I just figured out your reluctance to use UAL 811 as a model for TWA 800. I've been reviewing the original AAR and the revised one. Ah, the first one had the wrong probable cause of improper latching and the second, after door recovered, had the electrical malfunction cause.
So, to bring up 811 again would focus attention of NTSB error on AAR.
But, to me that shows the integrity of NTSB, to get to the bottom of the cause and correct a mistake.
>The Safety Board conducts an accident investigation in a public environment. For a major accident, press briefings are held on scene in the days immediately
>following the accident. A public docket containing factual information about the accident is available within a few months. Usually within a year, the Board
>Members will review a draft of the accident report in a public meeting at Safety Board headquarters in Washington, D.C. Soon after the meeting, the Board's
>Public Affairs Office issues an abstract containing the Board's conclusions, probable cause statement, and safety recommendations from the accident
>report. The final report of a major accident is subsequently printed for public distribution.
Looking forward to public meeting and public docket. Isn't it time for the cargo door theory to have equal time with the bomb, missile and center fuel tank theories? Waiting for my turn, John Barry Smith
Please examine cargo door for steel rods to confirm AD 88-12-04 complied with on TWA 800.
Please examine cargo door for status of cam latches, unlocked or locked.
Please examine cargo door lock sectors, unlocked or locked.
Please note condition of cargo door, in how many pieces.
Please note position of cargo door when found, close to event site or far away.
John Barry Smith
a hole is cut in a balloon. A patch is put on the hole in balloon. The balloon is blown up and deflated 20000 times. The next time the balloon pops. The site of the popping is at the patch. The patch has trouble before. The patch is not examined? The patch is not examined closely? An experienced balloon investigator would go right to the patch as the cause of the popping and rule it in or out. And check out previous balloon poppings.
Please examine forward cargo door for steel rods to confirm AD 88-12-04 complied with on TWA 800.
Please examine cargo door for status of cam latches, unlocked or locked.
Please examine cargo door lock sectors, unlocked or locked.
Please note condition of cargo door, in how many pieces and if skin attached to it.
Please note position of cargo door when found, close to event site or far away.
John Barry Smith
When will the public docket be available?
The following was emailed to me.
>Yesterday, Tuesday
>At Boeing Commercial Aircraft, The 747 engineering team discounted any
>possibility of a center or other fuel tank problems as a failure site for
>TWA:800..
> director of Aviation Safety, this is John Barry Smith, civilian and not connected to Boeing, FAA, NTSB, fuel pumps, insurance agencies, law firms, victims or any other official capacity. I'm just an informed, concerned member of the public with 35 years of flying. But I do have the answer to the crash of TWA 800.
As a member of NTSB, but not involved with the actual crash investigation, I am hoping that you might communicate with a member of the public in general terms about a civilian crash during peacetime not involving secret material or VIPs. My email is barry@corazon.com, phone is 408 659 3552.
As a metaphor...assume a balloon has a hole cut in it on purpose, and then a patch is put over the hole in the balloon. Everyone says the patch will hold. And it does as the balloon is inflated and deflated 20000 times. Another balloon with the same patch pops and the patch is at fault. Our balloon is inflated and deflated another 10000 times with no problem Then the next time, as it is inflating, the balloon pops. The balloon is inspected and it is determined that the site of the start of the pop is right near the patch.
And the investigation starts, why did the balloon pop?
One theory is a bullet hit the balloon. Another is a firefly got stuck inside and burnt it. Another has someone pricked the balloon on purpose but is hiding now...and the patch just sits there.
Some guy from outside the investigation yells, "Check the patch!" and he is ignored, "What a wacko to think it was the patch, they say, let's just ignore him and maybe he will go away."
I'm not going away until the patch is checked. The fact the patch is not checked is very disturbing. A competent open minded balloon investigation would be ruling in or out that patch right away, first thing, number one priority, get on it right away, prime suspect, check it out, hot lead.
So, sir, in general terms, would you please check out the patch on the popped balloon?
director of Aviation Safety, this is John Barry Smith, fatal jet crash survivor talking about fatal jet crashes.
Forward cargo door on TWA 800. Fire yes, but after door opened, tore skin off exposing large 9 foot by 15 foot hole which 300 knots slipstream entered and tore off nose.
