopped sending the elec-
tronic signal.... At virtually
the same moment, Mr. Frances
said, the cockpit voice recorder
stopped recording.
The (1) flight data recorder, (2) the cockpit
voice recorder and (3) the transponder all stopped
at roughly the same instant, indicating an instan-
taneous destruction of the electronics system.
This suggests, while the entire plane was not
instantly destroyed but flew onwards prior to the
large blast, that a portion that was destroyed
first included the electrons systems housed in
the forward-fuselage section. Such instantaneous
destruction in the region of maximum radio-fre-
quency radiation, when coupled with the evidence
of a missile heading toward the plane, indicates
that the plane was hit by a radio-frequency (RF)
guided missile.
The RF hot-spot is in the forward fuselage section,
which as we shall see, was the area that experi-
enced the initial catastrophic destruction. The
electronics bay is just to the rear of the forward
landing gear, and the transponder antenna is also
in the forward section just forward of the leading
edge of the wings. This is exactly the region in
which something "smashed through the plane."
EXHIBIT B: The RF missile is a type of Anti-Radia-
tion Missile (ARM), or a beam-ridering missile,
that rides the radio signals emitting from the
target to home in on the target for the kill. From
the U.S. Naval Weapon School Textbook, Chapter 16:
16.4.2.3 Passive Homing. Passive
homing depends only on the target
as a source of tracking energy.
This energy can be the noise rad-
iated by a ship or submarine in
the case of a passive homing
torpedo, RF radiation from the
target's own sensors in the case
of an anti-radiation (ARM) weapon...
CONCLUSION: Instantaneous destruction of the
electronics systems is wholly consistent with a
hit delivered by an RF guided missile. The fact
that the initial and maximum damage was delivered
to the forward-fuselage section virtually dictates
that the TWA 800 killer missile was RF homing.
______________________________________________
[1] THE NEW YORK TIMES: Backing a Bomb Theory:
Devices Stopped in Unison. Matthew Purdy,
07/27/96.
_________________________________________________
ANALYSIS 6_______________________________________|
IF a missile struck TWA 800
utilizing a radio-frequency
(RF) guidance system,
THEN the forward section,
which houses the electronics
bay and transponder antennas,
would be the location of the
first and the most damage.
FACT 6: The forward section
was the location of the first
and the most damage.
EXHIBIT A: After "something blasted through the
right side of the aircraft" the nose of the plane,
which contained the cockpit and the first class
section, was severed from the main fuselage. As
the Boston Globe [1] reported, the initial event
"tore the nose of the plane off first. The cockpit
crew and first-class passengers apparently hurtled
into the night sky..."
As the Associated Press [2] reported: "[T]he cock-
pit and first-class section blew off at 13,700
feet. The rest of the plane traveled several miles
further before exploding in a huge fireball."
EXHIBIT B: Having fallen first, the front section
hit the water 1.5 miles closer to the airport than
the center and rear portion of the plane. As the
Washington Post [3] reported:
TWA Flight 800 broke apart shortly
after some catastrophic event,
with the nose and forward passenger
cabin hitting the Atlantic Ocean
a mile and a half before the wings
and rear cabin, investigators said
yesterday.
Navy divers have found new pieces
of aircraft debris that, coupled
with enhanced radar data, indicate
that the wings and rear passenger
cabin flew on alone for perhaps
24 seconds after the front of the
aircraft broke away. The main
section then disintegrated in
a fireball.
NTSB Vice Chairman Robert Francis
declined to speculate about what
may have happened to produce the
debris pattern, but he said,
"Things that come off first tend
to be indicators of what happened."
As Newsday [4] reported it: "[T]he front of the
plane actually fell into the water closer to
Kennedy Airport than the rest of it, indicating
that the plane had been 'decapitated.'"
EXHIBIT C: The evidence clearly indicates that
the something that "blasted through the plane"
must have blasted through the front of the plane
and that it did so BEFORE the explosion of the
fuel tanks. This clearly dictates that the much
promoted "center fuel tank explosion" was not the
primary cause, but would have been a secondary
effect of something that "blasted through the
plane." As the New York Times [5] stated:
Investigators examining the
wreckage...concluded that the
center fuel tank burned as many
as 24 seconds after the initial
blast that split apart the plane,
a finding that deals a serious
blow to the already remote
possibility that a mechanical
accident caused the crash,
officials said on Tuesday..."
