Petition for the Reconsideration and Modification of the National Transportation Safety Board’s Findings and Determination of the Probable Cause for the Crash of TWA Flight 800
The TWA 800 Project
The TWA 800 Project
July 15, 2012
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that the probable cause for the crash of TWA Flight 800 was an explosion of fuel-air vapors within the aircraft’s center wing fuel tank. Neither the ignition source nor its location within the tank “could be determined from the available evidence.”[1]
Investigators from the original NTSB investigation and concerned scientists are filing this petition after a thorough review of this and other evidence, some of which was not available during the official investigation. Metallurgic and forensic findings, as well as FAA radar and eyewitness evidence now makes clear that the official probable cause for the crash is untenable and shows that several of the NTSB's findings are erroneous.
NTSB Reg §845.41(a) states,
Petitions for reconsideration or modification of the Board’s findings and determination of probable cause . . . will be entertained only if based on the discovery of new evidence or on a showing that the Board’s findings are erroneous.
The probable cause determination has been shown to be erroneous by an analysis of the radar-recorded explosion that caused the crash. This analysis shows that the explosion was a detonation (a high-velocity explosion). It was not the deflagration (the low-velocity fuel-air explosion) proposed in the NTSB's final report on TWA Flight 800.
The NTSB Final Report on page 260 describes the fuel-air explosion that caused the crash as an “overpressure event,” which caused a forward wall of the tank to fracture “at its upper end and...rotate forward about its lower end.” Since this and adjacent nearby fuel tank walls were recovered in large sections, NTSB investigators and scientists contracted by the NTSB concluded that the explosion was low-velocity (a deflagration). Had the tank detonated, according to the NTSB's and outside experts, the recovered center tank wreckage would have been significantly more fragmented
The official probable cause for the crash therefore rests on a low-velocity and forward-moving overpressure event. The radar evidence, however, shows that a far more powerful and sideways-moving explosion caused the crash, which sent debris perpendicular to the airframe and traveled approximately 1/2 mile due South.
We have not found any NTSB analysis of, or accounting for, this high-speed debris plume in the NTSB public docket or the final report.
During the course of the initial investigation, the NTSB investigators as well as parties to the investigation were denied the opportunity to interview eyewitnesses or review FBI 302 witness summaries. The decision on the part of the NTSB and FBI was unprecedented in that it violated well established NTSB policy and has never occurred prior to or since the TWA Flight 800 investigation.
We are presenting new evidence in the form of FBI 302 witness summaries, which apparently were not provided to the NTSB or the parties to the investigation. These new FBI witness summaries contain descriptions of rising streaks of light seen and other observations that do not match the official crash sequence. The observations in these summaries, together with the key grouping of witness observations from 670 eyewitness summaries the NTSB was ultimately provided access, should be reviewed in order to determine if the eighth finding in the NTSB report is, as we believe, erroneous.
During this review, we urge the NTSB to isolate and study all of the witness accounts that include descriptions of a streak of light that ascended. These are the most critical eyewitness accounts, since the NTSB determined that their observations included events from the earliest moments of the crash. Unlike the majority who only saw events near the end of the crash sequence, many witnesses in this early grouping provided detailed information about the trajectory of the ascending light and the characteristics of the explosion that apparently caused the crash.
Since the NTSB determined at its final hearing on the crash in August 2000 and in its eighth finding in the final report that these witnesses were watching TWA Flight 800 ascend during crippled flight, it is important to compare their accounts with what can be deduced from Flight 800's final moments.
In a further effort to help establish whether or not Finding 8 is erroneous, we request that the NTSB conduct a detailed review of Dr. David Mayer's August 2000 Sunshine hearing presentation. This review should establish that Dr. Mayer misrepresented the observations of important eyewitnesses, omitted crucial details from the accounts of airborne military witnesses, and provided an artificially low number of witness accounts that conflicted with the official crash sequence.
Since the language in Finding 8 was provided by Dr. Mayer, we believe that his performance at the Sunshine hearing should be taken into account when considering whether or not that finding is erroneous.
