Thanks to the brilliant research of Chris, we now have proof positive that the MD80 series aircraft are indeed highly computerized, as I stated in several of my previous threads. As seen in this schematic drawing, the aircraft has several Servo Drive units controlling all flight control surfaces, including the stabilizer trim tabs. They are all linked to and digitally controlled by both of two primary Digital Flight Guidance Computer Systems.



What follows are just a few of the comments by some of the trollish Pollys, who have proven once again that they are not interested in intelligent discussions, but are only coming to this forum to childishly antagonize those who have real concerns about these matters of extreme seriousness. In addition, although some of them may have some experience in this field, it is clear that they have lied in order to dismiss the possibility that these events could be Y2K related. I could spend days collecting more of their ludicrous responses, but I think these will be more than sufficient. I didn't even bother to include many others who were clearly not involved in the discussion, but were here only to irritate the participants by behaving like the ignorant barbarians that they are.

Chris, thanks so much for the link to the information! :-)

Link from Chris (catsy@pond.com)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 10, 2000

Answers

Link

My Full Name

"But what does this have to do with the fact that Hawk has been spreading factually incorrect statements (e.g. there are NO servomotors or servocontrollers in the stabilizer control system)"

"Indications are that the stabilizer moved into the full nose down position by itself, without the pilot's or autopilot's intervention."

"Gee Chicken-Hawk, your awfully quiet this afternoon about Flight #261. What happened? Oh, I'm sorry.. its probably time to start conjuring up alternate theory No. 1 now isn't it? Take your time. I'm hoping for something that links this to Waco or Oklahoma City!"

______________________________________________________________________

Link

My Full Name

" Hey Chicken-Hawk! Help me out here! I can't seem to find the damned stabilizer servocontroller and servomotors in any of those schematics. Surely someone as brilliant as you will have no problem finding them and pointing them out to all us ignorant slobs! I mean, surely you would never post something that you were not absolutely 100% sure of, would you? "

______________________________________________________________________

Link

My Full Name

"Got all that? If not, it says the same thing that WW does - there are no servocontrollers or servo motors involved, just simple electrical motors with forward and reverse switches."

---

Cherri

"As I referenced above, from an article Mikey provided, there is no way to manually move the stabilizers because they are operated by a computer controlled system.They are not controlled by a computer Even if the pilots did act quickly enough to recover them from a runaway occurrence, it didn't work because the microprocessors which relay the instructions were down for the count. They are not made that way, you are making that up, there are no instructions to relay because there is no computer The signal cannot be transmitted if the line is dead. They do not need to relay a signal, they needed to pull a fuse to stop any electron flow to a motor or other non digital device which was driving the stabilizers."

" It must be sad being so ignorant, I didn't sit there for 28 years working on the same equipment, I have worked on the newest computers in existance before you ever saw a computer. You may get stuck with one thing, but I know more about digital computing then you ever will."

"I do not deny that a servo motor can be controlled by a digital computer, I am deying that they are used in the movement of the stabilizer of the MD80."

"Aircraft functions are not all tied together and run from some computer. Some systems have absolutly no connection to others. You act like there is a computer that evcerything is connected to. You don't fly planes like you run data through a bank. Where is this "computer" that is supposed to run the stablizer located? In the tail? Under the passenger compartment? You do not know aircraft systems and you have absolutly no clue as to wheather that servo unit even exists in aircrafts."

---

Mikey2k

"Hey birdbrain, you've been asked for specifics. Do you give them?"

"NO!!!!!!!! Just more inane questions."

" Tell us about YOUR aviation background. Hah! The only hawk about you is the phlehm you've spewed on this forum."

---

Gordon

"The horizontal stabilizer does not have any trim tabs."

"Most flight control failures are the result of mechanical breakage or hydraulic package problems and have nothing whatever to do with any computer inputs."

"I think the crew saw the out-of-trim happening and disengaged the autopilot. For some reason, yet unclear, the stabilizer still ran itself to full nose down trim and the crew had to try to use all the elevator authority they had to counteract it."

---

CJS

"I don't think that that I have ever seen a non-expert take unsubstantiated conjecture based on such little research and not only attempt to pass it off as fact, but then defend it against others who apparently have more industry knowledge than you."

---

Wildweasel

"There aren't any digital servo drive units because there are no synchronous servo motors. That means thre aren't any microprocessors in the trim system."

"What there is, is a "trim up"/off/"trim down" switch wired straight from the control columns to the trim motor. It's as simple as that."