Can you not correspond with me? What is the reluctance? What is the fear? This is a life or death matter. Find correct cause, save life; find wrong cause, death happens again. Is the fear to determine the wrong probable cause? Your fears are well founded, it is not the center fuel tank fire that was the initial event; it was the door popping open, why? I do not know. The mystery to be solved is why the forward cargo door is opening when it shouldn't.
The web site at http://www.corazon.com has documentation using NTSB reports as support for the theory.
Please respond. Tell me why the prime suspect, the door, has not been ruled in or out, or has it? And why? Have the aluminum locking sectors been checked to see that they were replaced with steel to comply with AD 88-12-04? Have the cam sectors of the recovered front door been checked to see if in the locked or unlocked position, like UAL 811?
Here's a link...confirmed explosive decompression sound on CVR of DC 10 linked to Air India 182 CVR. AI 182 sound linked to PA 103. PA 103 sound on CVR linked to TWA 800. It was explosive decompression, it was the door opening, just like 811. It was not bomb, or missile, or fuel tank explosion. It was door opening, then nose tearing off severing power abruptly.
The accident cause of TWA 800 has been heard on CVR, detected on FDR, seen visually as streak, picked up on radar as anomaly, left evidence on fodded engine number 3, and killed the same people sitting the same general seats.
Cargo door, please check out cargo door. Please examine cargo door. Please suspect cargo door.
It is the villain. Match 811 evidence of CVR, FDR, fod, bodies, radar, and photographs to TWA 800. It fits.
If not reason and documentation to persuade you to the cargo door, then what? What else can get the Director of Aviation Safety of the National Transportation Safety Board to investigate a probable cause of previously malfunctioning door at the scene of an inflight breakup? I respect only evidence and closely reasoned conclusions. They are there for the cargo door.
At least tell me where you think I am wrong. John Barry Smith
There was fire in the center tank, after the door went and nose separated. Yes, there was a fire. A disintegrating fuselage immersed in jet vapor with four running jet engines will ignite into a fireball.Now, when you can't find an ignition source such as scavenge pump or aux pump or whatever, will you then consider the cargo door theory?
Why not rebut the streak as door spinning away at dusk? Why not rebut radar anomaly noted as door spinning away? The facts are there for cargo door, wishful thinking is what works for initial cause as center fuel tank fire. Not investigating cargo door is a betrayal of basic accident investigation policy: structural breakup around door/hatch/access panel and that cutout is prime suspect and must be ruled in or out.
Initial event a center tank is contrary to evidence. The fireball was at 7500 feet. Initial event occurred at 13700 feet. The nose fell first then rest of plane as in decapitation, nose wreckage was closest to event. Fire would explode and put nose wreckage after fuselage wreckage. Plane flew for 24 seconds after door opened and nose blew off by 300 knot slipstream into nine foot by 15 foot gash, then fireball of center fuel tank. Radar blips of disintegrating plane is contrary to what would happen with fire/explosion.
Calling TWA 800 a center fuel tank explosion as the initial event won't work because it is contrary to too much hard evidence of eyewitnesses, radar track, wreckage trails, and ignition sources.
Good work, you have confirmed center fuel tank fire. Now back up to what caused that, then the real work begins in what caused door to open. There is the mystery. Check for frayed wires in motor control system bundle.
This is peacetime event with a peacetime civilian airliner in US territory not involving secret material or VIPs. Secrecy is very very bad. Openness gets to truth. Cargo door. John Barry Smith
>At a meeting on Friday, officials of the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Bureau of Investigation reached a tentative
> decision to rebuild as much as 92 feet of the 230-foot-long plane by affixing the pieces of plane to scaffolding, officials who participated in
> the meeting said. The area of the plane they are considering rebuilding is roughly from the forward door to just behind the wings, a board
> official said.
If the reconstruction/rebuild starts from the beginning of the cargo door then aft, then the investigation will stumble on the malfunctioning cargo door.
If the reconstruction/rebuild starts from the end of the cargo door then aft, then it has to be assumed that the investigators are ignoring on purpose the cargo door as cause of crash. When a previously known to be defective door is at the scene of an inflight disintegration and is omitted from investigation or reconstruction then it must be assumed that it is an intentional oversight. At least the Pan Am 103 reconstruction included the cargo door. That maybe is why you are not doing the cargo door, too much clear evidence that it was the door.