EXHIBIT D: The New York Times [6] reported that the
front landing gear of TWA 800 showed exceptionally
"heavy damage." As the New York Times reported:
One investigator...[said] "The
vast majority of the wreckage
has been these torn, mangled
pieces of thin metal, from the
fuselage. This [however] was
a huge piece of thick steel,
and it had been blasted is
the only way to describe it."
"For more than a week," he
said, "everyone had been sift-
ing through this wreckage, des-
perately searching for some
sign of the explosion... Then
you see it, the kind of visible
damage that had been done [to
the landing gear], you just
know it."
See: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/74703.gif
EXHIBIT E: Not only was the front hit first and
hardest, but passengers in the front where also
hit hardest. As the New York Times [7] reported:
Officials said yesterday that the
catastrophic event...occurred near
the front of the airplane, Joseph
Cantamessa Jr., a special agent in
charge of the F.B.I. New York office,
said the bodies of victims sitting
near the front of the plane showed
more severe injuries, indicating
they "experienced the bulk of the
significant event."
EXHIBIT F: I interviewed Roland Penney, who has
also been interviewed in the media. Mr. Penney
not only saw "a thin white line" fly up and hit
the plane, but he also participated in the re-
covery of bodies almost till sunrise the next day.
He recovered bodies from the debris field that
contained the rear-to-mid section of the plan. He
said that all of the many bodies he saw were in
pristine condition: "not a hair burned or limb lost."
As it was reported that "Many bodies were badly
mutilated," [8] indeed they were so severely
mangled that identification other than by DNA was
impossible, the evidence clearly suggests -- based
on Mr. Penney's account, the above testimony of
investigators, and the evidence of a maximum im-
pact in the forward section -- that the bodies
mangled beyond recognition must have been from
the forward section of the plane, where it is
all too clear that a kinetic-energy warhead
"blasted through the plane."
CONCLUSION: It is beyond dispute that the evidence
proves that the initial event occurred in the for-
ward fuselage section of the plane, and that the
most servere damage also occurred in the forward
section. It is nothing short of scandalous that
the NTSB would attempt, in light of proof to the
contrary, to persuade the public that the initial
event was an explosion of the center fuel tank.
See: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/74703.gif
_____________________________________________
[1] THE BOSTON GLOBE: Recovery of Debris
From 747 Made Priority. 07/28/96.
[2] ASSOCIATED PRESS: If There Was a Bomb,
It Probably Was in With The Luggage.
Pat Milton, 07/31/96.
[3] THE WASHINGTON POST: Nose Broke off First.
Don Phillips, 07/29/96.
[4] NEWSDAY: Three Theories, Few Answers.
Craig Gordon and Liam Pleven, Aug. 8, 1996
[5] THE NEW YORK TIMES: Examination of Fuel
Tank Deals Blow to Mechanical Failure Theory.
Don Van Natta Jr., 08/14/96.
[6] THE NEW YORK TIMES: Landing Gear Provides
Evidence of Bomb. Matthew L. Wald, 07/31/96.
[7] THE NEW YORK TIMES: Airliner Bombing Reviewed
For Similarities. Matthew Purdy, 07/30/96.
[8] THE NEW YORK TIMES: Dozens of Bodies
Found With Debris. Matthew Purdy, 07/23/96.
END OF PART I
************************************************************************
IAN GODDARD (igoddard@erols.com) Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________________________
TWA 800: THE FACTS --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
WACO - WTC - OKC ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/facts.htm
(c) 1996 Ian Williams Goddard - (*) free to copy nonprofit w/ attribute.
FORWARDED FOR DISCUSSION, NOT NECESSARILY ENDORSED BY:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research (POB 20273,
Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the
entire political-ideological spectrum. Quarterly journal, book sales,
rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date
Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources.
To Discuss Ideas:
mailto:lloyd@a-albionic.com http://msen.com/~lloyd/
For Ordering Info & Free Catalog:
mailto:james@a-albionic.com http://a-albionic.com/
**FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: **
Explore Our Archive:
From: Lloyd Miller, Research Director
Date: Thu, Feb 6, 1997 2:34 AM
Subject: TWA800 Crash Damage Analysis (II)
To: A-albionic Weekly Up-date
A-albionic Research Weekly Up-date of 2-5-97
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(free 2 copy (*)--------------------(free 2 forward)
TWA 800 CRASH DAMAGE ANALYSIS
(PART II)
(c) 1997 Ian Williams Goddard
_________________________________________________
ANALYSIS 7_______________________________________|
IF a missile struck TWA 800
utilizing a radio-frequency
(RF) guidance system,
THEN the missile would strike
the forward fuselage underbelly
of the plane, and there would
be evidence of massive upward
forces following the upward
course of the missile warhead.
