Why this section on TWA Flight 800? Why do we study accidents (whether they're caused by acts of terrorism, by oversight or criminal / willful negligence)? So we might prevent them. There are several agencies who have been charged with reviewing accidents so these accidents may be prevented. This section of the Burnelli Web-Site asks the following questions:
- Are these agencies doing their job?
- What happened to Flight 800?
- What can history teach us?
- What are the facts?
- Why hasn't anyone said anything?
The material presented here ought to help you get some insight into the answers to these questions. Rather than go into detail for each accident, for each event that's relevant to Flight 800, we're providing you with an overview of the documents but all relevant documents are linked and highlighted for your review. We feel you can better reach a conclusion when you see the original document than if we come to those conclusions for you and that if you find you cannot reach a conclusion, it will stimulate you enough to do a little searching around and contribute to finding the cause of this terrible accident so that none of us (or our loved ones) become statistics.
In a letter to the editorregarding TWA flight 800 which appeared in the International Herald Tribune of July 30, 1996, Mr. Goodlin argues that the trigger of the chain of events leading to the destruction of TWA Flight 800 was a tire explosion.
An exploding tire has tremendous force and quite conceivably could rupture the hydraulic lines, fuel lines and the fuel tank itself, thereby culminating in the fireball explosion seen by the eye witnesses.
A tire explosion on the main landing gear (adjacent to the center fuel tank) could have punctured the tank and an as-of-yet unknown source of heat, such as one or more burning or smoldering tires, could have subsequently led to the explosion. Subsequent to Mr. Goodlin's letter, investigators stated the tank was nearly empty (50-100 gallons of fuel) - and therefore more likely to explode than a full tank - more fumes.
This theory is not only supported by numerous examples of exploding tires causing damage to the fuselage of aircraft but also by the destruction of a number of aicraft due to this very same problem as you'll see below.
In a letter of July 26, 1996 to NTSB Vice Chairman, Robert Francis,Mr. Goodlin makes similar points but they've never admitted or denied his theory - just said they'd send the information on. [seethe subsequent letters written by the Burnelli Companyto NTSB Vice-Chairman Francis over the last 18 months andNTSBs correspondence(1 letter).]
A number of crashes occurred shortly after take-off due to tire fires, to name a few:
- a Swissair Caravelle, taking-off from Zurich on September 4, 1963 crashed shortly after take-off due to a fire in the left main landing-gear well killing all on board, to name but three, all crashed after tire fires and there were further accidents due to tire fires/explosions which didn't end in total disasters. For example, the fuselage of a United Airlines Boeing 747-400 wastorn when a tire exploded and caused a hole one meter long(3.3 ft) and half a meter wide, or shrapnel fromdisintegrating wheels punched a 3-in. gash in the wing fuel tankand a fire ensued, causing extensive damage to a Capitol Airways DC-8 during a take-off when it suffered a tire or wheel failure at Shannon Airport in Ireland in 1977.
- aMexicana B-727 near Mexico City,14 minutes after take-off sustained a tire blow-out inside the main-landing gear wheel well, igniting hydraulic fuel and fuel, the plane crashed near the top of a 9,000 foot high mountain in proximity to its departure point.
- aNationsAir DC-8 at Jeddah
Two particularly in-depth articles which cite numerous references to the tire problem are the London Sunday Times article of January 16, 1983 entitled"The Achilles heel of big jets"and The Wall Street Journal article of November 1, 1979 entitled"Danger Aloft"[see also the articles mentioned below for further examples]. Noteworthy, however, is theNBC Dateline testimony of August 14, 1996which further confirms this theory [see highlight at end of transcript]:
MURPHY:So if the main landing gear is pulled up into the belly of the plane, they're ascending out of JFK, it's very near the central fuel tank hypothesis, speculation-- could an exploding tire rupture that center fuel tank?