Ah, we shall see, the door is included in reconstruction or door not included. It will be plain to see which way the investigation goes, as prosecutor of after event fire or investigator of true cause checking out all suspects.
1. Center tank fire would give equal destruction to both sides of aircraft, not right side as reconstruction will show and early evaluation reported. More severe right side damage is consistent with open cargo door and other 747 cargo door crashes.
2. Wreckage trail would be one big one, not two trails with one small with nose inside closest to event site, and the other large and further away which is consistent with cargo door opening and similar with other cargo door 747 crashes.
3. All engines would be fodded equally and they aren't.
4. CVR and FDR would be different than that which exists now which match other 747 cargo door crashes. TWA 800 should match Iran 747 center tank fire but won't. Also destruction pattern of Iran 747 is different than 800, wreckage pattern is different with left wing apart from rest of debris.
There was a center tank fire but after the initial event which was prime suspect cargo door doing what it has done before, opened in flight, causing nose to separate and rest of fuselage to fall and disintegrate into fuel vapor and spinning hot jet engines.
5. Eyewitness reports of fireball at 7500 feet and initial event at 13700 feet.
6. Fire evidence would be on nose section and isn't because nose separated before fire happened.
The final Pan Am 103 report had the radar anomaly just before destruction, is TWA 800 going to report the same anomaly? The Pan Am 103 reconstruction had the entire fuselage including the forward cargo door, is TWA 800?
Pan Am 103 omitted the condition of the forward cargo door but did report the status of the CRAF door and the aft door, is TWA 800 going to omit that vital data also?
Maintenance history was omitted in Pan Am 103, is TWA 800 going to omit that also?
A first order of business when an aircraft breaks up in flight is to locate locus of damage. When that site is near a large door known to have failed before with deathly results the maintenance history of that particular door must be investigated for compliance with ADs and previous gripes against the door.
1 Was TWA 800 in compliance with 88-12-04?
2 Did it have previous cargo door gripes against it?
3 Were the lock sectors locked and the cam sectors unlocked in the door? The door has been recovered in pieces, why not walk out there and check the door cam and lock sectors.
The cargo door theory relies on facts and things which can be checked. Why have you not checked out the matching CVR tapes to UAL 811, AI 182, PA 103, and the explosive decompression of a DC-10 which was matched to AI 182 which was matched to PA 103 which matched to TWA 800?
Is the horror of a structural defect in a production aircraft so horrible that it can't even be checked out and the wishful thinking cause of a one time cause driving on the investigation?
To not consider the cargo door seriously as the cause of TWA 800 is more than oversight, more than negligence, it would be intentional, and I can't believe that. John Barry Smith
From day one, July 18th, one crash cause theory has been consistently correct, inadvertent opening of the forward cargo door in flight. It fits all the evidence as it becomes available during the investigation.
1. Radar anomaly just before destruction...cargo door spinning away within primary radar range.
2. Streak...cargo door spinning away at dusk at 13700 feet.
3. Short loud sound on CVR, explosive decompression sound matches PA 103, which matches AI 182 which matches DC-10 cargo door explosive decompression on CVR.
4. Abrupt power loss on FDR indicating nose separating instantly which would occur when nine foot by 15 foot gash is exposed when cargo door rips away and allows 300 knot slipstream to enter.
5. At least nine missing bodies sitting in same general area above and aft of cargo door which indicates bodies swept out and into jet engines vaporizing bodies which can't be found even after extensive, lengthy, and comprehensive searches.
6. Fodded engine number three when cargo door opens and jet sucks in contents.
7. Two wreckage trails, one of nose and the other of rest of aircraft which indicates nose came off first when decapitated by 300 knot slipstream into gash.
8. More severe flying object damage on right side of aircraft, the cargo door side.
9. Locus of destruction above and forward of the wing on the right side, exactly where the hole appears when cargo door rips away.
10. Fire in center tank after nose separates and rest of severed fuselage and disintegrating wing fall into ball of fuel vapor and spinning jet engines.