"Don't try and invent things that aren't there, guy."

---

Paul Neuhardt

"Hee, hee, hee."

"Hawk, gotta love you. You are always good for a laugh. Gotta go now, my sides hurt too much to read any mroe of this."

______________________________________________________________________

Link

Imso

"I condemn you for that. I accuse you of lying. I hold you accountable for publishing this trash, and I urge those in the cyber community who care about truth to join me in calling you a hate-mongering, self-serving, paranoid, truth-twisting jackal."

"IMHO, there is little that is likely to make an impact on Mr Hawk's ilk other than brute force."

---

Mr. Sane

"Imso and Pro, very well said. Most of the doomer posters are just fools, sad people who can't think for themselves, however this complete and utter lowlife Hawk and those that support his crackpot story have taken it to a new level of desperation."

"You all stand condemned for linking this unfortunate crash to the y2k hoax."

" In all honesty, i've treated this forum as a bit of fun, but i am sickened and appalled by this."

"Hawk, you are a hate-mongering, self-serving, paranoid, LIAR."

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 10, 2000.

Hi Hawk. I have read the previous threads on this subject. I'm not familiar with your credentials. When I started posting nearly a year ago, I had to verify my credentials with a third party (a reporter) that I am indeed an engineer with Y2k testing experience who works at a real power company. I suggest we do the same for you. Please answer the following questions:

1) Do you have a college degree involved in the subject which you are posting (aerospace engineering, aeronautics, or other applicable discipline)? 2) Do you have work experience in design or installation of the equipment on an MD80 aircraft? Do you work for an industry that works on these aircraft? 3) Were you part of a Y2k remediation team, and do you have actual Y2k testing experience with the MD80's systems or like devices?

Please respond to these questions directly so those of us on this forum know about your technical background on this subject. Thanks.

-- Dan the Power Man (dgman19938@aol.com), February 10, 2000.

No. My father was a Navy Air Force pilot, a small aircraft salesman, and an FAA air traffic controller, now retired. I have been around aircraft since the day I was born. 2 college degrees, not related. I'm not going to lie about it like some others apparently have. I think the information provided is more than sufficient, but it does require an open mind. I'm not buying the idea that a stripped jackscrew caused these problems. Something went wrong that made that jackscrew stripped.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 10, 2000.

Thanks for the response, Hawk. I take it from what you wrote, that you have no aerospace related collegiate work. That was my first question.

Regarding the other two questions: Have you ever worked on an MD80?

Have you Y2k tested any systems used in an MD80?

Thanks in advance for clarifying...

-- Dan the Power Man (dgman19938@aol.com), February 10, 2000.

My Dear Mr Hawk,

Sir, let me be amoung the first to congradulate you on your posting the wiring diagram. Using this wide screen tv with HD performance. Does have it's little added values at times.

And if I am not being to forward here. I do believe that I can "see" several "Black Boxes" in the diagram.(And ehere I was being led to believe that the aircraft in question was no more intricate in design than the old DC-3.

I guess Mistess Cherri and her coharts will explain the wiring diagram away. It will be fasinating to come back and see their observations. I truely now begin to wonder (really seriously) for the first time. Do we have "Paid" shills coming into the forum?

Shoot! Even a poor old shirt tailed eectrican like me could wire up that doo hicky shown in the wiring dagram! And I can "see" the interlocks all over the place to. LOL

"As for me...I shall finish the Game"!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), February 10, 2000.

Shakey, as an electrician, do you know the difference between a wiring diagram and a block diagram? Explain why you call this a wiring diagram rather than a block diagram.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 11, 2000.

Chicken-not-a-hawk-who-hawked-up-phlegm-and-spewed-it-on-this-forum, the only thing you are proving is what an idiot you are. All you have is a very undetailed block diagram showing part of the whole picture. When the autopilot disengages, it no longer controls the aircraft. The trim ranaway AFTER the autopilot was disengaged, and the crew was not able to operate the trim with their controls.

Where is the pilot's control yoke on this diagram? Where are the pilot's trim control switches?

In your earlier thread you led off with "The crash of Alaska Airlines Flight 261 was caused by non-compliant on-board flight control computers." No, I haven't attacking you for saying that there are digital systems on the aircraft (since I am an electrical engineer who designs digital avionics), I have been attacking you for statements of the sort I quoted.

What is the Model Number of the aircraft unit containing the non- compliant chips you alledge, and what are the part numbers of the non- compliant chips? In what way would a non-compliant chip cause a stripped jackscrew? And another question: why haven't you answered the repeated questions about specific identification of non-compliant units and chips?

