SEARCH Flight800.org:
 


  Email a Friend

  FREE Newsletter

 FIRO:
  About FIRO
  Introduction
  Petition
  $DONATE

 The Evidence:
  Eyewitness
  Radar
  Forensic
  Debris Field
  Black Box

 Further Research:
  In the News
  Crash Simulations
  Archived Articles
  Related Sites

 Newsletter:
  FREE Subcription

 Contacts:
 
  Contact Washington
  Tell a Friend
  Donate

RADAR and Simulation Graph
NTSB simulation data (green and black) conflicts with Flight 800 mean RADAR data (blue).

TWA Flight 800: Evidence the Main Wreckage Did Not Climb

(Revised: 2/2/00)

The investigating agencies into the tragedy of TWA Flight 800 (F800) have alleged that the aircraft climbed steeply, following the loss of its front section. However, the only tangible evidence available to the agencies conflicts with this claim. RADAR data is inconsistent with the aircraft climbing steeply immediately after the initiating event. Therefore, official simulations based on a sharp ascent of the aircraft do not follow the RADAR tract in space and time.

 

Immediately following the loss of F800, eyewitnesses reported an object streaking upward before any explosions. A year and a half later, and due to these reports, the FBI released a CIA produced animation that depicted the official crash sequence. This animation suggested that the streak of light reported by eyewitnesses was actually the plane itself, rising sharply after losing its forward section. Shortly thereafter at the NTSB public hearings into the tragedy, a similar animation was released by the NTSB. It too, showed F800 rising sharply, early in the alleged crash sequence. As explained within the respective animations, the CIA and NTSB believed that a weight imbalance, created by the loss of the plane's forward section, caused F800 to climb sharply. Each agency attributes this climb to the streaking object observed by eyewitnesses.

However, these agencies based their findings on speculation, rather than evidence. Neither the CIA nor the NTSB interviewed a single eyewitness in connection with the production of either animation, nor did the animations approach to portray the actual RADAR data.

The CIA Animation:

Details of the CIA analysis involved in the production of the agency's animation are not publicly available. Five days prior to the NTSB public hearing, the FBI requested that discussion concerning the CIA animation be banned. What is known is that the CIA concluded the aircraft gained approximately 3,000 feet in altitude following the loss of its forward section, that no eyewitnesses were contacted during the production, and a related NTSB analysis discounts the possibility of such a climb. Indeed, the maximum climb considered in the original NTSB analysis (Exhibit 22C) is 1,300 feet. The CIA animation did not account for the radar data, which showed a northward turn during the crash, as discussed in NTSB Exhibit 22C, "...the radar data indicates that the aircraft turned North [left] of the pre-event course line."

The NTSB Animation:

Many inconsistencies surround the NTSB animation. At the NTSB public hearing, the aircraft was alleged to have climbed a maximum of 1,500 feet, but Chairman Hall has since stated that the aircraft probably climbed between 1,200 and 3,200 feet. The NTSB animation shows a climb of approximately 3,400 feet, while a maximum climb of 1,300 feet was determined by NTSB simulations in exhibit 22C. Then, in January of 2000--and after these inconsistencies were detailed by Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization (FIRO) to House Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Duncan--the NTSB released Addendum 22D which shows a maximum climb of ~3,000 feet and conflicts with conclusions of the original Exhibit 22C. And most important, the only tangible evidence (RADAR data), analyzed in NTSB exhibit 13A and relevant to the main wreckage flight path, is inconsistent with all official "zoom-climb" scenarios.

In light of these inconsistencies, it is difficult to decipher from the many conflicting NTSB statements and reports, how high, or even if F800 climbed. Because of this lapse in CIA and NTSB inter- and intra-agency consensus, FIRO interviewed eyewitnesses and analyzed the relevant data to determine the most probable flight path for the main wreckage.

The NTSB Exhibits:

A close examination of the NTSB exhibits show contradictions to the claim that F800 climbed. Of the 102 eyewitnesses who reported the origin of a rising streaking light, 94 % said that it rose from the surface. RADAR data analyzed in exhibit 13A does not support the officially accepted flight path proposed within NTSB simulation exhibit 22C.

Of the 102 eyewitnesses who
reported the origin of a
rising streaking light,
94 % said that it rose
from the surface.

FIRO has reviewed the relevant NTSB exhibits as well as interviewed eyewitnesses in order to independently review official conclusions regarding the main wreckage flight path.

 

Witness Group Exhibit 4A:

The simplest exhibit to understand is the Witness Group Exhibit, numbered 4A. Exhibit 4A quantifies the eyewitness evidence into groups concerning their observations. Those eyewitnesses who witnessed a "streaking light" prior to explosions were categorized together. Within this category,

"102 gave information about the origin of the streak: 96 [94 %] said that it originated from the surface."