Gentleman, Dr. xx , Mr. Alfred W. xx, Mr. Ron xx, let me use this use of cyberspace to address you directly. TWA 800 is a tree in a forest of four; TWA 800, AI 182, PA 103, and UAL 811. Lift your gaze up from TWA 800 to the other crashes.
How many Boeing 747s have ever crashed and left a short loud sound on the CVR? Four. AI 182, PA 103, UAL 811, and TWA 800.
How many Boeing 747s have crashed, left a short loud sound on the CVR and then had an abrupt power loss? Four. AI 182, PA 103, UAL 811, and TWA 800.
How many Boeing 747s have crashed, left a short loud sound on the CVR, had an abrupt power loss, and have at least nine never recovered bodies? Four. AI 182, PA 103, UAL 811, and TWA 800.
How many Boeing 747s have crashed, left a short loud sound on the CVR, had an abrupt power loss, had at least nine never recovered bodies, had high flight time airframe, fodded engines, and outward opening cargo doors with four Airworthiness Directives? Four. AI 182, PA 103, UAL 811, and TWA 800.
How many Boeing 747s have totally destructed, left a short loud sound on the CVR, had an abrupt power loss, had at least nine never recovered bodies, had high flight time airframe, fodded engines, outward opening cargo doors , and left two wreckage trails? Three. AI 182, PA 103, and TWA 800.
AI 182, PA 103, and TWA 800 are three similar trees in the forest of crashed and destroyed Boeing 747s. They have the same cause.
The cargo door must be thoroughly investigated as the cause since it is known to be defective, was at the scene of destruction, and when it malfunctions can cause the total destruction event.
When the cause is determined to be the cargo door the credit for the discovery can go to the experts in AI 182 investigation in 1985 who suggested the loud sound on the CVR matches the decompression of the DC-10 and the sound would occur in an explosive decompression such as an opening forward cargo door. The cargo door idea existed in 1985 in the official report of AI 182. The expert was right then and I am right now and you can be right tomorrow.
You have said, and I have said, since day one this TWA crash cause could be mechanical. We are right. Now that the sabotage and accidental shooting have been ruled out, the mechanical takes center stage. Yes there was a fire, but after the event of door opening which occurred after the initial event of...ah, the mystery to be solved...why the doors are opening inadvertently. UAL 811 has several possible reasons, one of which is electrical short. Many questions are raised on the issue though, why and when does the door become unlocked? There is a sticky issue and worthy of the best aircraft investigators in the world, far above my humble observations.
So, as a 35 year aviation professional, a jet crash survivor, and an informed member of the public answering a call for help made by the authorities, I, John Barry Smith, urge you gentlemen, Dr. xx , Director, Office of Aviation Safety, NTSB; Mr. Alfred W. xx, lead investigator-TWA 800; Mr. Ron xx, investigator-TWA 800; check out the forward cargo door.
get 800 Fuel Probe Shows No
Sign of Sparks
7:55pm EST, 10/30/96
NEW YORK - Tests on two sections of fuel probes from TWA
Flight 800 that might have provided clues to why the plane
crashed in July revealed no signs of mechanical failure,
investigators said Wednesday.
The two sections showed no evidence of electrical arcing, or
sparking, which would have indicated a power surge in the Boeing
747's center fuel tank.
now will you try out the cargo door theory? No bomb, no missile, no ignition source for initial fire event, now to alternative mechanical problem, inadvertent opening of forward cargo door in flight.
>WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 (UPI) _ Investigators are searching (Thursday) for new promising clues to what destroyed TWA Flight 800 after two fuel probes showed no signs of having caused the deadly explosion that killed 230 people. The probes, which carry a tiny electrical current, had been considered a possible source of a spark that could have caused the 747's center fuel tank to blow up.
Yes, new clues. New clues match old clues in other Boeing 747 accidents, CVR, FDR, missing bodies, inflight damage, destruction start location, fodded engines, missing bodies, and unlocked cam sectors, and are the same for the crashes. Same everything. New clues can be found in the official accident reports of Air India 182, Pan Am 103, UAL 811 which are on my web site and available for review at a click. The new clues are there.
