No Friend of Bill's (Login NoFOB) from IP address 216.68.45.58
-
Note: My name does not refer to Bill Donaldson. It refers to a slightly more famous/infamous Bill. You figure it out.
There are numerous problems with the MANPADS terrorist attack scenario currently backed by ARAP. I will try to be as thorough and brief as possible.
1) Missile Firing Position #1 (ARAP Interim Report, Exhibit 14) is 1 nautical mile from the Moriches Inlet, 7.3 nm from TWA800's explosion point and 9.5 nm total distance factoring in TWA800's altitude. A MANPADS fired from that position would fall well short of TWA800. The range of a Stinger is only 4 kilometers. Even assuming a foreign MANPADS with an extended range was used, it still would have fallen miles short of the target. If ARAP has knowledge of a foreign-made MANPADS with a ten mile range, it should post that information on this BB.
2) Eyewitnesses Paul Angelides, Bileau and McBride describe 20 seconds of "rolling thunder" after the launch from Position #1 that was strong enough to shake houses and a drawbridge. Bill Donaldson called that noise "rocket motor burn noise." (Exhibit 14, Point #8) MANPADS do not emit enough exhaust gases to produce that kind of noise, and a MANPADS would burn-out in about 10 seconds. I have seen video and audio footage of a Stinger launch. The initial 0.5-1 second after launch is the loudest phase, and as the missile gains altitude, the sound trails off quickly. A MANPADS is not big enough to produce "rolling thunder" from miles away, and I could not detect a noticeable sonic boom in the video I saw.
3) Firing Position #2 (the 30-knot contact) was 2.9 nm from TWA800's explosion point. Factoring in TWA800's altitude, it was about 5.5 miles away total distance. That is still well outside the range of a normal Stinger, though an extended range MANPADS could potentially reach it. However, eyewitness Albert Gipe saw that missile launch from 15-17 nm away on a boat, a considerable distance. I question whether a MANPADS exhaust burn would be bright enough to be seen 15 nm away at twilight. I seriously doubt it. Exhibit 15, Point #9 states that Gipe witnessed a "short-range surface-to-air engagement...with a LARGE anti-aircraft missile."
ARAP relies on many other pieces of circumstantial evidence to support the MANPADS scenario, but they all have serious problems:
1) The FBI dredging manual with Stinger pictures.
Problem: That manual could have been left behind to throw private investigators off-track. Even if it and the Navy Salvage Map were genuine, they do not prove MANPADS engagement. They do not exclude the possibility that the FBI and Navy were looking for SM-1's and SA-6's as well.
2) President Clinton's phone call to an FBI command post in Atlanta allegedly stating that TWA800 was downed by a shoulder-fired missile.
Problem: Hearsay. That information may not be accurate, the President could have been misinformed at the time, and he could have been lying.
3) The China Lake report that states that a MANPADS strike on the #2 left wing tank could have caused the asymmetrical damage to that wing and blown in the left side of the CWT.
Problem: A proximity-fused warhead detonation under the left wing could have caused that same damage as ARAP originally believed. The China Lake report does not explain the high-velocity damage to the nose section and nose landing gear. A heat-seeking MANPADS would not track on the nose of an aircraft.
4) Eyewitnesses say the Stinger test looks like what they saw.
Problem: You can make a Stinger look like an SM-1 and vice versa depending on the distance the observer happens to be from each. The observer would have to be a lot closer to the Stinger and a lot farther away from the SM-1. I am willing to bet that the burning exhaust from an SM-1 appears red/orange from miles away as the TWA800 eyewitnesses described.
Conclusion: ARAP has no solid evidence of a MANPADS engagement on TWA FL800 despite the fact that it has been pushing that scenarino for almost 2 years. That scenario conflicts with ARAP's own Interim Report, yet it has whitewashed all conflicting evidence, even its own. It's time for ARAP to reverse course.
Primary function: To provide close-in, surface-to-air weapons for the defense of forward combat areas, vital areas and installations against low altitude air attacks.