Official animations, however, alleged that this streak of light was F800. But F800 was well above the surface before any signs of distress were noted. According to its Flight Data Recorder and transponder, F800 began to break up above 13,700 feet (2.6 miles) in altitude. Therefore, any crash scenario which attributes the streaking light to F800 requires that 94% of the relevant eyewitnesses confused the horizon with the altitude at which F800 was traveling. To verify this possible confusion, eyewitnesses were contacted by FIRO. The eyewitnesses were asked about the animations' claim that the plane was streaking light they witnessed.

Eyewitness response:

 

Darrel Miron (12/3/97 phone interview): "That's total fabrication."

Paul Runyan (12/4,6/97 phone interviews): "Yeah right, coming off the water….What I saw was going up from the surface…like a rising flare."

Major Fred Meyers: (11/24/97 radio interview): "Well that's pure fabrication... What's going on in the FBI, I don't know."

Richard Goss: (11/24/97 radio interview): "I can't see that's possible at all…[the CIA animation] was a joke

It appears that eyewitness evidence is in conflict with the official crash sequence, as depicted by the respective animations. But investigators rely on more than just eyewitness evidence. Tangible, or hard evidence is usually considered more reliable. Hard evidence such as RADAR data can be used to help determine the flight path of major wreckage items. In fact, the main wreckage flight path was tracked using RADAR data in Exhibit 13A.

Exhibit 13A (Airplane Performance Study) and Exhibit 22C (Main Wreckage Flight Path Study):

Using RADAR data, it is possible to gain information concerning the flight path of TWA Flight 800. Exhibit 13A uses three sources of primary RADAR data to trace the main wreckage flight path. The East-West RADAR data contains relatively little error and has been compared with the simulation data.

 

Figure 1: NTSB Exhibit 13A plot of East-West position of main wreckage versus time. Numbered and circled data represent main wreckage. Blue line is the mean (or average) of the NTSB RADAR analysis. Green and black lines are from two NTSB Exhibit 22C simulations.

 

Figure 1 is from Exhibit 13A. The circled data represent the path of the main wreckage, as determined by NTSB group chairman and RADAR expert, Charles Pereira. The blue line is the average of the main wreckage flight path, as shown in the NTSB radar Exhibit, numbered 13A, while the green and black lines represent simulations from Exhibit 22C. It is important to note that both the green and black simulation lines do not fit the RADAR data.

The slope of the line represents the speed of the wreckage. That is, the steeper the line, the faster the wreckage in the horizontal plane. It can be seen that the wreckage is moving more slowly in the East-West direction as time passes. But, the simulations (green and black lines) show an immediate reduction in speed after the initiating event, in order to account for a proposed steep climb.

In fact, all publicly available data from NTSB simulations are based upon F800 gaining altitude, and therefore include a significant loss in ground speed. In apparent conflict with RADAR data, these simulations were published without any mention of the possibility that F800 did not or may not have climbed. Due to this fact, all NTSB simulation data through December 1999 lag behind the RADAR data by many seconds and approximately 1/4 mile within the first 15 seconds of simulated main wreckage flight.

[Note: After Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization (FIRO) published the above inconsistencies between the radar and simulation data, the NTSB added Addendum 22D (January 2000), which contains other simulations. These simulations also fall short of the radar data and are discussed in detail here.]

A natural question to pose would be that if the RADAR data is inconsistent with sharp increases in altitude, why did the NTSB refuse to carry out simulations based upon either a constant or loss of altitude--scenarios which may fit the data well.


Conclusion:

The RADAR data is inconsistent with simulations based on sharp climbs, since the necessary loss of ground speed during the first few seconds of flight is not apparent. This should have been enough to suggest the airplane didn't climb, and the extremely poor simulation fits to the RADAR data should have been further evidence. Exhibit 22C should not have been published as an exhibit, rather it should have been cause for the NTSB to reconsider their hypothesis that the aircraft climbed steeply immediately following the initiating event. Furthermore, eyewitnesses should have been contacted before, during, and after the production of any animation based on their observations. The fact that most (94%) relevant eyewitness observations and the RADAR data are inconsistent with the animations should cause official investigators to reconsider their speculative and contradictory crash scenario.



NTSB Exhibit 13A

NTSB Exhibit 22C

NTSB Exhibit 22D

Evidence the Main Wreckage Didn't Climb

For a Better Understanding of Simulation Data

FIRO Review of Exhibit 22D

Eyewitness Evidence

Altitude Adjustments



FIRO's Main Page - Email this URL to a friend

© MMIII