Should you have any questions regarding this petition or any of the information contained herein, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time.
Sincerely,
Henry F. Hughes
NTSB Senior Accident Investigator (retired)
FINDINGS
1. The explosion that caused the crash was external to the aircraft.
2. FAA radar sites recorded fast-moving debris that traveled perpendicular to the flight path, just after Flight 800 lost electrical power. A ballistics analysis of this debris plume shows that the explosion that accelerated this debris was high-velocity, a detonation. No mechanism or event in the official low-velocity fuel-air explosion theory can account for this radar evidence.
3. A significant number of credible eyewitness accounts are consistent with an external event.
4. The CIA produced an inaccurate crash animation, without consulting with Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer. The group at the CIA who produced the animation were not qualified to simulate aircraft flight paths.
5. Both the CIA and NTSB crash sequence simulations are inaccurate since they diverge from the radar tracked flight path and deviate from the tolerances imposed by the FAA radar tracking. The simulations do not match the observations of the witnesses with descriptions of the early crash sequence.
6. There remain significant anomalies in the way this investigation was conducted. There were numerous violations of customary and normal investigative protocol, which are contrary to the provisions set forth in title 49 CFR 830 and NTSB Board orders.
7. Contrary to legal directives set forth in the code of federal regulations, the NTSB allowed their investigation to be superseded by the FBI's investigation.
8. The NTSB's probable cause determination for the crash of TWA Flight 800 is not supported by the physical evidence, the witness statements, or other facts.
Henry F. Hughes
NTSB Senior Accident Investigator (Retired)
Robert A. Young
Former Director of Flight Safety, Transworld Airlines
Dr. Thomas F. Stalcup
Physicist and Independent Investigator
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that the probable cause for the crash of TWA Flight 800 was an explosion of fuel-air vapors within the aircraft’s center wing fuel tank. Neither the ignition source nor its location within the tank “could be determined from the available evidence.”[1]
Investigators from the original NTSB investigation and concerned scientists are filing this petition after a thorough review of this and other evidence, some of which was not available during the official investigation. Metallurgic and forensic findings, as well as FAA radar and eyewitness evidence now makes clear that the official probable cause for the crash is untenable and shows that several of the NTSB's findings are erroneous.
NTSB Reg §845.41(a) states,
Petitions for reconsideration or modification of the Board’s findings and determination of probable cause . . . will be entertained only if based on the discovery of new evidence or on a showing that the Board’s findings are erroneous.
The probable cause determination has been shown to be erroneous by an analysis of the radar-recorded explosion that caused the crash. This analysis shows that the explosion was a detonation (a high-velocity explosion). It was not the deflagration (the low-velocity fuel-air explosion) proposed in the NTSB's final report on TWA Flight 800.
The NTSB Final Report on page 260 describes the fuel-air explosion that caused the crash as an “overpressure event,” which caused a forward wall of the tank to fracture “at its upper end and...rotate forward about its lower end.” Since this and adjacent nearby fuel tank walls were recovered in large sections, NTSB investigators and scientists contracted by the NTSB concluded that the explosion was low-velocity (a deflagration). Had the tank detonated, according to the NTSB's and outside experts, the recovered center tank wreckage would have been significantly more fragmented
The official probable cause for the crash therefore rests on a low-velocity and forward-moving overpressure event. The radar evidence, however, shows that a far more powerful and sideways-moving explosion caused the crash, which sent debris perpendicular to the airframe and traveled approximately 1/2 mile due South.
We have not found any NTSB analysis of, or accounting for, this high-speed debris plume in the NTSB public docket or the final report.
During the course of the initial investigation, the NTSB investigators as well as parties to the investigation were denied the opportunity to interview eyewitnesses or review FBI 302 witness summaries. The decision on the part of the NTSB and FBI was unprecedented in that it violated well established NTSB policy and has never occurred prior to or since the TWA Flight 800 investigation.