Manufacturer: General Dynamics /Raytheon Corporation
Propulsion: Dual thrust solid fuel rocket motor
Length: 5 feet (1.5 meters)
Width: 5.5 inches (13.96 centimeters)
Weight: 12.5 pounds (5.68 kilograms)
Weight fully armed: 34.5 pounds (15.66 kg)
Maximum system span: 3.6 inches (9.14 cm)
Range: 1 to 8 kilometers
Sight ring: 10 mils
Fuzing: Penetration, impact, self destruct
Ceiling: 10,000 feet (3.046 kilometers)
Speed: Supersonic in flight
Units: Low-Altitude Air Defense (LAAD) Battalions: 3 active duty, 2 reserve
Crew: 2 enlisted
Guidance system: Fire-and-forget passive infrared seeker
Warheads: High explosive
Rate of fire: 1 missile every 3 to 7 seconds
Type of fire: "Fire-and-Forget" (See Features below)
Sensors: Passive infrared
Introduction date: 1987
Unit Replacement Cost: $38,000
You will notice that the range shown for the original Stinger is 8 Kilometers with a ceiling of 10,000 ft. You stated that the stinger only had a range of 4 kilometers. Please make sure all of your information and calculations are correct. I'm not defending anyone here, just pointing out that you need to have CORRECT information to make or refute arguments.
Personally, I don't know whether the USNavy or terrorists or what SHOT DOWN TWA800. But the evidence is clear that it was shot down. Please make sure you have correct info before postulating arguments.
On the opinion side, I believe that the Stinger has been modified to have a longer range than that. Also only 3,000 more feet of altitude improvement would put FLight800 in the range of the missles.
Different versions of Stingers and foreign-made MANPADS have different ranges. I know this, that is why I left a lot of room in my calculations for that fact. A Stinger with an 8 km. range would only travel 5.28 miles. That is just over half the total distance from Firing Position #1 to TWA800. Notice that TWA800 was also 3,800ft. above the ceiling of the Stinger with the stats that you provided. Such a Stinger had NO chance of targeting and intercepting TWA800.
As you can see, I am quite sure of my facts. Are you?
You can't double the max. range of a Stinger from 5 to 10 miles by modifying it. You'd have to take the casing apart, pour in twice as much solid fuel, weld it all back to together and pray it doesn't blow-up on launch. Also, you'd have to modify the infrared seeker to double its sensitivity so that it could "see" a target 10 miles away. Not an easy task, probably impossible. Remember, a Stinger has to "see" its target and lock-on before launch. Otherwise, it doesn't know where to go.
Sooner or later, you have to consider PLAUSIBILITY as well as POSSIBILITY. Is a modified Stinger with double the max. range possible? Probably not. Is it plausible? Not at all, for the reasons stated above.
If anyone has knowledge of a MANPADS, foreign or domestic, with a 10 mile range (the distance from Firing Position #1 to TWA800), please post that information here. But I don't think you're going to find one.
Although the official ceiling for the short range Stinger listed here is 10,000 ft. (3km) its range is listed as 1-8km. This is because after rocket motor burnout it goes into coast mode and is still supersonic. Obviously the angle and rate of climb will affect the maximum effective altitude. But you also have to consider that the official effective altitude is determined for use against fast maneuvering military aircraft, not a lumbering 747 going in a straight line. This fact alone would extend the missile's effective range on such a slow moving target. You also have to consider that there are longer-range versions and there are foreign made copies with longer ranges.
NTSB exhibit 22e shows a simulated Manpads missile launch from two separate firing positions assuming it impacted the aircraft just before rocket burnout at 7.7 seconds. Obviously the military missile experts working with the NTSB did not believe that the aircraft was out of range for two of the 3 suspected firing positions. (Note, the FBI only triangulated the two positions under the flight path, not the inshore position).
That leaves the in-shore launch position as a perplexing problem for both the terrorist theory and the Navy did it theory. Obviously, a Standard Missile could easily reach the target from close in shore, within 1-3 miles of the coast. The problem here is that the Standard Missile requires a very large launch platform, i.e. a large Navy ship, but no one saw such a ship off the Long Island coast at the time of the crash. The second problem with this launch location is that a Standard Missile launch that close to shore would have been witnesses by hundreds of boaters and people ashore who would have immediately seen the ship it was launched from.
