TWA-800 ANNIVERSARY
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBS,
There is plenty of supporting evidence that TWA-800 was taken down by an explosive device; possibly a missile (or two). In any event the cargo door theory still doesn't hold up, in the case of TWA-800, regardless of your apparent fetish.
Conversely, the center-tank theory is quickly becoming regarded as an NTSB scam, in no uncertain terms.
If you wish to be taken seriously, it would perhaps be better that you state your position concisely, as opposed to saturating the thread with non-pertinent UA-811 data.
The suggestion being made with all due respect, lest you become regarded as a 'detractor' on a nefarious mission.
There is plenty of supporting evidence that TWA-800 was taken down by an explosive device; possibly a missile (or two). In any event the cargo door theory still doesn't hold up, in the case of TWA-800, regardless of your apparent fetish.
Conversely, the center-tank theory is quickly becoming regarded as an NTSB scam, in no uncertain terms.
If you wish to be taken seriously, it would perhaps be better that you state your position concisely, as opposed to saturating the thread with non-pertinent UA-811 data.
The suggestion being made with all due respect, lest you become regarded as a 'detractor' on a nefarious mission.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Glueball and Skydrifter and other members of PPRuNe,
“AAR-00/03 evidence showed that the cargo door was in the closed position at the time of impact, "...all 8 of the latching cams along the bottom of the door (and some pieces of the door itself) remained attached to the pins....”
Most important to note the cargo doors on 747 have ten latches, not eight. If you want to put your life on a 80% chance the door was all latched because eight of the ten were, then go ahead. But very unprofessional.
"Deformation and fracture patterns on the door matched damage to the adjacent fuselage structure....”
Of course, the door ruptured open in flight at the midspan latches.
"Inflight breakup was not initiated by preexisting condition resulting in a structural failure and decompression....”
That refers to metal fatigue.
Below is quote from Dr. Loeb of NTSB as he gave final press conference on TWA 800: He was referring to me and was wrong in his conclusion.
'We found no evidence that a structural failure and decompression initiated the breakup. A thorough examination of the wreckage by our engineers and metallurgists did not reveal any evidence of fatigue, corrosion or any other structural fault that could have led to the breakup. As a side note, I would like to mention that there was absolutely no evidence of an in-flight separation of the forward cargo door -one of the many theories suggested to us by members of the public. The physical evidence demonstrated that the forward cargo door was closed and latched at water impact.'
‘JBS, I have read everything that you have said about your door failure theory, so no need to rehash it again. You raise good points, but their connection to the OVERALL evidence found in this crash is not the probable trigger of the breakup sequence.”
Opinion noted.
‘AAR-00/03 "It was clear from the wreckage recovery locations that the FIRST pieces to depart the airplane were from the area in and around the airplane's wing center section (WCS), wich includes the CWT, and therefore that the breakup must have initiated in this area.”
That statement refuted by TWA 800 public docket:: Docket Number SA-516, Exhibit No. 22A, Trajectory Study, page 3: "The wreckage distribution shows that parts were initially shed from the area just forward of the wing."
"...the red zone (the wreckage zone closest to JFK along the airplane's flightpath and, therefore, containing the earliest pieces to depart the airplane) consisted primarily of pieces from the WCS front spar and spanwise beam (SWB) 3, the manufacturing access door from SWB 2, the two forward air conditioning packs, large pieces of a ring of fuselage structure just in front of the wing front spar, and main cabin floor beams and flooring material from above the WCS and from the fuselage in front of the WCS....
The forward cargo door is ‘from the fuselage in front of the WCS....’
Also note the sudden loud sound on the CVR, the first sound to be heard was not center tank fuel explosion sound nor bomb nor missile but that of explosive decompression that matches UAL 811, according to AAR 0003 on TWA 800.
JBS, you allege that: "...For NTSB to say center tank exploded with unknown ignition source is to admit they do not know the cause of the accident."