FACT 7: There is proof of mas-
sive upward forces in the for-
ward-fuselage section.
EXHIBIT A: The Associated Press [1] reported that:
Asked to comment Thursday on
reports that fragments of first-
class passengers' china were
found embedded in the walls and
ceiling of the cabin, Kallstrom
[FBI chief investigator] said,
"I wish that I could answer
that but I'm just not going
to comment."
CONCLUSION: This proves that extreme force were
exerted upon the forward fuselage section, frag-
mentizing not only the forward section plane,
but china inside the forward section, and that
this fragmented china was blasted in an upward
direction with such fantastic force being tran-
sferred from the source of the initial event to
the china that its fragments suddenly became
like bullets, penetrating the walls and ceiling.
It's also clear from Kallstrom's statement above,
"I wish that I could answer that but I'm just not
going to comment," that this critical and highly
revealing information was quickly concealed from
the public.
Such upward force would be consistent with the
upward trajectory of a missile smashing through
the underside of the plane just as the satellite
data cited previously showed. Furthermore, it
indicates that the missile transferred kinetic
energy to those things it struck, thrusting them
along its course rather than spreading them out-
ward as an exploding warhead would do. This
clearly indicates a nonexplosive missile that
destroyed the plane with its kinetic energy.
_________________________________________________
[1] ASSOCIATED PRESS: 15 Days After Plane Blew Up,
Still Little Hard Proof of Bomb. Pat Milton,
08/02/96.
________________________________________________
ANALYSIS 8______________________________________|
IF a RF homing missile with a
continuous-rod (CR) warhead
struck TWA 800,
THEN the plane should be chopped
into two or three segments. Very
likely the first being the fore-
most "nose" of the plane, the
second being the mid to center
section of the plane, and the
third being the largest center
to rear of the plane. The reason
for this specific segmentation
is that it puts the electronics
bay transponder antenna roughly
in the center of the circular
CR warhead "hoop."
FACT 8: The clearest reading of
the available information indi-
cates that the plane was initi-
ally chopped into three segments.
CUT ONE: First-class / business-class interface
SEGMENT ONE: Seat rows 1 through 5, main deck
EXHIBIT A: The Boston Globe [1] stated that the
initial event "tore the nose of the plane off
first. The cockpit crew and first-class passengers
apparently hurtled into the night sky alone...."
The first-class section in the B-747-100 ends at
seat row number 5 and is housed in the portion
of the fuselage known as the nose of the plane,
which extends from the forward tip of the plane
to the cockpit area and below. It is this area,
the Nose, that was severed away at the First-
Class and business-class interface area.
EXHIBIT B: That there is a cut at the end of the
First-Class section is widely reported throughout
the media. The Associated Press [2] stated that
the initial event "ripped through the front part
of the plane, tearing off the cockpit and first-
class cabin." And again: "[T]he cockpit and first-
class section blew off at 13,700 feet. The rest
of the plane traveled several miles further
before exploding in a huge fireball." [3]
One could cite dozens of identical reports pub-
lished over many months that all clearly stipu-
late that the nose section of the plane was cut
off, segmenting the first-class section from the
rest of the plane. The first-class section con-
tains seat rows 1 through 5. But what most people
are not aware of is that the evidence also con-
firms that the business-class section, the sec-
tion just behind first-class, was also segmented
from the plane during the initial event.
CUT TWO: business-class / couch-class interface
SEGMENT TWO: seat rows 6 through 18
EXHIBIT C: A New York Times article [4] stated
that the catastrophic even caused "the fuselage
to snap just forward of the wings." Just forward
of the wings is the rear portion of the business-
class section. So besides the first well-defined
cut at the first- and business-class interfaces,
there was also a second cut at the business-
coach-class interface just forward of the
center of the fuselage.
EXHIBIT D: The debris field closest to the airport,
the "southwestern debris field," represented the
debris that fell from the plane first. Not only
were the cockpit and first-class sections found
there, thereby proving that they fell first, but,
according to Reuters [5], parts of the business
class sections were also found there:
The southwestern debris field
contained the front landing gear
and parts of first-class and
business-class passenger com-
partments...