On the other hand, a Manpads launched from that point would have to travel 7-8 miles to reach flight 800. According to the military missile experts quoted in another exhibit, the Manpads would self-destruct in 15 seconds. Logic says that if the Manpads could reach almost 3 miles high in 7.7 seconds, going laterally it should be able to travel 6-7 miles in 15 seconds, which would put its self-destruct in the proximity of Flight 800. As for the rolling thunder sounds heard by Angeledes, I am told that this is consistent with the Manpads launch and breaking the sound barrier. Witnesses have described 2 or 3 bright white flashes in the vicinity of Flight 800 before the red/orange fireball erupted. The close to shore Manpads launch did not have to reach Flight 800 to fit this description. It would have exploded on time-out and from the beach it would be hard to tell if the flash was on impact or was 100-1000 feet short. Lastly, a standard tactical ambush scenario would be to use 3 shooters to ensure a kill. With an effective range of 3 miles, you would position one shooter every 5 miles. This would cover a 15 mile area with assurance that at lease two shooters would be within range. If you plot the 3 launch positions, one is 2.9 mn south, one is about the same distance to the north and the in-shore location is about 5 miles closer to the beach, which would put it 2-3 miles off shore.
There is overwhelming evidence from eyewitnesses and 3 separate triangulations that showed 2 launch positions to the north and south of flight 800. There are fewer witnesses of the in shore event and not enough conclusive evidence to point to either a Standard Missile or a Manpads. However, there is one simple fact that favors a Manpads launch from in-shore, the fact that no one saw where it was launched from. That points to a very small boat that would be indistinguishable from the hundreds of other boats out that night. A Navy ship close in-shore is not invisible.
Some have speculated that it was a submarine but there are two problems with that. First, there is no known sub launched surface to air anti-aircraft missile in the Navy arsenal and I believe that the water depth within a few miles of shore would rule out most, if not all, US submarines.
The launch position located close to shore presents a problem for both theories but it doesn't rule out either. The fact remains that we have overwhelming evidence that the aircraft was shot down, but we have no conclusive evidence of who fired the missile or missiles. All we have is circumstantial evidence on both sides. I believe, and Cmdr. Donaldson believes that the preponderance of circumstantial evidence points to a terrorist source and not at the Navy, but there is not enough circumstantial evidence on either side to prove anything in a court of law. Until we find the smoking gun, we will just have to keep digging.
I believe that this response illustrates perfectly the tactic that should be used by all people interested in TWA800. There are questions unanswered about some capabilities of missles and asset availability or presence by the US Navy.
On adage to remember is "If you don't know, then don't jump to conclusions". We don't know some details that are vital to solving this mystery. We do know that the conclusions reached by the NTSB are wrong,USING THEIR OWN EVIDENCE. Never forget that FACT and continue to hammer it.
We could come up with 30 different theories on how this plane was shot down but only FACTS will give us the true cause.
I appreciate your patient response. I really do. However, let me throw some darts at it. That is, after all, what we're all here for.
B.D.: "A MANPADS launched from that point [Firing Position #1] would have to travel 7-8 miles to reach FL800."
Response: It would have to travel 7.3 nautical miles (8.4 miles) laterally and 13,800 ft. (2.61 miles) vertically for a total distance of 11 miles.
B.D.: "Logic says that if the MANPADS could reach almost 3 miles high in 7.7 seconds, going laterally it should be able to travel 6-7 miles in 15 seconds, which would put its self-destruct in the proximity [100-1,000 ft.] of FL800."
Response: I'm assuming that you're just doubling the time it takes the missile to climb 3 miles (7.7 sec.) to get the time it would take to travel 6-7 miles (15 secs.). How does the missile's travelling 6-7 miles in 15 secs. put it in the proximity of FL800 [100-1,000 ft.] when the total distance from Point #1 to TWA800 was 11 miles? By my calculation of the missile speed you've given, after 15 secs. the MANPADS would have fallen 4 miles short; that's vertical and lateral distance combined.
B.D.: "...the Standard Missile requires a very large launch platform, i.e. a large Navy ship, but no one saw such a ship off the Long Island coast at the time of the crash."