Sir, an ignition source is not required for spontaneous ignition. Proper fuel/air mixture (vapor) under enough pressure with enough heat will ignite, just as (in cruder terms), a diesel engine fires up. Evidence had pointed to an obvious overpressure in the CWT which had forced the center section lower skin and the forward end of the keel beam downward. The fuel/air vapor in the ullage of the center tank was flammable as determined from subsequent inflight testing of a cargo 74-100. Who knows, perhaps the TW800 CWT vent was blocked, causing enough pressure buildup for spontaneous combustion, or perhaps there was an ignition source from frayed wiring of the center tank pump....
But the tank exploded! On its own. And so did several other Boeing CW tanks:
AV 727, 1989
PAL 737, 1990 (that airplane was brand new).
TG 737, 2001 (8 year old plane)
USAF KC135
I'm not trying to steer you away from researching inflight door failures, but in this case you are trying to make chickensalad out of chickensh+t.'
You offer different types of planes on the ground and in the air to make a match for fuel tank explosion. I offer same type plane and model in the air with identical CVR and FDR data to match ruptured open cargo door cause. Who is closer?
Every fuel tank fire/explosion needs fuel, air, and ignition source. If you want to ignore physical laws of science, go ahead. The NTSB didn't and spend literally years and millions of dollars looking for the ignition source from wiring to pumps, to static electricity to bombs to missiles. They declined to consider an on fire number three engine spinning around in the fuel vapor cloud of a disintegrating wing and its tanks.
JBS,
‘There is plenty of supporting evidence that TWA-800 was taken down by an explosive device; possibly a missile (or two). In any event the cargo door theory still doesn't hold up, in the case of TWA-800, regardless of your apparent fetish.’
Opinion noted; insult noted.
fe•tish also fe•tich "fe-tish\ n [F & Pg; F fetiche, fr. Pg feitico, fr. feitico artificial, false, fr. L facticius factitious] 1 : an object (as an idol or image) believed to have magical powers (as in curing disease) 2 : an object of unreasoning devotion or concern 3 : an object whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification
You can't even get your insults right. Learn the language. 'Obsession' is the word you are looking for. And I take 'obsession' as a compliment.
‘Conversely, the center-tank theory is quickly becoming regarded as an NTSB scam, in no uncertain terms.’
If you wish to be taken seriously, it would perhaps be better that you state your position concisely, as opposed to saturating the thread with non-pertinent UA-811 data.’
Do you represent the moderator of this forum? I don’t see you criticizing the content of those who rant in capitals or swear, and furthermore, my style is trivial to the message of danger. Disregard my demeanor and check the facts.
‘The suggestion being made with all due respect, lest you become regarded as a 'detractor' on a nefarious mission.’
Spoken like a true conspiracy guy. I dealt with missile guys for years and whenever I got close to changing their mind, they would go into the ‘government disinformationlist’ mode. In other words, making me part of the conspiracy to cover up the missile shootdown.
'lest you become regarded as a 'detractor' on a nefarious mission.’ Just what does that mean?
Look, you in this forum brought up TWA 800 first as quoted below: (Spelling errors left in for accuracy.)
‘The media seems to be coming around to address the problems in the TWA-800 disaster investigation. Several USA programs are airing specials tonight, on the sugject.
The NTSB is now essentially saying, "Read the report carefully. We didn't say a center tank explosion caused the event, we only said it was possible. There was zero forensic evidence in the debris to say that an electrical spark caused the explosion; we didn't say there was. Just read carefully."
Good coverage of the disaster. Something is too wierd in the American society.
I know a couple of the references to be all-too-true.
I ran across one article which has the NTSB openly saying - 'we didn't say that.'
"American" is getting to be increasingly synonymous with "self-serving" and "corrupt." I thought Clinton was bad enough, by himself. ‘
I thought you might be interested in a non conspiracy mechanical explanation with precedent and well documented. I was wrong. When you wonder why the authorities do not and have not investigated the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for four Boeing 747s, just look within yourselves for the answer.
My posts have been relevant, well researched, documented with sources, no profanity, no rants, and have commented on all insults and answered all questions.
Your posts have been always condescending, usually arrogant, often insulting, and mostly unsubstantiated. You are all talk, little research, and no action. You sit and wait until the next one, just like the authorities you are so contemptuous of.
