Thursday, June 20, 2013

TWA Flight 800, Assumptions, and Facts

I'm quite certain that hundreds of people died when TWA Flight 800 exploded off the Long Island shore.

Until late Tuesday, I was also fairly certain that a fuel-air explosion in one of the airliner's tanks caused the explosion.

'It Made a Good Story'

Ronald Reagan's "trust, but verify" quote apparently is from a Russian proverb: "Доверяй, но проверяй." I think it's good advice. I like to trust folks, but have been around long enough to realize that what some sincerely believe is not accurate: and a few folks deliberately lie.

The official explanation for TWA Flight 800's abrupt conclusion made sense, given what had been published about the incident. Jet fuel is notoriously easy to ignite, and accidents happen.

I was impressed at how many folks seemed convinced that they'd seen something heading toward the jet, or reported something else that wasn't consistent with an internal explosion. But eyewitness testimony is not particularly reliable.

Eyewitness Testimony?

For example, I saw "SAVING PRIVATE YARN" on a theater marquee downtown. I'd been driving by, not paying attention to the sign, and was past the theater when the words filtered into the parts of my mind that weren't driving.

That was a really odd title for a movie, so I drove around the block and took a look. "SAVING PRIVATE RYAN" was playing. I'm not particularly dyslexic: but I am a very fast reader. Something in my brain had taken the letters from "Ryan," and put them together as a word I'm more familiar with.

The point is that I'd 'witnessed' and remembered something that wasn't, quite, there.

I was willing to believe that the NTSB was right, and eyewitnesses remembered things in a curiously consistent, but inaccurate, way.

That was then, this is now.

Another Good Story

Maybe the eyewitnesses were right.
"...A group of former investigators ... argue that new evidence shows that an external force, from something such as a rocket or missile, may have brought down the Boeing 747 minutes after it left New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport.

"The petition claims 'new analyses of the FAA radar evidence demonstrate that the explosion that caused the crash did not result from a low-velocity fuel-air explosion as the NTSB has determined. Rather, it was caused by a detonation or high-velocity explosion.' ...

"People have come forward, 'all saying the same thing: that there was an external force -- not from the center wing tank, there's no evidence of that -- but there is evidence of an external explosion that brought down that plane,' ...."
(Los Angeles Times)

"... 'We don't know who fired the missile,' said Jim Speer, an accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association, one of a half-dozen experts seeking a new review of the probe. 'But we have a lot more confidence that it was a missile.'..."
(FoxNews.com)
I put more, and longer, excerpts from the news are at the end of this post.1 They're interesting in several ways, and I'll get back to that.

Rip roaring good action-adventure stories can involve government conspiracies. There can be a good reason for keeping quiet about something monumentally newsworthy. Keeping something like "Independence Day's" undercover study of a crashed spaceship might be best kept quiet: if the only advantage humanity had was that the space-alien aggressors didn't realize that we knew they existed.

In general, though, I think it's a good idea to be open about why an airliner explodes. Particularly if there are people inside it at the time.

Obviously - - - This is Unsettling

Some folks seem to believe that 'the government' never tells the truth. Others seem equally convinced that the nation's leadership can do no wrong. Folks believing either extreme can be liberal, conservative, or simply crazy: depending on the individual, and who's in White House at the time.

TWA Flight 800 went down during the Clinton administration, which may or may not be involved in the disconnect between eyewitness accounts, the official explanation, and what some investigators are saying. Then again, maybe not. I really don't know.

I am very concerned that some of the folks involved in studying the wreckage of TWA Flight 800 are, 17 years later, saying that the investigation was botched: at best. "It's obvious that the truth was not allowed to be pursued...." When a professional who has retired - and doesn't have to worry about continued employment - says that, I'm quite willing to take the claim seriously.

News, Opinion, and Facts

Like I've said before: it's important to study the news, not just read it. Journalists are supposed to be be accurate, and 'unbiased.' However, it seems easy to mistake assumptions for facts. Particularly if 'everybody knows' that some unconsidered assumption is a fact.

On top of human shortcomings, like preconceived notions, news outlets inevitably have an editorial 'slant:' an attitude which they've found tends to attract more readers or viewers. Provided that reporters and editors don't deliberately lie, I accept this as part of the social and economic realities we deal with: and a reason to think about what we read.

Finally, I am not at all comfortable with the situation that we seem to have: where the NTSB is deciding whether or not the NTSB investigation of TWA Flight 800 should be reviewed.

In the news:
Related posts:
1 Excerpts from the news:
"What brought down TWA Flight 800? Group wants investigation reopened"
Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times (June 19, 2013)

"Federal officials are weighing a request to reopen the investigation of the 1996 explosion and crash of TWA Flight 800 that went down off the coast of Long Island, killing all 230 people aboard.