A diagram in the New York Times [6] states that
seats rows 9 through 18, which are business-class
seats, as well as the cargo bins, which are located
below the business-class section, were also found
in the debris field closest to the airport.
So the nose section of the plane containing the
first-class section and cockpit was torn off --
that is, it was removed from the business-class
section, which is the forward-fuselage section be-
hind the nose section. However, the business class
section was also torn off from the coach-class, or
center-to-rear fuselage sections of the plane. This
means the plane was generally ripped into three
segments: (1) first-class segment, (2) business-
class segment, and (3) the center-to-rear portion
that flew onwards, crashing into the sea further
from the airport. Evidence indicates that the
second segment was severely pulverized.
See: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/74701.gif
EXHIBIT E: The Continuous-Rod (CR) Warhead:
The "Naval Warfare Class of the United States
Naval Academy," (chapter 13) states:
13.4.4 Continuous-Rod Warheads
Upon detonation [prior to hitting
the target], the continuous-rod
payload expands rapidly into a
ring pattern. The intent is to
cause the connected rods, during
their expansion, to strike the
target and produce damage by a
cutting action.
Throughout the media, words used to describe the
catastrophic damage to TWA 800 have been that the
plane was "cut," "torn," "ripped," or "chopped."
The book "Fighter Combat, Tactics and Maneuvering,"
by Robert Shaw (page 45) states:
The continuous-rod warhead... is
comprised of many short lengths
of steel rod placed side by side
in an annular arrangement around
the explosive material. The rods
are welded together at alternate
ends so that when detonation
occurs they expand outward in
a solid, continuous ring, much
like an expanding watch band,
until reaching their maximum
radius. In theory this contin-
uous-rod is more likely to cut
through control cables, hydraulic
and fuel lines, and structural
members than are individual
fragments [in blast-fragmenta-
tion warheads].
EXHIBIT F: Brigadier General Benton K. Partin, a
noted weapons expert who researched and designed
many warheads while heading the U.S. Air Force
Armaments Laboratory, gave his expert analysis
of the TWA 800 disaster [7]:
To obtain the kind of massive
structural damage we see here, a
bomb would have to produce much
greater internal explosive de-
struction than has been reported.
And you could hit a big 747 with
several Redeyes or Stingers and
still not bring it down.
[W]hen you design a missile war-
head to destroy a bomber, you
always want to get what we call
a 'K-kill,' meaning a massive,
instantaneous, structural failure
which 'kills' -- brings down --
the aircraft. The only kind of
missile I know of for that kind
of structural kill...is a prox-
imity-fused, continuous-rod
missile warhead.
A CR warhead is a kinetic-energy weapon that kills
by sheer force of collision, not by the force of
a chemical explosion. The proximity-fuse detonation
associated with the CR warhead serves to release
the CR payload from the warhead nose of the missile
just prior to target impact.
About the CR warhead, The New American states:
"The proximity fuse would detonate when the mis-
sile approaches the aircraft, causing a long,
accordion-like steel rod to unfold at high
velocity, slicing the target in two."
CONCLUSION: From what we know about the recovered
wreckage of TWA 800 it is clear that the initial
event occurred in the nose and forward fuselage sec-
tions of the plane, not in the area of the center
fuel tank, as the NTSB is misleading us to believe.
What is more, the initial damage done to the plane
is so consistent with a hit by an RF homing CR war-
head missile that the damage profile fits the shape
of an IR homing Cr warhead like a glove. The extent
of the catastrophic damage that cut through the
plane at two points about 50 feet apart, pulveriz-
ing the entire forward fuselage area and all those
therein, is totally inconsistent with a hit by
small shoulder-fired missile, which have diameters
around 4 inches. The only known warhead that could
account for such instantaneous and widespread struc-
tural-member shearing-damage is the continuous-rod
warhead.
See: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/74702.gif
______________________________________________
[1] THE BOSTON GLOBE: Recovery of Debris
From 747 Made Priority. 07/28/96.
[2] ASSOCIATED PRESS: Blast Was in Front
of Plane. Pat Milton, 07/28/96.
[3] ASSOCIATED PRESS: If There Was a Bomb,
It Probably Was in With The Luggage.
Pat Milton, 07/31/96.
[4] THE NEW YORK TIMES: Search for Clues
Shifts East. Andrew C. Revkin, 08/29/96.
[5] REUTERS: TWA Probe Focusing on Front
of Aircraft. 07/28/96.