We are presenting new evidence in the form of FBI 302 witness summaries, which apparently were not provided to the NTSB or the parties to the investigation. These new FBI witness summaries contain descriptions of rising streaks of light seen and other observations that do not match the official crash sequence. The observations in these summaries, together with the key grouping of witness observations from 670 eyewitness summaries the NTSB was ultimately provided access, should be reviewed in order to determine if the eighth finding in the NTSB report is, as we believe, erroneous.
During this review, we urge the NTSB to isolate and study all of the witness accounts that include descriptions of a streak of light that ascended. These are the most critical eyewitness accounts, since the NTSB determined that their observations included events from the earliest moments of the crash. Unlike the majority who only saw events near the end of the crash sequence, many witnesses in this early grouping provided detailed information about the trajectory of the ascending light and the characteristics of the explosion that apparently caused the crash.
Since the NTSB determined at its final hearing on the crash in August 2000 and in its eighth finding in the final report that these witnesses were watching TWA Flight 800 ascend during crippled flight, it is important to compare their accounts with what can be deduced from Flight 800's final moments.
In a further effort to help establish whether or not Finding 8 is erroneous, we request that the NTSB conduct a detailed review of Dr. David Mayer's August 2000 Sunshine hearing presentation. This review should establish that Dr. Mayer misrepresented the observations of important eyewitnesses, omitted crucial details from the accounts of airborne military witnesses, and provided an artificially low number of witness accounts that conflicted with the official crash sequence.
Since the language in Finding 8 was provided by Dr. Mayer, we believe that his performance at the Sunshine hearing should be taken into account when considering whether or not that finding is erroneous.
Should you have any questions regarding this petition or any of the information contained herein, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time.
Sincerely,
Henry F. Hughes
NTSB Senior Accident Investigator (retired)
FINDINGS
1. The explosion that caused the crash was external to the aircraft.
2. FAA radar sites recorded fast-moving debris that traveled perpendicular to the flight path, just after Flight 800 lost electrical power. A ballistics analysis of this debris plume shows that the explosion that accelerated this debris was high-velocity, a detonation. No mechanism or event in the official low-velocity fuel-air explosion theory can account for this radar evidence.
3. A significant number of credible eyewitness accounts are consistent with an external event.
4. The CIA produced an inaccurate crash animation, without consulting with Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer. The group at the CIA who produced the animation were not qualified to simulate aircraft flight paths.
5. Both the CIA and NTSB crash sequence simulations are inaccurate since they diverge from the radar tracked flight path and deviate from the tolerances imposed by the FAA radar tracking. The simulations do not match the observations of the witnesses with descriptions of the early crash sequence.
6. There remain significant anomalies in the way this investigation was conducted. There were numerous violations of customary and normal investigative protocol, which are contrary to the provisions set forth in title 49 CFR 830 and NTSB Board orders.
7. Contrary to legal directives set forth in the code of federal regulations, the NTSB allowed their investigation to be superseded by the FBI's investigation.
8. The NTSB's probable cause determination for the crash of TWA Flight 800 is not supported by the physical evidence, the witness statements, or other facts.
Henry F. Hughes
NTSB Senior Accident Investigator (Retired)
Robert A. Young
Former Director of Flight Safety, Transworld Airlines
Dr. Thomas F. Stalcup
Physicist and Independent Investigator
2 comments:
Has a simulation ,placing a spark plug in a container of jet fuel,been accomplished?
Jet fuel is kerosene, a safe fuel with a very high flash point, and it does not ignite without being heated to a very high temp. In diesel engines, it is first pre-heated, then compressed (heated) before injection as a gas, when it is hot enough to explode without a spark plug in the cylinders. A sparking source in a jet fuel tank, even one just full of vapors, would not ignite the vapors because the spark hasn't enough energy. The fuel tank wires conduct low voltage current (12-24 Volts) for the fuel quantity measuring system, which moves a needle in a cockpit fuel gauge. An automobile spark is about 40,000 Volts, and in your gasoline engine, it will not ignite diesel fuel. Try it.
Regards,
Post a Comment