Flight 800: Accident Or Terrorist
Attack? - Part 2
Was Mechanical Failure Theory Wrong?
Joey Mac Lellan for
Suffolk Life Newspapers
December 15, 1998
The National Transportation Safety Bureau (NTSB), with assistance
from the Justice Department and the Central Intelligence Agency,
has maintained that the cause of the explosion that downed TWA
Flight 800 on July 17, 1996 was an electronic malfunction in the
Center Wing Tank (CWT). However, Commander William S. Donaldson
(Retired) author of the 109-page Interim Report on the Crash of
TWA Flight 800 and the Action of the NTSB and the FBI is
disputing those findings. The report was given to the
Congressional Subcommittee on Aviation in July - two years after
the FL800 incident. The NTSB office in Calverton declined to
comment and no one answered the phone at the Washington D. C.
office number Calverton provided.
Declining to comment on Donaldson's report, FBI Agent Joseph
Valiquette said, "This was one of the most thorough
investigations ever conducted by the FBI." Valiquette, a
spokesman for the New York FBI office, added that the FBI's
investigation on Flight 800 "for all intent and purpose is
closed, but we still maintain contact with the NTSB and will jump
back in if any criminal cause is found." Donaldson's group,
Associated Retired Aviation Professionals includes such notables
as Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, USN (Ret.) former chairman of the
Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff; Rear Admiral Mark Hill, USN
(Ret.) former commander of the USS Independence; and Brigadier
General Ben Partin, USAF (Ret.) who designed the Continuous-Rod
Warhead for the BOMARC anti-aircraft missile. They are suggesting
that FL800, carrying 235 passengers and crew members, was
destroyed by two high powered anti-aircraft warheads - one fired
from near the Moriches Inlet, and the other from an unidentified
ship about 17 nautical miles off shore. "Like most
Americans," said Donaldson, "I was concerned when TWA
Flight 800 mysteriously exploded" and initially followed the
investigation in the media because "it was so unusual for
something like this to happen to a Boeing 747 without an obvious
external cause."
In the report, Donaldson charges that the NTSB has used
"propaganda" to convince the media and public that a
Boeing 747, containing Jet-A fuel, could explode despite the fact
that Jet-A fuel is non-flammable kerosene, that the tank was
actually devoid of fuel in the first place, and that "not
one single piece of center wing shrapnel has been located in
Flight 800 baggage containers, water tanks or anywhere forward of
the Center Wing Tank." The commercial Boeing 747 aircraft
began its career in the seventies. Since that time, "there
has never been an in-flight explosion in any Boeing built
airliner of Jet-A kerosene fuel vapor/air mixture in any tank,
caused by mechanical failure," wrote Donaldson. Yet, in
congressional testimony and statements to the media, the NTSB
"cited the loss of an Air Force 707 and 3 KC135 air to air
tanker aircraft to fuel tank explosions as examples of mishaps
similar to TWA FL800," wrote Donaldson, who was a flight
instructor and Air-Wing Safety Officer in charge of crash
investigation for mishaps ashore and afloat. Officials at the Air
Force's safety center, out West stated "there is no record
of a 707 loss, and all three KC135s were fueled with JP4, a fuel
as volatile as automobile gasoline."
FL800 had Jet-A fuel "which is similar to regular kerosene
[and] will not easily light with a match, unless the fuel is
misted in the atmosphere or aerated by a fuel injector,"
according to Donaldson's report. Even after admitting publicly
that it knows "little about the flammable properties of
Jet-A fuel," the NTSB told the media that a CWT explosion
had caused the Philippines Air 737 crashed in 1990. Donaldson,
however, noted that video and still photography taken after the
Philippines Air 737 fire was extinguished, "show the Center
Wing Tank did not explode." The plane's "undercarriage,
wheels and center wing box (tank) were structurally sound enough
to carry the load of engines and fuel ... under tractor
tow," he noted. "Had the Center Wing Tank actually
exploded in the manner the NTSB leadership suggests, the aircraft
would have dropped on the ramp ..." The latest data, shows
"Jet-A fuel to be safer than previously described in the
Aviation Fuels Handbook.
In other words, the inference that Jet-A fuel posed some
heretofore-unknown risk factor has proven to be totally
false," Donaldson states. "The amount of fuel vapor,
and therefore the potential flammability in a tank is primarily
dependent of the temperature of the liquid fuel in the
tank," wrote Donaldson. The liquid fuel temperature in the
Boeing 747's CWT can be easily taken through the tank's low point
drain while the plane is on the ground. This is often done, he
said, to check for water ice or contaminants "in a simple
two-minute procedure at virtually no cost." Despite this
information, the NTSB recommended that the Federal Aviation
Administration impose "multiple safety recommendations that
would have cost billions if implemented," the report states.
"All were based on the assumptions that B747 lightly fueled
Center Wing Tanks are dangerously flammable during warm weather
and that FL800's loss was initiated by a spontaneously exploding
tank."
Like the unsubstantiated flammable nature of Jet-A fuel, the
NTSB, according to Donaldson, misled the public and commercial
airline industry when it also claimed that the CWT has a tendency
to heat up. In October 1997, Donaldson said he took the
temperature of a Boeing 747's CWT from an aircraft turning around
at JFK for return trip to Europe. "The temperature was 69
degrees Fahrenheit, one degree hotter than ambient air
temperature, despite the fact all the air-pacts had been running
for the hour the aircraft had been on the ground" awaiting
takeoff. In an effort to support its CWT accident theory, the
NTSB and the FBI had secret tests conducted in the United
Kingdom.