Reassembling TWA Flight 800
Was TWA Flight 800 brought down by US friendly fire?
Filed under Conspiracies
| Skeptoid #99 May 06, 2008 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
By Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast
Episode 99, May 06, 2008
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4099
July 17, 1996 — My wife and I were on our honeymoon, flying out of New York City. We got out all right, but one of the planes just behind us wasn't quite so lucky. TWA Flight 800, an older Boeing 747 jumbo, took off and headed out over the Atlantic Ocean. About twelve minutes after its departure, at about 13,700 feet, an explosion broke the aircraft in half just forward of the wing. All 230 people on board were killed.
The NTSB (National Transportation and Safety Board) managed to recover all 230 bodies, and over 95% of the wreckage from the ocean floor, which is pretty incredible. They reconstructed the aircraft to understand what went wrong. What was found, and what nobody disputes, is that the principal destruction was caused by an explosion of the fuel in the center wing fuel tank. What has never been determined is what triggered that explosion. Conspiracy theorists immediately jumped on this, and concluded that the aircraft must have been shot down by the US government, either deliberately or as accidental friendly fire.
Fuel was thrown on this fire from two principal sources. The first source was a number of eyewitness reports from people who saw a second brightly lit object going up into the sky and contacting the aircraft, a description which certainly sounds like a missile attacking the aircraft. The second cause of conspiratorial speculation was triggered by the government itself. The FBI, who was investigating the crash to see if it was a criminal act, engaged the CIA to produce a computer animation showing what the aircraft did after it exploded, in order to answer the questions of the families of the victims. According to the NTSB, when the nose broke off the aircraft, that made it tail heavy and it veered sharply upward for several thousand feet, burning all the way, thus looking like a missile. The FBI had no available computer animation resources of their own, so they had the CIA do it. And, once the CIA became involved, that screamed out to every conspiracy theorist in the world that the whole operation was a clandestine government coverup.
The aircraft was two and a half miles up, and about nine miles offshore, when it exploded. That puts the coastline just about exactly one minute away at the speed of sound. The vast majority of the eyewitnesses were between one minute and two minutes away, as sound travels. The majority of the 38 eyewitnesses who reported a skybound streak that's been described as a missile trail only turned to look after they heard the explosion. This means that for at least two minutes after the plane exploded, something happened that looked to many eyewitnesses like a missile going up. Remember, the majority of people who reported that it looked like a missile struck the aircraft, did not start watching until at least one minute after the explosion happened. Therefore, in most cases of people who said it was absolutely a missile, the laws of physics make it impossible that they could have seen such a missile. We know for a fact that what the aircraft did one minute after it exploded, looked enough like a missile to convince many eyewitnesses that it couldn't possibly have been anything else. In all of these cases, whatever they saw happened after any theorized missile would have detonated.
One of the conspiracy web sites, Flight800.org, has a page giving testimony from witnesses who believe that they distinctly saw two separate objects, a missile and a plane, converge. As you listen, pay attention to when the witnesses heard the sound relative to what they saw:
Witness 73: ...While keeping her eyes on the aircraft, she observed a 'red streak' moving up from the ground toward the aircraft at an approximately a 45 degree angle. The 'red streak' was leaving a light gray colored smoke trail... At the instant the smoke trail ended at the aircraft's right wing, she heard a loud sharp noise which sounded like a firecracker had just exploded at her feet. She then observed a fire at the aircraft followed by one or two secondary explosions which had a deeper sound. She then observed the front of the aircraft separate from the back.
Witness 88: ...All of a sudden he heard an explosion. He glanced over to the southeast and observed what he thought was a firework ascending into the sky. All of a sudden, it apparently reached the top of its flight... At this point he observed an airplane come into the field of view. He stated that the bright red object ran into the airplane and upon doing so both the plane and the object turned a real bright red then exploded into a huge plume of flame.
Witness 675: ...Noticed an orange flare ascending from the south... trailing white or light gray smoke. He then observed the flare strike what looked like an eastbound Cessna airplane on the port side... Within five (5) seconds... he heard what sounded like thunder and felt the ground shake.
Witness 145: ...She saw a plane and noticed an object spiraling towards the plane. The object which she saw for about one second, had a glow at the end of it and a gray/white smoke trail... She heard a loud noise and saw an explosion just as the object hit the plane. The plane dropped towards the water and appeared to split in two pieces. A few seconds later, she heard another explosion.
