Going After Boeing
Washington Weekly
– November 15, 1999
By EDWARD ZEHR
The Seattle Times recently took the Boeing company
to task for engaging in "a quiet pursuit of far-fetched theories" regarding
the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996. It seems that the company incurred
the stern disapproval of the newspaper which noted that "Boeing has actually
refused to rule out a bomb or missile in the July 1996 TWA crash." How
gauche of Boeing not to snap to attention, click heels and salute smartly
when the government barks an order. Once more our vaunted "free" press
show themselves to be the government's obedient, fawning bootlickers. (With
a few honorable exceptions, such as the Riverside Press-Enterprise, which
reported on the glaring discrepancies in the government's account of the
crash early on).
With all possible due deference to the editorial
writers at the Seattle Times, who seem to have bestowed themselves honorary
qualifications as aerospace experts almost as freely as Oxford cloaked
its errant, one-time scholar, Bill Clinton, with an honorary doctorate
as a consolation prize for the one he failed to earn as a student there,
what actual qualifications do they have to utter definitive opinions on
so technical a subject? Do they really imagine that they are better qualified
than Boeing's engineers to understand the subject matter? Ah, but Boeing
has a vested interest in avoiding possible liability for the crash -- they
are being sued by family members of some of the crash victims. I might
add that an inveterate, kneejerk-liberal rag such as the Seattle Times
also has a vested interest in covering up possible malfeasance by Clinton
administration officials who have played fast and loose with the crash
investigation from the very outset.
According to the November 8 Progressive Review,
Boeing is presently "conducting chemical metallurgical tests, [and] reviewing
FBI interviews with witnesses, many of whom saw something apparently streaking
towards the plane before the crash."
Yes, it would be nice to know why more than a
hundred eyewitnesses saw something streaking towards the plane just before
the crash if, in fact, nothing was streaking towards the plane -- you know,
abstruse technical considerations such as that.
Occasionally I get e-mail from people who wish
to know why I sometimes inject psychological considerations into my commentary.
The answer is, I do it because our present political dementia cannot be
fully explained using logical considerations alone. I would cite, for example,
the low comedy of hardcore administration supporters on Usenet (sort of
the low-rent district of Internet) trying desperately to make sense of
the fantasy leaked by government "investigators" to their pals in the mainstream
media. The hallucination in question had to do with an "explanation" of
the light seen streaking up toward the aircraft as streams of fuel from
the plane's ruptured tanks which were somehow ignited and burned from the
bottom up, appearing to those on the ground as the glow of a missile streaking
up towards the plane.
Now, anyone who would believe so preposterous
an "explanation" as that must have flunked high school physics. (Who takes
physics in high school any more? It's far too difficult for the little
sweethearts -- that's why our engineering and physical science graduate
schools are chock-a-block with foreign students these days). Not that there
is anything particularly technical about this issue. Even an individual
so technically dim as a mainstream anchor person should be able to understand
it, although none of them seemed to get it. Anyone with so much as half
a brain and a smidgen of common sense ought to be able to figure out that
fuel ejected into the atmosphere from a ruptured tank at hundreds of miles
per hour is going to atomize and vaporize, not fall towards earth in neat
little stream while trailing along behind the aircraft at full speed like
a faithful little puppy dog. How did the Times characterize Boeing's investigation
-- "a quiet pursuit of far-fetched theories"? I wonder if their editorial
writers are familiar with the Arab expression, "to strain at a gnat and
swallow a camel"?
As a one-time aerospace engineer with 35 years
of experience, I guess the thing that bothers me most about TWA-800 is
the number of aerospace professionals who simply do not believe the government's
version of the mishap. Unfortunately, the writers at the Seattle Times
seem to lack the intellectual honesty and personal integrity to acknowledge
this, although they are certainly in a position to know about it. Instead
of seeking the truth, they set about disinforming the public using snide
innuendo, unsupported by verifiable facts, shrill name-calling (e.g. "paranoid
conspiracy theorists") and very little else. All of this is done in pursuit
of a smelly little hidden agenda which these "journalists" are too dishonest
to acknowledge. I wonder if they really understand how ugly a picture they
are painting of themselves?