[6] THE NEW YORK TIMES: At The Site: Remnants
of Flight TWA 800. B5, 07/30/96.
[7] THE NEW AMERICAN. 10/14/96.
_________________________________________________
ANALYSIS 9_______________________________________|
IF a RF homing missile with a
continuous-rod (CR) warhead
struck TWA 800,
THEN there would not be evidence
of explosives damage, such as pock-
marked metal, inside the plane, but
there would likely be such damage
outside the plane caused by the
proximity-fuse detonation of the
CR warhead outside the plane.
FACT 9: There was not explosives
damage inside the plane, but there
was explosives damage outside.
EXHIBIT A: The New York Times [1] reported that
the "Holy Grail" of explosives evidence, pocked
marked metal was found on the outside of the plane:
According to several Federal
officials and investigators,
a preliminary examination of
a fragment from the wreckage,
with a sophisticated machine
designed to detect residues
of powerful explosives,...
was...borderline positive...
...investigators said they
were intrigued that the metal
was pockmarked in a way that
was consistent with the sort
of damage caused by an explo-
sive device. They also noted
that the piece came from the
underside of the wing...
As an illustration on the front page of the New
York Times (08/23/96) indicates, this portion was
from the leading edge of the right wing closest
to the fuselage.
The fact that the metal seems to have had not only
traces of pockmarks but PETN is some heavy-duty
evidence. Such outside explosives evidence is
consistent with an external proximity-fuse detonation
such as that associated with the CR warhead.
EXHIBIT B: The USA Today [2] reported on the pos-
sibility that the plane was hit by a nonexploding
missile, such as a dud, quoting an investigative
source as follows:
"There is no evidence of it
exploding inside the aircraft,"
said the source, who spoke on
condition of anonymity. "There
would have been all kinds of
blast damage if it did and we
are just not seeing that."
However, and this is critical, with no evidence of
an internal explosion, and yet evidence of a minor
external explosion, the evidence tends to dictate
that an external blast such as that of a proximity
fuse detonation released a kinetic-energy weapon --
that is, a nonexplosive warhead -- such as a
continuous-rod warhead.
EXHIBIT C: The Associated Press [3] reported that
investigation chiefs said there was not evidence
of an explosion in the forward areas most severely
impacted, such as the cockpit:
Francis also said Tuesday that
investigators untangling the
cockpit wreckage found intact
instrument dials and even an
unbroken light from the top
of the stairs to the 747's
upper deck.
"The light was intact -- the
globe as well as the bulb in
the light was intact," he said.
"You have this mass of wreckage,
but in that, things that are
relatively the way they were
before the accident."
CONCLUSION: With the evidence of massive force
being exerted upon the nose and forward-fuselage
areas that sliced the plane in 2 locations, and
with evidence of blast damage only outside the
plane, the physical evidence is -- as General
Partin stated -- only consistent with an RF guided
CR warhead hitting the plane. When we add to this
the fact that radar, a satellite, and over 150
people reported that a missile streaked toward
TWA 800 prior its sudden annihilation, it's an
open and shut case: a missile, most likely RF
homing with a CR warhead, killed TWA 800.
_________________________________________________
[1] THE NEW YORK TIMES: Test on Debris May
Indicate Explosives. Matthew Purdy, 07/23/96.
[2] USA TODAY: Missile Theory Getting a Closer
Look. 11/13/96.
[3] ASSOCIATED PRESS: Divers Find Suitcases in
Debris Field Closest to Airport. Richard Pyle,
08/0696.
__________________________
SPECIAL THANKS to my TWA
800 research associates:
Mashall Houston
Richard Russell
Thomas Shoemaker
************************************************************************
IAN GODDARD (igoddard@erols.com) Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________________________
TWA 800: THE FACTS --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
WACO - WTC - OKC ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/facts.htm
(c) 1997 Ian Williams Goddard - (*) free to copy nonprofit w/ attribute.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
FORWARDED FOR DISCUSSION, NOT NECESSARILY ENDORSED BY:
Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research (POB 20273,
Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the
entire political-ideological spectrum. Quarterly journal, book sales,
rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date
Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources.
To Discuss Ideas:
mailto:lloyd@a-albionic.com http://msen.com/~lloyd/
For Ordering Info & Free Catalog:
mailto:james@a-albionic.com http://a-albionic.com/
**FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: **
Explore Our Archive:
www.padrak.com/alt/TWA800CDA.html
Feb. 6, 1997.