Whether you're a conspiracy theorist or not, the 1-minute minimum delay required by the speed of sound clearly makes it impossible to corroborate what these people heard with what they think they saw. This illustrates why the witness testimony, while still valuable, cannot be relied on as the definitive explanation for what happened. Anecdotal evidence has value for suggesting directions to research, but it does not by itself constitute evidence, and cannot reasonably be treated as such.
Anyway, who could have fired a missile? The FBI did identify some military assets that were in the area at the time, including a US Navy P3 Orion aircraft, and a US Coast Guard cutter. Neither asset has an anti-aircraft or missile capability. Radar data from four different sites also found four unidentified boats within 6nm of Flight 800, all but one of which responded to assist in search and rescue. Shoulder launched weapons do not have anything like the range required to reach the aircraft from the shore.
There's one final loose end that nobody has been able to definitively tie up, and that's the discovery of explosives residue on the debris. Although the conspiracy theorists charge that the NTSB has covered up this discovery, in fact the NTSB has freely and openly disclosed everything about it. It's known that no high energy explosives detonated on board the aircraft, because there is zero evidence of explosives damage anywhere. The best theory is that this residue is left over from exercises conducted with bomb-sniffing dogs on board the plane several months before. Conspiracy theorists charge that no such tests were conducted aboard this plane, but all available records indicate that they were. As a result of this theory, the NTSB made recommendations changing the procedures of such tests to prevent such explosives residue from contaminating other aircraft in the future.
If you do a Google search for "TWA Flight 800", most of the results are from conspiracy web sites that uncritically start with the assumption that the US government shot down the aircraft. These web sites then present opinion, conjecture, and hypothetical extrapolation that support that assumption. Sometimes you'll hear conspiracy theorists charge that the NTSB ignores eyewitness reports, or suppresses anything that doesn't agree with their official story of an accident. Anyone who's a pilot or an aviation nut knows that this couldn't be further from the truth. Go to NTSB.gov and click on Aviation Accident Database. Search for some recent accidents, as these will show you what an investigation looks like in progress. What you'll see are the facts that are known, and you'll see any eyewitness reports there might be. What you won't see is anything like an explanation or a theory, and certainly nothing like an "official story" that anyone is sticking to.
If you want to see what a final report looks like, go to NTSB.gov, click on Accident Reports, and click on Older Aviation Accidents. You'll see TWA Flight 800 near the top of the list. The final report is a huge 341-page PDF document, but you can also just read the four paragraph summary. Here's a quote from it:
The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT (center wing fuel tank) that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system.
In the full report, the NTSB goes through other possible causes for the explosion of the center fuel tank, including:
A lightning or meteorite strike; a missile fragment; a small explosive charge placed on the CWT; auto ignition or hot surface ignition, resulting from elevated temperatures produced by sources external to the CWT; a fire migrating to the CWT from another fuel tank via the vent (stringer) system; an uncontained engine failure or a turbine burst in the air conditioning packs beneath the CWT; a malfunctioning CWT jettison/override pump; a malfunctioning CWT scavenge pump; and static electricity.
There's no need to repeat their findings on each of these causes here, if you're interested you can grab the full report and read section 2.3.1. In each case, the potential cause was found to be unlikely, unsupported by any evidence, and lacking evidence that would have resulted. Section 3.1 of the report lists their findings, which are facts that were determined with certainty. Among these: "The in-flight breakup of TWA flight 800 was not initiated by a bomb or a missile strike."
Of course, this doesn't change the mind of a die-hard conspiracy theorist, because this government-produced paper is simply part of the conspiracy. In fact, they consider the report's very existence as further evidence of the conspiracy. When you hear a conspiracy theory that provides no testable evidence of its own, but relies only on anecdotal testimonies, extrapolations of possible motivations, and non-evidenced claims of implausible coverups, you have every good reason to be skeptical.
© 2008 Skeptoid Media, Inc.
References & Further Reading
Barreveld, Dirk J. The Spark That Killed 230 People: The Scary Details of the Ntsb's Final Report of the Crash of Twa Flight 800 How Safe Is Flying. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse Inc., 2002.
Hall, James E. (chairman), Hammerschmidt, John A., Goglia, John J., Black, George W. Jr., Carmody, Carol J. "Aircraft Accident Report In-flight Breakup Over the Atlantic Ocean Trans World Airlines Flight 800 Boeing 747-131, N93119 Near East Moriches, New York." NTSB Abstract AAR-00/03. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 23 Aug. 2000. Web. 1 Apr. 2008. <http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/AAR0003.htm>
Krause, Shari Stamford. Aircraft Safety : Accident Investigations, Analyses, & Applications, Second Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003. 399-415.