I have talked to airline captains who regard
the government's version of the TWA-800 mishap as utter nonsense. One of
these pilots told of the many takeoffs he had made from Saudi Arabia under
temperature conditions far more stringent than those experienced by the
TWA aircraft at JFK on the evening of the crash. This pilot reckoned that
if the Boeing 747 did indeed have a design flaw such as the one postulated
by government investigators he would have died a hundred deaths. Be that
as it may, there is only one recorded instance of a heavy Boeing commercial
aircraft having a fuel tank explosion in flight and that one was using
highly volatile military aviation fuel. Thus, on a purely statistical basis,
the probability of the government's explanation of the mishap being correct
is vanishingly remote. And yet the technological dumbbells at the Seattle
Times have the temerity to demand that we all bow low to the government's
dubious decree. That is what one expects of people who are guided by illogical
motives of which they seem blissfully unconscious.
In a recent interview, former Navy Commander
Bill Donaldson, who has investigated the TWA-800 crash for two years on
behalf of the Associated Retired Aviation Professionals, noted that 26
other transport aircraft worldwide have been shot down "by a man-portable
anti-aircraft missile." Thus there is nothing the least bit unique in the
concept that the TWA flight was intercepted by such a missile. It was well
within range of some of the more advanced shoulder-fired anti-aircraft
weapons, and the eyewitness sightings are consistent with such a missile
being fired at the aircraft. A Lufthansa cargo jet was fired at with such
a weapon in September, near Karachi airport in Pakistan.
But gosh, that doesn't jibe with the official
version of events. Doesn't that mean that Donaldson must be a "paranoid
conspiracy theorist"? Bill Donaldson is a retired Navy pilot with "more
than 24 years of experience in virtually all phases of naval aviation."
Among his other qualifications, Donaldson lists "graduation from the Navy's
Postgraduate Aviation Safety School in Monterey, California, where I completed
the long course in aviation safety and crash investigation. I have served
as a safety officer and crash investigator at both the Squadron and Air
Wing levels, and was qualified as a maintenance check pilot in six models
of prop and jet aircraft. Also, I am a qualified air traffic controller
and served for two years as a Carrier Controlled Approach Officer." I would
be interested to know what the technical qualifications of the editorial
staff at the Seattle Times are to address this subject with such implied
omniscience. If, as I suspect, they have none, I wonder whether they have
ever bothered to get the opinions of people with the technical expertise
to speak knowledgeably on the subject. If not, what qualifies them to hurl
unsupported, puerile insults at people who do have the technical expertise
to address the subject? Is this something they were instructed to do in
the PC playbook? The problem with too many "journalists" today is that
they are mal-educated, indoctrinated, opinionated far beyond their ability
to comprehend and sorely lacking intellectual integrity.
Commander Donaldson recently gave interviewer
John F. McManus his own version of the TWA-800 crash:
"I believe that a shoulder-launched missile was
fired from a small boat positioned less than three nautical miles to the
southeast of the aircraft. The missile punched through the underside of
the aircraft at a point where the left wing meets the fuselage. Its warhead,
a type that explodes immediately after impact, penetrated approximately
three additional feet into the six-foot-deep tank of fuel in that wing.
The resulting explosion caused a massive
over-pressurization of all three left-wing tanks
blowing open the top skin of the wing. The explosion also impacted the
empty center fuel tank, resulting in a secondary fuel/air explosion under
and in that center tank. All of this led to catastrophic failures of the
nose, tail, and left wing. The plane's pieces, plus the passengers and
crew, then plunged into the sea in about 30 seconds."
Donaldson characterized the FBI's investigation
as a "token effort," noting that his own investigation located 20 eyewitnesses
the FBI had not even interviewed. Donaldson claims that, "Some of
these persons were critically important eyewitnesses, people who were in
boats and were first on the scene and who claim to have seen other suspicious
boats in the area."