I leave with the evidence that is irrefutable that confirms the incontrovertible: open cargo door on UAL 811:
Sincerely,
Barry
John Barry Smith
(831) 659-3552 phone
551 Country Club Drive,
Carmel Valley, CA 93924 www.corazon.com
[email protected]
Commercial pilot, instrument rated, former FAA Part 135 certificate holder.
US Navy reconnaissance bombardier navigator, RA-5C 650 hours.
US Navy patrol crewman, P2V-5FS 2000 hours.
Air Intelligence Officer, US Navy
Retired US Army Major MSC
Owner Mooney M-20C, 1000 hours.
Survivor of sudden night fiery fatal jet plane crash in RA-5C
Significant Direct and Tangible Evidence Obtained for Four B747 Breakups in Flight
AI 182 PA103 UAL 811 TWA 800
Boeing 747 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Early model -100 or -200 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Polyimide wiring (Poly X type) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sudden airframe breakup in flight (partial or total) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Breakup occurs amidships Yes Yes Yes Yes
High flight time (over 55,000 flight hours) No Yes Yes Yes
Aged airframe (over 18 years of service) No Yes Yes Yes
Previous maintenance problems with forward cargo door Yes Maybe Yes Maybe
Initial event within an hour after takeoff No Yes Yes Yes
Initial event at about 300 knots
while proceeding normally in all parameters Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event has unusual radar contacts Maybe Yes Yes Yes
Initial event involves hull rupture in or near forward cargo door area Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event starts with sudden sound Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event sound is loud Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event sound is audible to humans Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event followed immediately by abrupt power cut to data recorders Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event sound matched to explosion of bomb sound No No No No
Initial event sound matched to explosive decompression sound
in wide body airliner Yes Yes Yes Yes
Torn off skin on fuselage above forward cargo door area Yes Yes Yes Yes
Unusual paint smears on and above forward cargo door Maybe Maybe Yes Yes
Evidence of explosion in forward cargo compartment Yes Yes Yes Yes
Foreign object damage to engine or cowling of engine number three Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fire/soot in engine number three Maybe Yes Yes Yes
Foreign object damage to engine or cowling of engine number four Yes Yes Yes Yes
Right wing leading edge damaged in flight Yes Maybe Yes Maybe
Vertical stabilizer damaged in flight Yes Yes Yes Maybe
Right horizontal stabilizer damaged in flight Yes Yes Yes Yes
More severe inflight damage on starboard side than port side Yes Yes Yes Yes
Port side relatively undamaged by inflight debris Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vertical fuselage tear lines just aft or forward of the forward cargo door Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fracture/tear/rupture at a midspan latch of forward cargo door Maybe Yes Yes Yes
Midspan latching status of forward cargo door reported as latched No No No No
Airworthiness Directive 88-12-04 implemented (stronger lock sectors) No No No Yes
Outwardly peeled skin on upper forward fuselage Yes Yes Yes Yes
Rectangular shape of shattered area around forward cargo door Yes Yes Yes Yes
Forward cargo door fractured in two longitudinally Yes Yes Yes Maybe
Status of aft cargo door as intact and latched Yes Yes Yes Maybe
Passengers suffered decompression type injuries Yes Yes Yes Yes
At least nine missing and never recovered passenger bodies Yes Yes Yes Yes
Wreckage debris field in two main areas,
forward and aft sections of aircraft Yes Yes No Yes
Initial official determination of probable cause as bomb explosion. Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial official determination modified from bomb explosion Yes Yes Yes Yes
Structural failure considered for probable cause Yes Yes Yes Yes
Inadvertently opened forward cargo door considered for probable cause Yes No Yes Yes
Official probable cause as bomb explosion Yes Yes No No
Official probable cause as 'improvised explosive device' No Yes No No
Official probable cause as explosion by unstated cause Yes No No No
Official probable cause as explosion in center fuel tank
with unknown ignition source No No No Yes
Official probable cause as improper latching of forward cargo door No No Yes No
Official probable cause as switch /wiring
inadvertently opening forward cargo door No No Yes No
"Bomb' allegedly loaded two flights previous to detonation flight Yes Yes N/A N/A
"Bomb' allegedly loaded one flight previous to detonation flight N/A N/A N/A Yes
Takeoff after sunset on fatal flight Yes Yes Yes Yes
Takeoff after scheduled takeoff time on fatal flight Yes Yes Yes Yes
"Bomb' allegedly goes off on ground after a flight N/A N/A N/A N/A
Significant Direct and Tangible Evidence Obtained for Four B747 Breakups in Flight
AI 182 PA103 UAL 811 TWA 800
“AAR-00/03 evidence showed that the cargo door was in the closed position at the time of impact, "...all 8 of the latching cams along the bottom of the door (and some pieces of the door itself) remained attached to the pins....”