Vankin, Jonathan, Whalen, John. The 80 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time. New York: Kensington Publishing Corp., 2004. 447-457.
Wald, Matthew L. "T.W.A. Crash Investigators Ridicule a Missile Theory and Pin Hopes on Research." New York Times. 14 Mar. 1997, March 14, 1997: B1.
Reference this article:
Dunning, B.
"Reassembling TWA Flight 800." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
6 May 2008. Web.
21 May 2013. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4099>
Discuss!
10 most recent comments | Show all 21 comments
I actually skimmed through the report and I believe they saw what they saw and heard what they heard. However the interpretation of a missle was wrong. The plane ended up in three pieces the center in front of where the wings were attached and the rear and the wings and enjines and the front. the front just fell from the sky. The rear kept flying for a time and may have even climbed and the center exploded. as the nose accelerated it may have become supersonic and made a boom.Once supersonic it would cause a vapor trail. Also the speed of sound increases from a object coming toward you and decreases as it moves away. The people may have heard a noise looked and really was looking at two or even three objects. The rear 1/2 of the plane was still airborn as it landed in front of the nose. Smoke or vapor may have been forming from a debri field of objects from the middle section that appeared to be going upwards from the ground when in fact it was a trail of burning falling objects and smoke from the center section itself. If I turned after hearing a loud noise I would look from the ground level upward. I would think my mind would interpret seeing a smoke trail from the water rising to what was left of the airplane. what was left was in a fireball. Then hearing the time delayed explosion and seeing the rear start to fall the minds eye could well automaticly fill in the missing pieces that we were seeing a plane being shot from the sky.
Fred Luxenberg, Cleveland Ohio
November 25, 2008 7:19pm
You cannot possibly be serious? With all of the overwhelming evidence AGAINST the 'official findings' - how can you possibly publish this?
You didn't mention anywhere that aviation fuel is not easily ignited/burned.
You didn't mention the lies of the NTSB and FBI officials all through the case.
You didn't mention the red residue and the testing thereof to not be a 'glue' as proposed?
You honestly think that 100 witnesses got it wrong? That there wasn't anything moving upward? These witnesses include MANY credible aviation professionals, including pilots, National Guard crewman, etc.
You didn't mention the CDR's 'magically' appearing under a USN ship after they had been heard pinging by numerous other ships elsewhere.
You didn't mention the last line of the CDR tape being redacted.
I could go on and on, but i suggest you read some of the 'conspiracy theorists' books (especially the Sanders' book) for a valid look at evidence. If there was only one or two things that the theorists were pinning their beliefs on, that's one thing. But this is overwhelming evidence in the OTHER direction that you (and most of the nation) seem to be ignoring completely.
I find it hilarious that a show that provides itself on skepticism would take this approach.
Roger Friedman, Fairfax, Virginia
January 25, 2010 1:09pm
quoting "that guy,that city"
Associated Press on (07/19/96) reported " Radar detected a blip merging with the jet shortly before the explosion, something that could indicate a missile hit." The fact that this release was then withdrawn days later should also indicate something.
It's called "ghost radar image" nothing fancy,only a duplicate of the airplane radar print on the screen..problem is that dumb journalist don't know this stuff and the disinform even more the public..
Max, Rome
June 04, 2010 1:38pm
Roger,
>You didn't mention the CDR's 'magically' appearing under a USN ship after they had been heard pinging by numerous other ships elsewhere.
You didn't mention the last line of the CDR tape being redacted.
Are you insinuating that the CDR was planted and also censored? Get your conspiracy theory straight.
Max, Boston, MA
June 04, 2010 7:47pm
I was previously employed by USAF investigating turbojet blade failures, which can and have ignited AC fuel tanks; up to the present day. However, nitrogen gas replacement effectively eliminated explosions in military transport AC; as used in the President's 747, but not in TWA Flight 800.
Upon recovery, #3 engine evidenced an uncontained failure; with no pieces of the exploded AC found inside. An uncontained failure could have created the fuel tank explosion. The engine would also promptly separated from AC as per design.
After separation, engines will spurt forward, still under power. A burning engine could leave a visual trail, including fire and smoke, which could fool witnesses into believing they saw a "missile rising from the sea, then turning to hit AC." #3 engine was found some distance from main debris field; other engines stayed with AC.