The Commander also noted that the FBI had the
Navy's China Lake [California] Naval Air Weapons facility study recovered
debris from the crash -- until the Navy experts recommended that missiles
be fired into 747 fuel tanks in an effort to replicate the damage patterns
observed in the debris. At that point the FBI quickly terminated its investigation.
The CIA even got into the act with an animated
cartoon purporting to show what happened to the aircraft after "the fuel
tank exploded." It was laughed out of court by aviation professionals,
and I shouldn't wonder. The CIA version claimed that the aircraft climbed
3,000 feet after the nose fell off.
Intrigued by the notion, I ran some numbers on
it and even did a small rudimentary flight simulation that indicated the
aircraft might have ballooned less than a thousand feet, using the most
favorable assumptions. Yes, I used to do aircraft simulations professionally
back in the days before Pontius was a pilot (as they used to say in the
RAF). Those were the days before you could buy one off the shelf at Toys-R-Us,
which is to say sometime before the Flood.
I am told that another engineer ran some numbers
that indicate the aircraft might have climbed a bit more than a thousand
feet. (Simulating the flight of aircraft that are disintegrating is not
a very exact science). I bent over backwards to make my assumptions conservative,
which is what any engineer would do. Nevertheless a lot of people
assume that I cooked the figures. Let them assume what they will, I can
assure you that there is no way anybody, using reasonable assumptions,
could massage those numbers enough to get that aircraft up by anything
like 3,000 feet in its lugubrious condition. The CIA cartoon show was sheer
fantasy.
I am also told that the altitude estimates were
based on radar data rather than flight dynamics considerations. If so,
it is possible that the data is spurious. This sort of thing is not unknown
-- radar sometimes shows things that aren't there. For example, the flight
data recorder recovered from the Egypt Air Flight 990 crash site does not
confirm previously described radar data. (An ominous report surfaced on
Friday that fisherman close to the site where the crash occurredheard two
loud "booms" just before the aircraft plunged into the sea. I'll get to
that another time).
Commander Donaldson conducted his own tests on
the Jet-A fuel used by TWA-800. He maintains that you can't even light
it with a match unless it is heated to at least 127 deg F. In 1997 he extracted
some fuel from a 747 whose engines had been running for about the same
length of time as those of TWA-800 when the mishap occurred. The fuel's
temperature was only 68 deg F. Donaldson described what he did next:
"Then, I took the fuel home, poured some into
a pan sitting in my outdoor barbecue, and placed three lighted fireplace
matches into the pool of fuel. The matches went out! Yet this is
the fuel that, under the very same temperature conditions, supposedly exploded
because of some mysterious spark and brought the plane down. Impossible!
Even if you heat the fuel beyond 127 and stick a match in it, you'll get
fire but no explosion."
The point of the exercise is that commercial
aviation fuel is designed to burn in the engine, not in the tank. The government's
explanation of a "fuel tank explosion" is a real stretch. If there were
even a remote possibility of this happening there should have been a lot
more such incidents considering the number of 747 takeoffs there have been
under far more adverse conditions.
A telling point was made when James Sanders,
who was criminally prosecuted by the government for helping to expose the
fraudulent nature of the mishap investigation, was allowed to photograph
the debris of TWA-800 in preparing his defense. At Donaldson's request,
Sanders "took close-up photos of the areawhere the left side wing fuel
tank meets the fuselage, and the underneath part of the fuselage below
the center fuel tank. It is here in this tank that the government said
the crippling explosion took place."
Guess what? One of Sanders' photos showed the
bottom of the center fuel tank to be "domed upward 14 inches." If the fuel
tank had simply exploded as the government maintains, "that metal surface
should be domed downward, the result of an explosion inside the tank,"
said Donaldson quite plausibly. Which raises an exceedingly troubling question:
has the government told us the truth about what its investigators have
found in the debris? Seen in this light, the inane prattle of the Seattle
Times editorial writers pales into insignificance. Those guys really don't
know anything -- they talk just to hear their own words reverberate in
the hollow round of their skulls.
TWA800 Home
|