The sudden loud sound on the CVR of a DC-10 explosive decompression is matched to Air India 182 which is matched to Pan Am 103 which is matched to TWA 800. The clues and links are there to show the cause of the crashes was the inadvertent opening of the forward cargo door in flight.
Now is the time to investigate the cargo door as initial cause.
> SMITHTOWN, N.Y. - The cost of the
TWA Flight 800 investigation has ballooned to
$23.9 million, four times the amount Congress
set aside for the non-criminal side of the probe,
according to documents and sources.
instead of blowing up a plane, take just the cargo doors and throw them out of a C-130 at 13700 feet at the same sun angle as July 17th at same location and observe streak as door spins away in the setting orange sun. Also observe on radar as spinning door gives strange radar anomaly return on scopes.
Time to get to square one and do research. Compare official government safety agency reports of AI 182, Pan Am 103, UAL 811, and TWA 800 all side by side and note similarities of CVR, FDR, FOD, damage start location, missing bodies and seating, and inflight damage sequence on right side, the cargo door side. Time for a scholarly approach to solving mystery. My web site has charts with all similarities shown. It is remarkable, either they were all brought down by bombs, center tank fires, or cargo doors but it is one cause for all four.
A forward cargo door investigation can be justified to save money as cheaper to check out and it is reasonable to investigate a previously malfunctioning complex mechanical object close to scene of destruction.
As you reconstruct the fuselage you will see the similarities of the skin tearing to Pan Am 103 and AI 182 and UAL 811. You will solve the TWA mystery and two others at the same time. Big mysteries have big solutions. Forward cargo door. John Barry Smith
Amendment to suggestion to take a couple of cargo doors and toss them out of C-130 at same sun angle as July17th near NYC...add another seven feet of metal to door to approximate the nine foot by 15 foot piece of metal of door and fuselage skin that tears off when door opens. The size of the object that created the streak is the same size as hole in side of 811, a double car garage door. In fact, take a double car garage door, bend it a little, paint it white and silver, then throw it out of a C-130 going as fast as it can to get to close to 300 knots and watch streak appear. Then have ground radar pick up double car garage door as it goes out of C-130 and spins to ocean. Both visual and radar returns will be seen from that double car garage door as it falls from 13700 feet at sun angle of July 17th, 8:35PM off East Moriches.
I appeal to your respect for education and research. I have an advanced degree from a university. I was an Air Intelligence Officer in the Navy. I have done a study of studies and extracted similarities, made conclusions and produced my own study, it's called the cargo door website. The studies were the official accident reports of AI 182, PA 103, UAL 811, and my own blazing jet crash, BUNO 149314 and all are on the website.
Although I do not have hands on experience with the actual evidence of the TWA crash, I can deduce the evidence as it was being discovered based upon the documented sequence of Air India 182, Pan Am 103, and UAL 811 described in the studies. I can deduce that the floor beams above the cargo door of TWA 800 will be bent down. I can induce that the accident will happen again to another early model high time Boeing 747 when the door pops again.
Four crashes with similarities and one is explained. Moderately damaged UAL 811 was the one almost destroyed plane that made it back to tell what happened. The other three total destruction crashes have matches on all the important parameters, CVR, FDR, FOD, missing bodies, damage start location, destruction sequence, and other clues. All four have the same reproducible mechanical cause.
To put it another way, how many Boeing 747 crashes have ever ended with a short loud sound? Four. That match puts the four airplanes in a group. How many Boeing 747 crashes have abrupt power cut? Four, and it's the same four so the group is tight. Then add the similarities of fodded engines, damage location start at forward cargo hold, more severe inflight damage on right side, at least nine missing bodies, radar blips at time of destruction, and the four crashes of the same type aircraft are inextricably linked together like cookies from a tin pattern. The name of the pattern is inadvertent opening of the forward cargo door in flight. The cookies are UAL 811, AI 182, PA 103, and TWA 800.
It's the cargo door theory's turn for TWA 800. The fringe thinkers had friendly missile fire theory. It was an entertaining story based on true streak observation. It was investigated and discounted from lack of evidence, I believe. The FBI had bomb theory and that was based on the true fact there was an explosion, an explosive decompression which mimics a bomb. That theory has been discounted, I believe from lack of evidence. The NTSB had center tank fire which is true, there was a fire after disintegrating fuselage and wing mixed fuel and hot jet engines. The fire as initial event is discounted, I believe from lack of evidence.
