Proof Number Two:
Proof of Deliberate Fraud Within The NTSB Report...

Example 1: Selective Omission, Suppression, and Concealment of Evidence

Basic Presumptions: 1) In any cover up undertaken by an investigative body, evidence within their control must be selectively examined and presented towards supporting some false conclusion, which usually means that key evidence to the contrary is suppressed from consideration; 2) In any crash investigation, the data contained within the very last seconds of the Flight Data Recorder (FDR -- aka 'the black box') is perhaps the most valuable and important of all clues as to what caused the crash. It is the entire purpose of the existence of the device; 3) Any attempt to subvert, conceal, or explain away such FDR data is, therefore, highly suspect.

NOTE:  Almost immediately after this report was made public, NTSB quietly altered the official NTSB public record to further conceal the very elements talked about here in analysis, specifically, the tabular data table.
 
 

The Final Portion of the Graphic Representation of FDR Data

As previously presented by missile-fire proponents at an Accuracy In Media News Conference (Thursday, January 8th, 1998) involving retired Navy Commander William Donaldson, retired Navy Admiral Thomas D. Moorer, and recently retired National Guard pilot and Flight 800 witness, Major Frederick Meyers (recently retired from the National Guard so that he might defy Federal orders of silence), there is a glaring example of an attempt to omit evidence from discussion. The NTSB graph above represents the very last and most critical data from the FDR, from NTSB Exhibit 10A, with several red arrows and circles added, here.

Note the vertical dotted line at the right of the graphic and the words printed along the line 'End of TWA 800 Data', found to be starting at the timing mark (red circle) of 20:31:12. This is the so-called 'initiating event' (alleged CWS failure) time point, according to NTSB, the point where all FDR evidence is most critical -- yet it is ignored by NTSB, who says everything right of this line is not Flight 800 data. NTSB spokesperson, Shirley Hazel, has responded (as reported in Newsday and other media) specifically to charges to the contrary by AIM, by stating that it was old data from a previous flight. There are several clues to suggest NTSB lied in the report, and lied again through Hazel, once caught.

Clue 1: On NTSB page three of Exhibit 10A, the following statement: 'The oldest FDR data are erased before recording the newest FDR data.' would refute Hazel's assertion. Therefore, the data shown cannot be old data, or it wouldn't be there, at all, if we are to understand NTSB.

Clue 2: On the FDR graphic, note the far-right aligned column of downward pointing arrows. Each of these data plots remain consistent with the readings prior to the initiating event, though the readings fluctuate wildly during the event itself. Given the large number of plots and the large range of possible readings for each plot, it seems rather coincidental that so many of the readings should be a virtual continuation of the old readings. In other words, if old flight data, then these two aircraft were curiously flying the exact same performance specifications for many of the readings. We might excuse this as normal for a level-flight cruise situation, but Flight 800 was in a takeoff and climb maneuver for which many variables apply.

Clue 3: Next note the two plots indicated by the two horizontal arrows. These are very curious readings for any 'old flight', for they together, along with indicated air speed, indicate the airplane is going nowhere at all (no heading whatsoever) at nearly 300 knots -- perhaps straight down, since the altitude drops completely off the chart. If an old flight, missile-fire proponents ask where this plane is, today, and why we haven't heard about its crash? More than likely, since it is impossible for a plane to 'fly' with no heading, these are readings which are no longer reaching the FDR for reasons of damage to sensors or signal lines as a result of whatever happened at 20:31:12. This should not be true of an old flight.

Clue 4: NTSB page 6 of Exhibit 10A states that the actual loss of electrical power to the FDR was computed to be 20:31:12.27. In page 42 it clearly lists in tabular form (see next page, blue highlight and red circle, arrow, and 'Old Data' label added) and plainly shows all readings attributed to this time frame (blue highlight area) as from Flight 800.