Most important to note the cargo doors on 747 have ten latches, not eight. If you want to put your life on a 80% chance the door was all latched because eight of the ten were, then go ahead. But very unprofessional.
"Deformation and fracture patterns on the door matched damage to the adjacent fuselage structure....”
Of course, the door ruptured open in flight at the midspan latches.
"Inflight breakup was not initiated by preexisting condition resulting in a structural failure and decompression....”
That refers to metal fatigue.
Below is quote from Dr. Loeb of NTSB as he gave final press conference on TWA 800: He was referring to me and was wrong in his conclusion.
'We found no evidence that a structural failure and decompression initiated the breakup. A thorough examination of the wreckage by our engineers and metallurgists did not reveal any evidence of fatigue, corrosion or any other structural fault that could have led to the breakup. As a side note, I would like to mention that there was absolutely no evidence of an in-flight separation of the forward cargo door -one of the many theories suggested to us by members of the public. The physical evidence demonstrated that the forward cargo door was closed and latched at water impact.'
‘JBS, I have read everything that you have said about your door failure theory, so no need to rehash it again. You raise good points, but their connection to the OVERALL evidence found in this crash is not the probable trigger of the breakup sequence.”
Opinion noted.
‘AAR-00/03 "It was clear from the wreckage recovery locations that the FIRST pieces to depart the airplane were from the area in and around the airplane's wing center section (WCS), wich includes the CWT, and therefore that the breakup must have initiated in this area.”
That statement refuted by TWA 800 public docket:: Docket Number SA-516, Exhibit No. 22A, Trajectory Study, page 3: "The wreckage distribution shows that parts were initially shed from the area just forward of the wing."
"...the red zone (the wreckage zone closest to JFK along the airplane's flightpath and, therefore, containing the earliest pieces to depart the airplane) consisted primarily of pieces from the WCS front spar and spanwise beam (SWB) 3, the manufacturing access door from SWB 2, the two forward air conditioning packs, large pieces of a ring of fuselage structure just in front of the wing front spar, and main cabin floor beams and flooring material from above the WCS and from the fuselage in front of the WCS....
The forward cargo door is ‘from the fuselage in front of the WCS....’
Also note the sudden loud sound on the CVR, the first sound to be heard was not center tank fuel explosion sound nor bomb nor missile but that of explosive decompression that matches UAL 811, according to AAR 0003 on TWA 800.
JBS, you allege that: "...For NTSB to say center tank exploded with unknown ignition source is to admit they do not know the cause of the accident."
Sir, an ignition source is not required for spontaneous ignition. Proper fuel/air mixture (vapor) under enough pressure with enough heat will ignite, just as (in cruder terms), a diesel engine fires up. Evidence had pointed to an obvious overpressure in the CWT which had forced the center section lower skin and the forward end of the keel beam downward. The fuel/air vapor in the ullage of the center tank was flammable as determined from subsequent inflight testing of a cargo 74-100. Who knows, perhaps the TW800 CWT vent was blocked, causing enough pressure buildup for spontaneous combustion, or perhaps there was an ignition source from frayed wiring of the center tank pump....
But the tank exploded! On its own. And so did several other Boeing CW tanks:
AV 727, 1989
PAL 737, 1990 (that airplane was brand new).