Now is the time to investigate another reasonable cause theory, with evidence, the mechanical problem theory of inadvertent opening cargo door in flight leading to large gash in nose the size of double car garage door allowing twice hurricane force winds to enter and tear off weakened nose in a second leaving evidence of visual streak, radar blips, FOD, sudden loud sound on tape, abrupt power cut to FDR, same missing bodies in general same seating, same inflight damage to right side of aircraft in leading edges of wing and horizontal stabilizer, damage start location of forward cargo hold in front of the wing on the right side, and it's happened before. It's no weird coincidence that four airplanes have same destruction evidence, they had the same cause, cargo door. The cargo door theory has corroborative evidence of real things that can be touched, listened to, and felt.
I appeal to your respect for hands on evidence. Pick up the pieces of the forward cargo door of TWA 800, do they have the steel lock sectors to replace the aluminum as per AD 88-12-04? Are the cam sectors in the locked or unlocked position? Are the lock sectors and cam sectors worn or gouged? What is the condition of the manual locking handle? Is there any frayed wiring around the motor actuators? What are the computer simulations of 300 knot wind entering nine foot by 15 foot hole in side of weakened nose of 747 with 93000 hours on airframe? What would a large metal sheet look like being ejected from an aircraft at 13700 feet at dusk to observers on the ground? Would radar pick it up? Are the floor beams bent down just above the cargo door?
You are lead investigator on TWA 800, do you call the shots on the direction the investigation takes? I suggest the cargo door direction to ensure a complete investigation to leave no stone unturned, no door unopened, no avenue unexplored...
fortunately you were the lead investigator on UAL 811 and can offer confirmation of matches of evidence to TWA 800. Does the sudden loud sound on CVR of 811 match sudden loud sound TWA 800? Does the engine breakdown of FOD in engines 3 and 4 match 811? Why the same missing bodies in same general seating of 811 and 800? Is the inflight damage sequence of 800 the same as 811 damage to leading edges, root fillet, flaps, and tail?
Gentlemen, an inflight structural breakup of a pressurized aircraft hull has occurred and the locus of destruction is near a hole cut in the hull and patched with a door. The patch failed. The British Comets had a pressurized hull with cut holes that disintegrated at passenger windows. The patch failed. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, hole cut in pressurized hull that failed to plug, outward opening forward cargo door on high time early Boeing 747 that opened when it shouldn't.
The real mystery right now is why the doors are opening. It's happened, in my opinion, six times in eleven years, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1996. The events just listed are all documented on my web site which is a study of those events based upon studies by government safety boards and quotations of safety board members to the reputable press.
Cargo door's time in the investigative spotlight; put cargo door in the lineup. Let's see if truth picks it. John Barry Smith
may we think philosophically? Statement 1: Doctor of Philosophy is described as a doctor's degree awarded for completing advanced graduate studies in the humanities, the social sciences, the behavioral sciences, or the pure sciences. Statement 2. You are Doctor of Philosophy. Conclusion 1: You have a doctor's degree. Conclusion 2: You have completed advanced graduate studies in the humanities, the social sciences, the behavioral sciences, or the pure sciences.
Philosophically, Dr. , am I on firm ground? Are my two conclusions reasonable, plausible, and correct? Or was the logic flawed? Where was I wrong? What assumption was incorrect?
Do you have a Ph.D? I assumed you have based on label on jpg file of photo of you pointing to damaged Flight Data recorders from TWA 800. I see a man that looks like me, actually, middle aged white man wearing glasses, coat and tie and blue NTSB windbreaker. I could enclose both pictures if your email program accepts pictures. I would be the one without the windbreaker but with the beard.
I also read in the newspaper that you are Dr. xx , Director of Aviation Safety of NTSB.
But airplanes, ah, airplanes, my opinion carries weight, or should if it doesn't, because I know about airplanes.
And I'm going to assume right now, Dr. , that your opinion about airplanes carries weight too. Another assumption.
My opinion about airplanes is that when anyone offers safety advice, that advice will be investigated until safely discounted as irrelevant, not important, no threat, or wrong.
