CIA Releases More Documents in Lahr Lawsuit

5-13-08 Release by CIA (very large file)

Memos to/from Ray and John

June 8, 2008


The CIA's error was intentional.

The most important issue on appeal is fraud.

The disclosure of which redactions in the packet would best prove fraud?

My guess is that it's No. 5, about which you wrote:

Pages 41-50 contain 10 pages of mostly blank boxes. This is representative of the non-cooperative attitude of the CIA. The tantalizing titles on many of the boxes suggest that this is exactly the type of information that we are seeking.

June 5, 2008

Hello John – Here is our basic response regarding the CIA Production:

Thousands of eyewitnesses saw TWA800 explode and fall into the ocean. This includes three airline crews and a National Guard crew. About two hundred of the eyewitnesses saw a bright object streak towards TWA800 prior to the initial explosion. The logical conclusion is that a missile initiated the fuel tank explosion of TWA800. However, that wasn’t a politically acceptable conclusion.

The CIA is not noted for aviation accident investigation expertise, and it has no authority from Congress to play the lead role in the determination of cause. Congress gave that authority to the NTSB. As soon as the FBI and the CIA made a determination that criminality was not involved, those agencies should have turned over the physical evidence that they had gathered, and they should have withdrawn from the investigation.

Instead, a single CIA agent was sitting before his computer, and he was seeking an explanation for the rising bright object seen by the eyewitnesses. In a moment of inspiration, this agent hypothesized that the object was TWA800 itself rising in an almost vertical climb trailing flames. The scenario wasn’t plausible. In fact, it was aerodynamically impossible to fit such a zoom-climb into all of the other evidence. But it was the only option they had in order to steer the investigation from a missile to a mechanical failure, a conclusion that was politically acceptable.

From that moment on, instead of following the evidence to its logical conclusion, the zoom-climb conclusion was adopted and the evidence was made to fit that

conclusion. Where the evidence simply didn’t fit that conclusion, that evidence was withheld. The eyewitnesses were declared to be mistaken, and not a single eyewitness was allowed to refute this declaration by testifying at the public hearings. Ignoring eyewitnesses is unprecedented, and withholding evidence borders on criminality. My focus is on one small portion of the withheld evidence, namely, the data and calculations used for the impossible zoom-climb.

In response to a court order, the CIA has released a new packet of information. As with the previous information released by the CIA, it provides no means of verifying the assumptions, the data, and the calculations used by the CIA to produce its video animation of the zoom-climb. Somewhere, the CIA has made a gross error, and the CIA seems determined to keep it hidden. Presenting a conclusion without presenting the evidence violates the basic precept of accident investigation and jurisprudent procedure.

1. This 130 page packet contains nine sections. The first section refers to Mori DocID 1255554-A approved for release in May, 2008 (the original Mori DocID 1255554 was approved for release in October, 2005). This document attempts to discount the eyewitnesses on the basis of a zoom-climb, but it does not present any evidence about how such a zoom-climb could have been possible.

2. Pages 11 & 12 are labeled "Program to Analyze x,y Data from Radars". This is not a program. This is the very limited results of a program that transforms radar range and azimuth coordinates to x,y coordinates. It is not difficult to write such a program. The important thing is to release all of the raw radar data from all of the radars that tracked TWA800 so that these results can either be verified or disproved.

Pages 13 – 22 are hypothetical performance charts. Each chart represents data and a formula probably entered into a computer, although they could have been generated by hand. These charts are meaningless without the data and formulas. Furthermore, they represent a performance that was aerodynamically impossible. Where are the data and formulas that went into these charts?

3. Page 23 is an important page. It acknowledges the range of speculation and the huge discrepancies between assumptions made by the CIA and Boeing. In order to hypothesize a zoom-climb, both the CIA and Boeing had to make unrealistic assumptions about the noseless aircraft. Both the CIA and Boeing refuse to release the assumptions that went into their calculations. Both had to assume that the aircraft remained symmetrically balanced, gravitationally balanced, control surface balanced, and engine power balanced in order continue to fly. None of these assumptions are realistic. The good eyewitnesses saw the major parts of the aircraft fall downwards out of the initial explosion in two flaming streams.

4. Pages 25 – 39 comprise Mori DocID 1215200-A. They are certainly more extensive than the six pages in the original MoriDoc 1215200. However, they still share the same basic fault, namely, no input data and no formulas. There is no way to verify or disprove these claimed results.

5. Pages 41-50 contain 10 pages of mostly blank boxes. This is representative of the non-cooperative attitude of the CIA. The tantalizing titles on many of the boxes suggest that this is exactly the type of information that we are seeking.

6. Pages 51 – 67 are another 17 pages of mostly blank boxes. However, the radar hits on page 67 are useful and hopefully can be checked against the portion of radar data that has been previously released.

7. Pages 69 – 90 start off with the "view from the bridge". This refers to the view described by Michael Wire, the millwright who was working on the bridge. His description featured prominently in the CIA video. Michael Wire flatly rejects that CIA representation of his testimony. There was no zoom-climb observed from the bridge.

Once again, there was no data or formulas provided to verify or disprove the conclusions represented on the charts that followed Michael Wire’s description.

8. Pages 92 -119 and Pages 122 – 128 appear to be the results of a computer run. Now if we could just get the data and formulas used for this run, we could probably find where they made their mistake or false assumption.

9. Page 130 was denied in full on the first release. This time we are provided a preliminary run to show the variation due to thrust. There seems to be an implicit assumption that the engine thrust remained balanced across all four engines, even though the location of the engines in the debris field was widely scattered. That indicates that engine thrust did not remain balanced. If one or more engines quit before the others, there would have been a violent yaw that would immediately have upset the aircraft since there was no cockpit and there was no way to introduce control inputs which might counteract the yaw.

In summary, the CIA acknowledges that the zoom-climb was conceived in an attempt to explain the rising bright streak observed by about 200 eyewitnesses. However, the CIA refuses to reveal the data and calculations used to support that conception. Once again, presenting a conclusion without presenting the evidence violates the basic precept of accident investigation and jurisprudent procedure.

5-13-08 Production Pages

Pl Rec No

Pl Vol & Bates pages

MORI Number

Alternate MORI Number

Number of Pages




III at 692-697







IV at 891-893







III at 700







III at 808-813







III at 733-734







III at 735-736







III at 737-738







III at 741-768






Same as above






III at 814







  Evidence of a Missile

  Flight 800 Database

Flight 800

Poll Results

>1000 Respondents

  Missile-------- 80%


  Bomb --------  4%


  Fuel Tank --- 14%

Support This Website with a Donation:
Copyright © 1998- 2013 Robert E. Donaldson - All rights reserved
Search Query