And what are answers to the other questions Dan asked?

We look forward to your detailed, enlightening answers, but aren't holding our breath. We're really expecting your usual bluster and evasion.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 11, 2000.

Nice find.. a couple of points.

#1.. first report was that they were haveing problems with the TRIM TABS

#2.. TRIM TABS are a very small part of the total control surface... easaly over powered by the main control surface.

So what stipped-out the follower on the Jack screw? (did you see the Size of that thing? :-)

-- Casper (c@no.yr), February 11, 2000.

Casper, the NTSB briefing after recovery and analysis of the Flight Data Recorder made no mention of trim tabs. Perhaps it was an initial report. Link?

Chicken-not-a-hawk, still waiting for answers to Dan's and my questions. Still not holding my breath, though.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 11, 2000.

Dan, My first reply was the answer to your post... no. We have a lot of imposters here, but I refuse to lie about it. I could also ask you the same questions about your aviation background, but that is not a requirement to join this discussion. I'm more interested in people who have some valid information to discuss like what I have posted. Do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to jump right in and join immature Mickey Mouse and his troll club?

Mickey,

I'm not going to do all the work around here, but I think if you read the reports you'll find that the autopilot system was definitely a major factor in this incident. It was turned on and off several times, and the worst problem resulted simultaneously with it being switched off, so the NTSB says.

If you are only here to use lies to destroy the credibility of the possibility of this scenario, I wish you would please leave, I do not wish to turn this into another troll circus.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 11, 2000.

Thanks Shakey. For those who don't have HDTV, this one might be a little sharper. :-)



-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 11, 2000.

Ok.... one more hint....

Most things are tested at a.. "working (100%)" weight/shear/... and a "breaking" (150%)" weight/shear/

Ok.. so the plane wasn't designed to fly acrobatics (3G+?) and pieces fell off.... Why?.. what started the problem :-)

"Did you see the size of that thing?" "Monster in your pants"

-- Casper (c@no.yr), February 11, 2000.

Actually, you have no credibility to destroy, except with idiots like jeffDD. Any lies in this discussion were propogated by you. You are certainly free with the term "definitely" when you have no knowledge to back up its use.

So now you're quoting the NTSB. I thought they were just the tools of TPTB.

A collection of facts does not constitute knowledge. You epitomize this. I doubt that your will ever progress to a point where the issue is your recognizing that knowlege does not constitute wisdom.

And you're still evading the questions. I guess your answers aren't Y2k compliant, just your evasion.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 11, 2000.

Mr Hawk,

What I read in your earlier post was that:

1. The crash of 261 was clearly Y2K-related

2. The NTSB murders those who disagree with them.

Still sticking to those two notions, or not? I care not a whit about Chris's research in which he has apparently stumbled upon the "brilliant" notion that a modern aircraft is "indeed highly computerized..." (Now THERE'S a sharp guy). What I care about is,

Is it reasonable to conclude this investigation at this point, and is the evidence in?, and

Does the NTSB cover up, and murder those who disagree with them?

MY conclusions are that the evidence is NOT in; the NTSB will make an honest and appropriate evaluation; everything short of that is premature; posting a premature conclusion as fact is destructive to the truth and fear-mongering to the naive; and accusing the NTSB of murder is paranoid delusion.

You may call me an "ignorant barbarian", as you like. (Actually; you called me a "fucking wussy".) You are, nevertheless, desecrating the dead for your own personal means, and you remain a fool.

And for what it's worth, the NTSB and the FAA will do what they can to make this plane safer; in the meantime I ain't flying this aircraft. When they DO figure out the cause, (even if it's NOT Y2K), and fix it, I'll be back on. OTOH, since these bodies cannot be trusted by you, and since so many other planes have embedded chips, I seriously doubt you are "flyin@high.again". Sounds like Shakin' w/ Shakey in the Bunker@forty feet is a better handle for you.

-- Imso (lame@prepped.com), February 11, 2000.

I'm so,

Thanx for all your wisdom Laura..... your flight is now boarding :-)

-- Casper (c@no.yr), February 11, 2000.

Hawk made the mistake originally of definitively connecting this tragedy with Y2k--it may or may not be connected. Those heckling Hawk made the mistake of definitively saying that there are no servocontrollers or servo motors involved when they didn't even know what they were talking about.