Is it your opinion, philosophically speaking, that safety advice about airplanes should be investigated until safely discounted?
I would take the advice to check cargo door for inadvertent opening as advice to be accepted all the time for pressurized hulls of high speed aircraft. (For sea level slow vehicles, I would say advice accepted rarely.)
So, following this logic of two persons whose opinions about airplanes carry weight, advice to check the cargo door of pressurized high speed aircraft for inadvertent opening is advice that should be accepted all the time until safely discounted.
I advise that forward cargo door opening inadvertently be investigated in the crash of TWA 800 until safely discounted.
Has the forward cargo door been safely discounted as the cause?
To make a recommendation to prevent a center tank fire in a 747 will not stop the type of crash of TWA 800 from happening again just as making recommendations to prevent a bomb from being brought aboard after AI 182 did not stop Pan Am 103. More recommendations to stop a bomb did not prevent UAL 811 from happening. The recommendations to prevent door from opening as in UAL 811 may have prevented other crashes if implemented. Were the recommendations to prevent another UAL 811 implemented in TWA 800? Specifically the ADs, all four of them.
Reference info: NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Purpose: To investigate major air, rail, marine, highway and pipeline accidents and to make recommendations to prevent similar occurrences. Powers: Automatically the lead agency in aviation crashes. Although the board has no regulatory powers and its recommendations are advisory only regulatory agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration must reply to all recommendations.
Philosophically, the hardest thing I can't believe is the fact that the NTSB has not yet investigated the forward cargo door on TWA 800 as crash cause based upon firm assumptions and firm evidence: firm, solid, verifiable, reproducible, corroborated, confirmed, and observed evidence.
Sincerely, John Barry Smith, Master of Arts, California State University at Fresno, 1974
"We have substantial evidence of an explosion in the center wing tank and evidence of what I believe was an initiating event," said.
"The fact that we cannot right now pin down the ignition source does not change that.""
director of aviation safety for the National Transportation Safety Board, (as the Washington Post calls you) the ignition source was the hot jet engines spinning around in a fuel vapor mix when the disintegrating wing and fuselage fell into the ocean after the nose was torn off when a 300 knot slipstream blew into a nine foot by fifteen foot gash in the right side of the nose after the cargo door opened and blew up and away taking skin with it.
After reading the Washington Post I see that you are as dogmatic about a center fire tank as initial event as Kallstrom is about a bomb. "I know what it is and don't confuse me with facts."
I have evidence, cam sectors, CVR tape, FDR, FOD for inadvertent cargo door opening.
So, contrary to evidence of eyewitnesses and wreckage and tape recorders, you will pursue fire as initial event, a betrayal of the whole scientific method of discovering truth. A reaffirmation of the homily that perception is truth in politics. A fire everyone can live with, a cargo door whoa, trouble ahead, let's go with the fire, there was fire that's for sure.
You could call the crash deaths of the people a result of uncontrolled collision with water because there was an uncontrolled collision with water by TWA 800. Of course that was after the fire. Which was after the disintegration, which was after the nose came off which was after door opened, but why did the door open?
So, by the way, what is the position of the cam sectors in the forward cargo door? Are they locked or unlocked? Easy to check. Are the steel reinforcements in as per AD 88-10-04? Easy to check. Does the sudden sound match UAL 811? Easy to check. Does the abrupt end of the FDR or 811 match TWA 800? Easy to check.
You match up a 737 that exploded because of a fire but ignore three other cargo door crashes that give striking matches of CVR, FOD, FDR, wreckage, and missing bodies. It doesn't make sense. Why ignore cargo door theory? John Barry Smith
we are close to agreeing on everything. We agree the cause of the crash was mechanical and not pilot error, bomb, missile, or weather related. You say center fuel tank exploded in fireball. I do too. We differ only in sequence and timing. I say fuel tank ignited shortly after initial event and you say fire was initial event.
Will you work backward from the fire after you do not find a satisfactory ignition source? My source is spinning jet engines spooling down but still hot enough to ignite Jet A in a vapor. I can't show that. If you don't find defective scavenge pump, will you mentally go along with me in a thought experiment to find cause of fuselage disintegration as nose tearing off after 300 knot wind blows into nine foot by 15 foot gash in right side of nose?