TG 737, 2001 (8 year old plane)
USAF KC135
I'm not trying to steer you away from researching inflight door failures, but in this case you are trying to make chickensalad out of chickensh+t.'
You offer different types of planes on the ground and in the air to make a match for fuel tank explosion. I offer same type plane and model in the air with identical CVR and FDR data to match ruptured open cargo door cause. Who is closer?
Every fuel tank fire/explosion needs fuel, air, and ignition source. If you want to ignore physical laws of science, go ahead. The NTSB didn't and spend literally years and millions of dollars looking for the ignition source from wiring to pumps, to static electricity to bombs to missiles. They declined to consider an on fire number three engine spinning around in the fuel vapor cloud of a disintegrating wing and its tanks.
JBS,
‘There is plenty of supporting evidence that TWA-800 was taken down by an explosive device; possibly a missile (or two). In any event the cargo door theory still doesn't hold up, in the case of TWA-800, regardless of your apparent fetish.’
Opinion noted; insult noted.
fe•tish also fe•tich "fe-tish\ n [F & Pg; F fetiche, fr. Pg feitico, fr. feitico artificial, false, fr. L facticius factitious] 1 : an object (as an idol or image) believed to have magical powers (as in curing disease) 2 : an object of unreasoning devotion or concern 3 : an object whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification
You can't even get your insults right. Learn the language. 'Obsession' is the word you are looking for. And I take 'obsession' as a compliment.
‘Conversely, the center-tank theory is quickly becoming regarded as an NTSB scam, in no uncertain terms.’
If you wish to be taken seriously, it would perhaps be better that you state your position concisely, as opposed to saturating the thread with non-pertinent UA-811 data.’
Do you represent the moderator of this forum? I don’t see you criticizing the content of those who rant in capitals or swear, and furthermore, my style is trivial to the message of danger. Disregard my demeanor and check the facts.
‘The suggestion being made with all due respect, lest you become regarded as a 'detractor' on a nefarious mission.’
Spoken like a true conspiracy guy. I dealt with missile guys for years and whenever I got close to changing their mind, they would go into the ‘government disinformationlist’ mode. In other words, making me part of the conspiracy to cover up the missile shootdown.
'lest you become regarded as a 'detractor' on a nefarious mission.’ Just what does that mean?
Look, you in this forum brought up TWA 800 first as quoted below: (Spelling errors left in for accuracy.)
‘The media seems to be coming around to address the problems in the TWA-800 disaster investigation. Several USA programs are airing specials tonight, on the sugject.
The NTSB is now essentially saying, "Read the report carefully. We didn't say a center tank explosion caused the event, we only said it was possible. There was zero forensic evidence in the debris to say that an electrical spark caused the explosion; we didn't say there was. Just read carefully."
Good coverage of the disaster. Something is too wierd in the American society.
I know a couple of the references to be all-too-true.
I ran across one article which has the NTSB openly saying - 'we didn't say that.'
"American" is getting to be increasingly synonymous with "self-serving" and "corrupt." I thought Clinton was bad enough, by himself. ‘
I thought you might be interested in a non conspiracy mechanical explanation with precedent and well documented. I was wrong. When you wonder why the authorities do not and have not investigated the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for four Boeing 747s, just look within yourselves for the answer.
My posts have been relevant, well researched, documented with sources, no profanity, no rants, and have commented on all insults and answered all questions.
Your posts have been always condescending, usually arrogant, often insulting, and mostly unsubstantiated. You are all talk, little research, and no action. You sit and wait until the next one, just like the authorities you are so contemptuous of.
I leave with the evidence that is irrefutable that confirms the incontrovertible: open cargo door on UAL 811:
Sincerely,
Barry
John Barry Smith
(831) 659-3552 phone
551 Country Club Drive,
Carmel Valley, CA 93924 www.corazon.com
[email protected]
Commercial pilot, instrument rated, former FAA Part 135 certificate holder.
US Navy reconnaissance bombardier navigator, RA-5C 650 hours.
US Navy patrol crewman, P2V-5FS 2000 hours.