"A group of former investigators, interviewed in a documentary to be released next month, have petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board for the new probe. They argue that new evidence shows that an external force, from something such as a rocket or missile, may have brought down the Boeing 747 minutes after it left New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport.

"The petition claims 'new analyses of the FAA radar evidence demonstrate that the explosion that caused the crash did not result from a low-velocity fuel-air explosion as the NTSB has determined. Rather, it was caused by a detonation or high-velocity explosion.'

"The theory of such a strike was heavily investigated by the FBI and other agencies at the time and found to be unsupported. The NTSB eventually determined that a center fuel tank had exploded when an electrical short-circuit caused a spark.

"Tom Stalcup, a coproducer of the documentary to be aired on the cable TV premium channel Epix next month, told CNN's morning show 'New Day' that there was radar and other evidence for an external explosion.

"People have come forward, 'all saying the same thing: that there was an external force -- not from the center wing tank, there's no evidence of that -- but there is evidence of an external explosion that brought down that plane,' Stalcup told the cable news program...."
"Filmmaker asserts new evidence on crash of TWA Flight 800"
Mike M. Ahlers, CNN (June 19, 2013)

"A documentary on the 1996 explosion that brought down TWA Flight 800 offers 'solid proof that there was an external detonation,' its co-producer said Wednesday.

" 'Of course, everyone knows about the eyewitness statements, but we also have corroborating information from the radar data, and the radar data shows a(n) asymmetric explosion coming out of that plane -- something that didn't happen in the official theory,' Tom Stalcup told CNN's 'New Day.'

"A number of people have come forward, 'all saying the same thing: that there was an external force -- not from the center wing tank, there's no evidence of that -- but there is evidence of an external explosion that brought down that plane,' Stalcup said.

"He cited 'corroborating information from the radar data' and complained that 'not one single eyewitness was allowed to testify -- that's unheard of.'

" 'The family members need to know what happened to their loved ones,' he said.

"Asked why such information might have been suppressed, Stalcup said, 'That's a question that should be answered when this investigation gets reopened.'..."
"Former investigators of TWA Flight 800 want new probe"
USA Today (June 19, 2013)
"Former investigators of the TWA Flight 800 crash off Long Island are calling on the National Transportation Safety Board to re-examine the case.

"The retired investigators claim that findings were 'falsified.' A documentary on the subject is coming out in July.

"The 1996 crash of the Paris-bound flight killed 230 people.

"Initial speculation ranged from maintenance problems to a bomb and even a meteorite. Some critics theorized that a Navy missile accidentally brought down the jetliner.

"The NTSB concluded that Flight 800 was destroyed by a center fuel tank explosion, probably caused by a spark from a short-circuit in the wiring...."
"Investigators want missile theory probed in '96 TWA Flight 800 crash"
FoxNews.com (June 19, 2013)

"A handful of aviation experts, including a number of investigators who were part of the original probe of TWA Flight 800, have come forward in a new documentary to say evidence points to a missile as the cause of the crash off the coast of Long Island 17 years ago.

"The New York-to-Paris flight crashed July 17, 1996, just minutes after takeoff from JFK Airport, killing all 230 people aboard. In the weeks that followed, the plane was reassembled in a hangar from parts retrieved from the sea. But the cause of the crash was not identified immediately, and after authorities said the crash was caused by static electricity ignited fuel fumes, many skeptics cast doubt on the theory. Adding to the controversy were multiple eyewitness accounts of a fireball going up from the ground and hitting the plane before it went down, accounts which the FBI dismissed at the time.

"The half-dozen investigators whose charges will be fleshed out in a documentary set to air July 17 - the anniversary of the crash - say they were never allowed to get at the truth. But they are confident a missile brought down the plane.

" 'We don't know who fired the missile,' said Jim Speer, an accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association, one of a half-dozen experts seeking a new review of the probe. 'But we have a lot more confidence that it was a missile.'

"The group is comprised of people who worked for the National Transportation Safety Board, TWA and the Airline Pilots Association, all of whom have since retired. All six say that the evidence shows the plane was brought down by a projectile traveling at a high speed.

" 'It all fits like a glove,' said Tom Stalcup, a physicist who is considered one of the foremost independent researchers and participated in the documentary, said during a press conference on Wednesday. 'It is what it is and all the evidence is there.'

"Hank Hughes, a retired senior accident investigator for NTSB, said probers were not allowed to seek answers once the FBI took over the crime scene. 'We just want to see the truth come out,' Hughes said. 'We don't have hidden agendas. The only thing we are looking for is the truth.'

"Speer, who says he found explosive residue on a part from the right wing which also had three holes, agreed.

" 'It's obvious that the truth was not allowed to be pursued,' said Speer. 'A majority of people working in that hanger did not feel as if the evidence was properly being handled.'

"The NTSB said it will review the petition...."
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.