Since both sides took liberties with the truth, no one can claim the moral high ground here and thus are even. Let's discuss the facts and reasoned suppositions and stop this ad hominem schoolyard one- upmanship.

-- A (voice@of.reason), February 11, 2000.

Hawk, I haven't been around the forum that long... I was around the last few days a lot and was put off a little by seeing you come down to Mr. Sane and all the others level with profanity and kick em while their down stuff... I think your contributions are valid and could save lives if people start listening... As for the comment from "whoever" these weird people about you having to have some kind of degree in aero... to be taken seriously is bunk... I don't have a degree in politics but I can tell and liar from a honest one! Should I go back and get a degree to make sure I don't misjudge the standard between what is truth and what is deception? It is incredible, but people with hard hearts don't agree with truth if it was right under their nose... they will pridefully crash to their death...saying..."Its not y2k...its not y2k..." Why is it so important that it not be y2k? If that is the problem...that is the problem...and lets just ignore these goofballs and continue on with serious matter that this forum is all about! BRyan

-- S BRyan G III (sbrg3@juno.com), February 11, 2000.

Yes, you are correct SB Ryan and A voice of reason. It is difficult to not be defensive when attacked for setting forth a perfectly reasonable possibility. This is the truth in my view, and I think people should be able to figure that out since it was posted by me. Some people are not capable of knowing what the truth is to them, so they wait until the NTSB tells them what they think, then they consider this that be the absolute truth. It is obvious that many of the pollys became extremely aggressive in attacking the possibility of a Y2K related failure, particularly in this case because of the seriousness of the consequences, and because they know that this is a very strong possibility. Actually, most of what they have said, even by those who claim to have experience, has only made me more convinced that I am correct, because of their tremendous lack of credibility, in my view.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 11, 2000.

Hi, the brilliant "guy" here with my humble opinion.

I agree with A voice@of.reason.

Hawk, you've discovered an interesting trail to follow, but the way you're going about it ruffles the feathers of the sensitive egos, please try to be more diplomatic about it, and let the flames roll off your back. Try using "scientific research" lingo, and avoid making absolute statements like "The truth about flight #261" and "definitely y2k related". We don't know yet whether it is or is not y2k related, but IMO your theory is still worth digging into because so far as I've seen, it hasn't yet been disproved to my satisfaction.

And, I agree with you, it can seem like a far out theory to closed minded people.

As Diane would say, "think outside of the box guys" ;-)

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 11, 2000.

Also, as Diane would say:

*Sigh*

Hawk , you're killing me. I don't know if you're flying again, but you're definitely high. TB2000 is boring without you. Your threads have been the most prolific as far as posting goes over the past several days.

Keep up the fun work. You're interesting. It's like stopping by to see a train wreck.

-- CJS (cjs@noemail.com), February 11, 2000.

Also:

SB Ryan G III shows great potential to be another congratulatory doomer stoolie in the same vein as JeffDD. It's fun watching the transition at this forum. It's the 4th quarter and the home team is down by 50 points. The regulars have been pulled. The third string is in.

Keep up the good work.

-- CJS (cjs@noemail.com), February 11, 2000.

What does little dubya have to do with all of this?

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), February 11, 2000.

Mr Hawk--

If you read my post above and prior you might see where your goofiness lies. It isn't in considering a computer problem a POSSIBILITY, and within that POSSIBILITY a Y2K failure. (In my OPINION, unlikely, but) I'd rather them find a Y2K problem than have another life lost.

Your error, sir, is posting a theory as a CONCLUSION and making it obvious that YOUR mind is already made up. Then you move off the deep end and accuse TPTB of murdering citizens who come to an alternate conclusion. This protects you in advance from being accused of being wrong. I can assure you that you are annoying critical thinkers who are pro-Y2K problem scenarios because no critical thinker would make those two errors.

Pollies AND doomers should be held accountable for:

1. Critical, supported reasoning.

2. Consequences of their argumentation.

It will be interesting to see your response when/if the investigative boards reach a non-Y2K conclusion.

Let me give you my response, in advance, IF this ends up being a Y2K problem:

"I was wrong in pooh-poohing the embedded chip issue. Thank you to those who have been fighting to consider it dangerous. Society owes you a great debt. I will not fly until I am convinced the problem is resolved. Getting through Y2K this far has been incredibly lucky, and I was an ass to not recognize that. I take as much responsibility as I can for my laissez-faire attitude, and I will work to correct the damage. Worse things may be on the horizon, and we need to double our efforts to fix them."