Cargo door has consistently fit all the evidence including center fuel tank fire, streak, radar blip, CVR, FOD, wreckage trail, and other clues. Your computer simulation showed damage start as ahead of wing on right side, just above the cargo door.
After you see the cargo door opened then the real mystery starts of why it opened.
But, we are close to agreement, only twenty feet from center tank to door, and only a few seconds from initial event to secondary event.
A tip from the public is OK to accept, many mysteries have been solved by the authorities with assistance from the public. I think of lady in red fingering Dillinger to the FBI. I am the lady in red with the cargo door to the NTSB. John Barry Smith
PS, I got a large increase in hits on my web site after the Salinger nonsense. People are searching for the truth.
Dear Mr. NTSB Investigator, , this is John Barry Smith. I consider myself the lady in red tipping off the FBI about John Dillinger watching a movie in Chicago. The cause of the crash of TWA 800 was the inadvertent opening of the forward cargo door in flight. Support for that tip in on web site http://www.corazon.com.
One consistent mechanical theory has held up for these past months, the cargo door theory. The streak was the double car garage sized cargo door and fuselage skin tearing away from the plane and reflecting the orange evening dusk sun over Long Island in the summer at 835PM as it spun away. The radar blip anomaly just before destruction on radar was the door and skin spinning away reflecting primary radar energy. The fodded engines are from debris spit out of the cargo hold. The missing bodies were spit out and sucked into the engines. The computer simulation of destruction start is forward of the wing on the right side, exactly where the cargo door and torn skin is. The in flight damage will be more severe on the right side of the plane, the cargo door side. The short sudden loud sound on the CVR matches the short sudden loud sound on PA 103 which matches the short loud sound on AI 182 which matches the explosive decompression of the DC-10. UAL 811, a confirmed cargo door fatal accident, also had a short sudden loud sound on the CVR. The abrupt power cut to the FDR was caused when the nose separated from the rest of the plane and all power cables in the main equipment compartment ahead of the forward cargo hold and in back of the nose gear were severed. The nose separated when the 300 knot wind force blew into the nine foot by fifteen foot gash in the weakened right side of the nose. The twice hurricane force wind entered the double car garage door hole and blew the nose off in an instant. The nose fell into a tight debris/wreckage trail. The rest of the aircraft fell and disintegrated into fuel vapor and spinning jet engines which ignited into fireball at 7500 feet and landed in spread out wreckage trail.
The explosive decompression mimicked a bomb and led investigators to bomb idea. There was an explosive event, but after door went. The fireball has led investigators to center fuel tank fire. There was a center fuel tank fire, but after door went. The streak has led many to missile idea. There was a streak but no missile but door spinning away at dusk up high.
To rule in or rule out forward cargo door, check cam sectors and lock sectors of forward door. The aft door is the same size and will be intact and latched. The forward door will be in pieces with the lock sectors locked and the cam sectors unlocked, just like UAL 811 forward door after retrieval from ocean bottom. Check to see if AD 88 -12-04 was complied with on TWA 800. It may not have been since it was a very old plane with spotty ownership history. Compare CVR sudden loud sound to UAL 811 sudden loud sound. Compare TWA 800 FDR tape abrupt power cut to UAL 811 abrupt power cut.
Throw a double car garage door from C-130 at 13700 feet at exact location of TWA 800 at exact sun angle and note streak and radar primary returns as door spins away.
Philosophically, an inflight structural breakup has occurred in a pressurized aircraft hull. The destruction start has been traced to an area near a large hole/patch/door in that hull. The hole/patch/door has failed several times before on other similar early model Boeing 747s and killed passengers. The hull had expanded and contracted 16,869 times before failing. The door is the prime suspect.
The forward cargo door opening in flight tearing off a large piece of skin allowing enormous wind force to enter gash and tear off nose is a very real, down to earth, well supported by evidence theory that should, must, will be seriously considered.
The FBI caught Dillinger; the NTSB can catch the cargo door. My tip is check out the forward lower lobe cargo door on Boeing 747-131 TWA Flight 800.
(Full accident reports and analysis are on web site http://www.corazon.com)
Sincerely, John Barry Smith,