Air Intelligence Officer, US Navy
Retired US Army Major MSC
Owner Mooney M-20C, 1000 hours.
Survivor of sudden night fiery fatal jet plane crash in RA-5C
Significant Direct and Tangible Evidence Obtained for Four B747 Breakups in Flight
AI 182 PA103 UAL 811 TWA 800
Boeing 747 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Early model -100 or -200 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Polyimide wiring (Poly X type) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sudden airframe breakup in flight (partial or total) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Breakup occurs amidships Yes Yes Yes Yes
High flight time (over 55,000 flight hours) No Yes Yes Yes
Aged airframe (over 18 years of service) No Yes Yes Yes
Previous maintenance problems with forward cargo door Yes Maybe Yes Maybe
Initial event within an hour after takeoff No Yes Yes Yes
Initial event at about 300 knots
while proceeding normally in all parameters Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event has unusual radar contacts Maybe Yes Yes Yes
Initial event involves hull rupture in or near forward cargo door area Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event starts with sudden sound Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event sound is loud Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event sound is audible to humans Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event followed immediately by abrupt power cut to data recorders Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event sound matched to explosion of bomb sound No No No No
Initial event sound matched to explosive decompression sound
in wide body airliner Yes Yes Yes Yes
Torn off skin on fuselage above forward cargo door area Yes Yes Yes Yes
Unusual paint smears on and above forward cargo door Maybe Maybe Yes Yes
Evidence of explosion in forward cargo compartment Yes Yes Yes Yes
Foreign object damage to engine or cowling of engine number three Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fire/soot in engine number three Maybe Yes Yes Yes
Foreign object damage to engine or cowling of engine number four Yes Yes Yes Yes
Right wing leading edge damaged in flight Yes Maybe Yes Maybe
Vertical stabilizer damaged in flight Yes Yes Yes Maybe
Right horizontal stabilizer damaged in flight Yes Yes Yes Yes
More severe inflight damage on starboard side than port side Yes Yes Yes Yes
Port side relatively undamaged by inflight debris Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vertical fuselage tear lines just aft or forward of the forward cargo door Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fracture/tear/rupture at a midspan latch of forward cargo door Maybe Yes Yes Yes
Midspan latching status of forward cargo door reported as latched No No No No
Airworthiness Directive 88-12-04 implemented (stronger lock sectors) No No No Yes
Outwardly peeled skin on upper forward fuselage Yes Yes Yes Yes
Rectangular shape of shattered area around forward cargo door Yes Yes Yes Yes
Forward cargo door fractured in two longitudinally Yes Yes Yes Maybe
Status of aft cargo door as intact and latched Yes Yes Yes Maybe
Passengers suffered decompression type injuries Yes Yes Yes Yes
At least nine missing and never recovered passenger bodies Yes Yes Yes Yes
Wreckage debris field in two main areas,
forward and aft sections of aircraft Yes Yes No Yes
Initial official determination of probable cause as bomb explosion. Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial official determination modified from bomb explosion Yes Yes Yes Yes
Structural failure considered for probable cause Yes Yes Yes Yes
Inadvertently opened forward cargo door considered for probable cause Yes No Yes Yes
Official probable cause as bomb explosion Yes Yes No No
Official probable cause as 'improvised explosive device' No Yes No No
Official probable cause as explosion by unstated cause Yes No No No
Official probable cause as explosion in center fuel tank
with unknown ignition source No No No Yes
Official probable cause as improper latching of forward cargo door No No Yes No
Official probable cause as switch /wiring
inadvertently opening forward cargo door No No Yes No
"Bomb' allegedly loaded two flights previous to detonation flight Yes Yes N/A N/A
"Bomb' allegedly loaded one flight previous to detonation flight N/A N/A N/A Yes
Takeoff after sunset on fatal flight Yes Yes Yes Yes
Takeoff after scheduled takeoff time on fatal flight Yes Yes Yes Yes
"Bomb' allegedly goes off on ground after a flight N/A N/A N/A N/A
Significant Direct and Tangible Evidence Obtained for Four B747 Breakups in Flight
AI 182 PA103 UAL 811 TWA 800