The table has been compacted to fit the page and still be readable (just barely, with apologies), with less key (to this discussion) data sections removed as indicated by the added yellow/black dotted lines. At the bottom are readings for the 20:31:12 mark (red circle), and for some plot topics, one or two extra sets of readings within the blue highlighted area. These extra reading sets, common in the entire tabular report (20 pages long), are not explained by NTSB. They appear to occur with random dispersal among all the various data sets, and would seem to be attempts by the FDR to correct for perceived errors in readings -- extra samples for redundancy's sake.

What is curious is that the readings included in the data table as 'Flight 800 data' is, in the graphic plot of the FDR, clearly behind the dotted line. Even the 20:31:12 plots themselves have been carefully moved... plotted off and behind the dotted line. In other words, the NTSB considers the time mark of 20:31:12 to be Flight 800 data, but has arbitrarily decided that the actual data associated with it should be in the 'old flight data' portion of the graphic. For some reason, they do not want us looking at this data, refuting its own report (tabular data vs. graphic representation) and further refuting Hazel. Clearly, at least some of the data claimed by the graphic as 'old data', is actually from Flight 800, as claimed by AIM. The question is, how much?

What is needed is a way to actually follow the data from flight 800 through and into the 'old data' in a way which demonstrates it is a continuing series of data. It exists in the final Clues that the NTSB is concealing FDR data.

Clue 5: Note the paired red arrows and the enjoining oval in the FDR graphic. These are the Longitudinal and Vertical Acceleration plots. In the data table, you will see that the last ('corrective') readings taken for these plots is 0.05 and 1.02 respectively, as shown by the red arrow. This is exactly the point where the readings continue on in the graphic, even beyond 20:31:13 and off the chart -- the 'old data' plots exactly match the FDR tabular data. Though the scale for Longitudinal Acceleration cannot be seen as it is to the far left of the page (not shown due to size), the plot indeed falls on the .05 indicator. Flight 800 could not reasonably have destructed in a way that coincidentally caused both of these 'corrective' readings to be altered to match an old flight. The tabular data itself transcends the dotted line. Together with the other consistent readings (clue 1), the suggestion is that all data right of the dotted line is indeed Flight 800 data.

Clue 6: The erratic readings could not possibly belong to an old flight unless it was crashing, too. A recycled FDR?

Not only does the FDR example demonstrate that AIM was correct in the assertions that the data continues, but also, it testifies that there is merit to their argument (as I myself had also maintained prior to the AIM conference) that the 20:31:12 readings shown are also correct readings, readings which are screaming clues as to what happened. If struck by a missile from below, for instance, the acceleration readings would likely be altered in the directions indicated. The vertical acceleration would slightly increase, the forward acceleration would slightly decrease. Once aircraft breakup commenced, these would both begin to change more radically -- but we do not get to see the readings. How much has NTSB trimmed from the report?

This is by no means the only example of concealments -- or of alterations. Perhaps most telling is that the NTSB Report fails to include whole sections outlined and implied to exist by its own Exhibit numbering system. Blatantly missing are sections on witness reports, the seat back 'glue vs. missile exhaust' report, and the radar report -- reports deliberately withheld at the direction of FBI. Also missing are key reports which NTSB says were not ready in time, but these are very few and are so indicated within the report. Despite these two 'legitimate' types of omissions, there are many other omissions not addressed whatsoever -- roughly one-third the report unaccounted for. There is, for instance, an attempt to deal with debris field findings, but curiously, there is no information (no NTSB Exhibit or other references) about luggage, seats, or body recovery points. This is curious because the first items (ALL items, regardless of nature) off the aircraft reveal much about the crash and its cause. Also missing is FAA radio traffic, which itself offers evidence in support of missile fire, and is a beautiful example of of media complicity in cover up with respect to how it was handled by the press -- not a topic, today.

Summary: NTSB has deliberately withheld key evidence in order to mislead. This is evidence of a cover up.

NEXT EXAMPLE