Response: Exhibit 18 - A Critical FBI Assumption Error (ARAP Interim Report) - "Unfortunately, Mr. Kalstom (sic) and the FBI's position was to totally ignore these large [missile] systems based at least publicly on the idea that large weapons need a warship, its radar, launch rail, infrastructure, etc. to launch and guide a powerful weapon.
This is absolutely false, virtually any solid fuel anti-aircraft missile could be launched and successfully guided to TWA FL800 from a boat or small floating container....The attack missile, simply defined, was a missile in a watertight can that once dropped in enemy waters, floated level with the surface, would anchor itself and could be activated by timer or remote control to passively sense, then launch on enemy aircraft." (p.71)
B.D.: "As for the rolling thunder sounds heard from Angelides, I am told that this is consistent with the MANPADS launch and breaking the sound barrier."
Response: Told by whom? If your source is Navy or government personnel, I would advise you to get a second opinion from an objective civilian source. That doesn't seem right. The combined noise of a MANPADS' initial launch and any resulting sonic boom should only last a few seconds at most, not 20 full seconds of "rolling thunder." That's my non-technical opinion. I've never launched either one, but that explanation doesn't make sense to me.
And what about the high-velocity damage to TWA800's nose section and nose landing gear? A MANPADS would not track on the nose of an aircraft and would have insufficient power to cause the kind of nose damage described in ARAP's Interim Report.
e.g. "There are no rational theories as to how a seat armrest can be broken up and a piece propelled at high velocity without accepting the notion that high velocity metal passes through the First Class cabin." (p.26)
"The almost instantaneous yaw to the right and pitch up to 8.5 deg. discovered by this investigator [Bill Donaldson] when reviewing NTSB Data and confirmed by the DFDR...that initiated FL800's breakup sequence, is also a probable cause of the fatal neck injuries- cranial cervical spine separation." (p.26)
What kind of MANPADS could cause a huge 747 to almost instantaneously yaw to the right and pitch up 8.5 degrees? None. Would a CWT explosion do that? Bill's the expert, but I don't see how. And apparently he didn't see how when he wrote his Report. Only a powerful proximity-fused warhead exploding under and to the left of the nose could do that, in my opinion.
ARAP's own Interim Report contains many details like those above of convincing physical and flight data recorder evidence of large, high-energy warhead damage to TWA800. With the lack of any hard MANPADS evidence, I think the conclusions in the Interim Report should win out hands-down.
How do you figure? Exhibit #14, Point #5 in the ARAP Interim Report states "the missile [from Firing Position #1] would have to fly at least a 9.5 nautical mile profile to make the intercept when vertical ascent is included."
9.5 nautical miles = 11 miles.
Don't forget the vertical ascent distance of 2.61 miles.
Note: My name does not refer to Bill Donaldson. It refers to a slightly more famous/infamous Bill.
I was using your response to Bill Donaldson where you stated
a missile would have to travel 7.3 nautical miles (8.4 miles)
laterally and rise 13,800 ft (2.61 miles) for a total of 11 miles. If you use this as a right triangle, you take the square root of the sum of the squares of the sides (8.4 and 2.61), and that is 8.8 miles. If the report really says 11 miles, then I would question the math that was used to come up with it.
Since a fired missile doesn't exactly travel in a straight line to its target but in more of an arc, the distance will be slightly greater than the 8.8 miles. But it doesn't fly straight up and then laterally to the target, either.
I was going by ARAP's calculation of 9.5 nautical miles total distance (Exhibit 14, Point #5). I do not know how it reached that conclusion. I simply converted nautical miles to miles by multiplying by 1.15 for a total of 11 miles. You'd have to ask Bob how ARAP calculated their number.
I too found the Interim report a compelling document, as were the later letters which alluded to an SA6/7 'red flare in second stage' etc.
Incidentally, Exhibit 18B Appendix E, 'Boeing supporting data', on page 74 the following statement appears:
'It was assumed that with the forward fuselage gone that the remaining airplane would eventually reach a high angle of attack attitude due to the pronounced bias in aft center of gravity. Since secondary radar returns do not appear to show a significant speed change 300 knots was assumed.'
Where then the 'zoom climb'???
Current Topic - Debunking the MANPADS Scenario: A Synopsis