This simple explanation, based on similar events and the fact that the P&W JT9D had a more frequent history of uncontained failures than other types utilized on the 747 series, was offered to NTSB within days of event; after receiving detailed photos of #3 engine and related information.
However, continued communication was then 'discouraged' and the photos and files disappeared from my home without any trace of a break-in.
It may be possible that P&W as well as Boeing will want to avoid any responsibility for this 'accident' and the potential for 'cover up' within the NTSB could dwarf any conspiracy theory.
Charles Odendhal, Greeley, CO
September 10, 2010 10:10pm
What I've read here is a perfect example of why I've always maintained that self-described "skeptics" ought to be approached with...skepticism.
Allow me to explain. In the second paragraph of the above article there are two instances of either inaccuracy or outright deception. The first is the assertion that:
"What was found, and what nobody disputes, is that the principal destruction was caused by an explosion ...in the center wing fuel tank."
This is inaccurate, or at least misleading-if there was a bomb or a missile, then that was the principal cause of the damage. Not to mention that, while I'm not up on all the speculation out there, I do believe that those who favor a bomb or missile suggest that the fuel was simply burning after a ruptured fuel tank.
While the above might simply be the result of careless writing rather than deliberate misdirection, the next sentence is not:
"Conspiracy theorists immediately jumped on this,..."
They did not.
The FBI WAS immediately involved in the investigation due to widespread speculation of a bombing or missile attack. The FBI was engaged for months, and for a long period of time the consensus leaned toward foul play-as reported in major papers.
So far as I know, there is no "conspiracy theory", rather there are allegations of a cover up-a big difference. I have no idea what happened, but given that the event occurred in election season with an administration that later questioned the definition of "is", I'm skeptical.
Mike Stahl, Toledo, OH
November 29, 2011 7:18am
I don't want to throw fuel on this fire (if you'll pardon the pun), and there's more that I don't know about aircraft and missile attacks than I do know, but ...
What kinds of sounds do missiles make as they are launched? In-flight? Is it possible, however remotely, that a missile launch (or flight, or proximity explosion) could have caused some of the reported sounds heard by ground observers?
For example, a witness may have heard "a sound" that sounds like a firecracker or remote explosion, but was really a missile launch. Turning to the source, the witness sees the missile in flight and the result.
I don't believe in a missile attack or cover-up, but I think a good explanation to account for otherwise credible ground observers has to take that possible sequence into account.
Chris Nelson, Windsor, CT
February 28, 2012 12:32pm
Love the topics spoke of on this website but is it your goal to debunk every debatable topic in history and give it a plausible cause? Do you not believe in coincidences or anything out of the normal ever occuring? After reading almost every article on this site it's almost become downright insulting and pompous. As if you believe that you yourself are omnicient.
Jeremy, Kentucky
November 14, 2012 10:13am
Jeremy, I can't speak for Brian but as far as I can see he's concentrating on the incidents and events that are used to promote the belief, that some have, in vast hidden conspiracies, extraterrestrial visitations, the supernatural and so on.
Some of the explanations that Brian gives rely on coincidences (which conspiracy theorists particularly have a hard time believing in) and some unexpected, but not inexplicable, things happening. And you say 'give it a plausible cause'as if that's a bad thing!
There are plenty of websites which claim that everything is down to the Illuminati, the Greys or Bigfoot and don't explore it any further than that. Which would you prefer?
Darren, Liverpool, UK
December 29, 2012 2:23pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, or join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
I work on f-15 aircraft for a living, programming and installing and fixing the computers that control the numerous systems. I know that static charge is a VERY big deal when traveling through the air, however, engineers know this, I am not an expert on 747's but I would venture to guess that they have a static arrestor to prevent such a catastrophe. I also have a hard time believing that a static charge somehow made its way into the fuel tank and caused an explosion there. They have capacitor type fuel guage indicators, which use the fuel as a variable dialectric to give an accurate indication. So there is already electricity in the fuel tank. I am not saying it could not cause the explosion. But static electricity seems really tough for me to believe. What really make it difficult to digest is the plethera of eyewitnesses that say something asend and contact the aircraft. My experience with this suggests that perhaps they did not see they think they saw, but maybe they did see something. There are lots and lots of possible failures with a system this complicated, but my vote would go to a random act of nature, like lightning or a meteor, that seems to almost make sense of the eyewitness accounts.
One more thing, you seem to be taking great faith in the fact that a missle attack is inprobable, it is very possible with the right science, and motivation. The evidence is slim either way. But to rule that out is foolish in my opinion.
Dan, North Carolina
October 18, 2008 4:38pm