A picture comparison between the landing-gear of a PanAm DC-10 which blew three tires on a take-off from London Heathrow in 1983 with the landing gear of Flight 800 shows the same similarities.See for yourself.
If you've gotten this far into this Web-Site, you now know that advanced technology to eliminate the vices of the streamlined conventional design has beenavailable for over 60 yearsbut has been suppressed by vested interests at enormous cost to the traveling public (and to the taxpayer). If you haven't already seen it, theNASA correspondencewith the Burnelli Company illustrates quite well only one agency's blunt disregard of the truth. Is it the same with the other agencies? Proceed like a detective: who benefits? Did they have the ability? Did they have the means? Did they have a motive?
In 1943, already, Dr. Max Munk, had stated"It is doubtful whether the high landing [and take-off] speed of the conventional plane will make it suitable for commercial operations."Apparently, the manufacturers are figuratively starting to 'run into the wall' expected by Dr. Munk, while the flying public does so literally.
For those of you who don't follow the Aircraft manufacturing industry closely, Boeing is now planning to build even larger versions of the 747 the -500 and -600, the larger one of the two carrying 548 passengers plus crew. You can imagine, especially after having read theLondon Sunday Times articlementioned above, that the problems of tire overheating and loading will only be exacerbated with these larger aircraft. Boeing might be forced to cancel its plans to build these larger aircraft if it is admitted that tire over-heating in existing aircraft already is a potential hazard. The manner in which the NTSB and the FAA have handled the investigation, it is clear they can't tell us why ... it isn't politically or economically palletable (or else they're complete idiots - this may be a tempting conclusion but is it the case? We think not.) In other words, if this theory is correct - and we believe the future will show that it is - Boeing has everything to gain from the government's silence over the cause of the crash and everything to lose from it becoming public.
The question is: is the economic viability
of a corporation, thousands of jobs and the tax-revenue that depends
on that more valuable and/or more important than the value of
hundreds if not thousands of lives every year?
See Who Benefited from slanted investigation!
Furthermore, the people who call themselves the Government, in order to implement their anti-terrorist legislation and funding are depending on the agencies involved to, at the very least, come-up empty-handed. A statement that the explosion is due to mechanical failure would be disastrous for their plans of restricting your rights, your freedoms and your liberty. (If you're not familiar with the concept: if you want to take something away from someone who isn't willing to give that up you create a problem (terrorism) which will get lots of people to give up their rights for protection - if you have no problem, you create it).
This is a sweet deal for both parties - they both stand to gain a lot. When something incomprehensible happens always ask the question: who gained from it? Who paid for it? In virtually every instance, the public pays.
For example, Mr. Goodlin sentfour lettersbefore the NTSB finally responded with a letter, the letter was written by Special Counsel to the Vice Chairman, Denise A. Daniels (what does a lawyer have to do with tire blow-outs other than covering the Vice Chairman's behind?) And as all lawyers do, she skirted the issue. She said:"your information has been forwarded to the Safety Board's Office of Aviation Safety for consideration during the ongoing investigation."Is this one level above the CIA practice to 'neither confirm nor deny'? -- simply 'pass IT along' never mentioning what IT is and hopefully it will goaway.
Finally, as you read the various newspaper articles, you should ask yourself, did the so-called mainstream media play along and help keep you and I in the dark? For your edification we've included a document entitledMass Media 101 or the How and Why of the DisInformation Age"which will help you decipher the 'newspeak' of today's media not only with reference to these articles but with all media.
You will have to draw your own conclusions but we don't believe you can escape the conclusion that we have industry and government working hand-in-hand and benefiting from the same conclusion or ratherlack-thereof. OnJanuary 17, 1961, during his farewell address, didn't Eisenhower warn us about the military-industrial complex?
If you have any materials that might be helpful in the search for the cause of the Flight 800 catastrophe or if you have materials tending to support or contradict the information provided here (especially pictures - they're worth a thousand words), please send email firstname.lastname@example.org.