When the actual crash reason becomes evident, you may use this as a model to form your own response, or you may post it in capitals with my handle, as the case dictates.

-- ImSo (lame@prepped.com), February 11, 2000.

My Dear Imso,

It would seem that you for some reason, have selected me for your somewhat loony tunes trades. I do not know yet as to the why, that you keep "rattling" my chain young person.. Unless you are Mistress Cherriin drag. But I do not think thaat of her, for a lady does not pull such tactics. As for you, since you much prefer my compny, then you shall have it!

I am glad that you consider yourself an expert on the embedded issues. Every one "should" have some thing that they understand (at least some what).

I believe I have explained my handle once already to you, so it is counter productive to attempt a civilized effort with you again. I can only add, that the only other time I ever cowered was in a little country far far away and a long time ago. But you ain't nearly as intemidating as Mr. Victor Charles was (on your best day). And you are not as funny either.

Mr. Mikey2K; Sir I can, with the termination schedule included, wire in said equipment. The problem is one that I have run into for thirty four years now.. Engineers are taught one deffination of things and word descriptions. An contruction calls the very same things by different names. I will tell you staight out! I could not, nor would I attempt to do your job. And you cannot do mine. But at least I do a little of it all....And come closer to being a "generalist" than you are sir. Thusly I can "see" our collective problems a little clearer than you do.

Rarely have I given agressive intent in a ost I have put forward. And then, because I have finally reached the end of my patiece with some one (in this case Y2K Pro). But I will admit that one who is in this thread has managed to bring me close to the end of that patience. And even if they use the handle Imso (full of crap). I would request just one last time for civility.....

"As for me...I shall finish the Game"!

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), February 11, 2000.

My Dear Imso,

It would seem that you for some reason, have selected me for your somewhat loony tunes trades. I do not know yet as to the why, that you keep "rattling" my chain young person.. Unless you are Mistress Cherriin drag. But I do not think thaat of her, for a lady does not pull such tactics. As for you, since you much prefer my compny, then you shall have it!

I am glad that you consider yourself an expert on the embedded issues. Every one "should" have some thing that they understand (at least some what).

I believe I have explained my handle once already to you, so it is counter productive to attempt a civilized effort with you again. I can only add, that the only other time I ever cowered was in a little country far far away and a long time ago. But you ain't nearly as intemidating as Mr. Victor Charles was (on your best day). And you are not as funny either.

Mr. Mikey2K; Sir I can, with the termination schedule included, wire in said equipment. The problem is one that I have run into for thirty four years now.. Engineers are taught one deffination of things and word descriptions. An contruction calls the very same things by different names. I will tell you staight out! I could not, nor would I attempt to do your job. And you cannot do mine. But at least I do a little of it all....And come closer to being a "generalist" than you are sir. Thusly I can "see" our collective problems a little clearer than you do.

Rarely have I given agressive intent in a ost I have put forward. And then, because I have finally reached the end of my patiece with some one (in this case Y2K Pro). But I will admit that one who is in this thread has managed to bring me close to the end of that patience. And even if they use the handle Imso (full of crap). I would request just one last time for civility.....

"As for me...I shall finish the Game"!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), February 11, 2000.

FWIW, hubby has 30+ yrs. computer tech experience (mainframe down to PCs) with international company. He assisted a govt. agency on Y2K for the past two years. He spent 8 yrs. in Naval Air Reserve working on and flying in Navy planes. And he's a damn good mechanic.

He does NOT DISCOUNT Hawk's theory.

He also feels there might have been a problem with the lubrication on the jackscrew.

Hopefully, if we're lucky, time will tell what really caused this awful crash. Or, maybe, we'll never know.

-- Lurkess (Lurkess@Lurking.XNet), February 11, 2000.

Mr Shakey--

You took me to task once for making an inference from your name that was undeserved. In the context of this board, in a bunker at forty feet has a certain implication.

I used the "Shakin" reference above to ridicule Mr Hawk, and not you.

I am sorry for offending you, and I ask you to accept my apology. When/if I want to offend you I will be more direct.

In the interim, please forgive me.

-- ImSo (lame@prepped.com), February 11, 2000.

"Proof Positive" ... that Hawk is coming unglued!

Do yourself a favor and stop now while you just look like a moron rather than trying for complete buffoon!

...we now have proof positive that the MD80 series aircraft are indeed highly computerized, as I stated in several of my previous threads.

Wow! What an amazing conclusion! I didn't realize that the fact that modern aircraft were highly computerized was ever in question. Nice strawman, obviously you have been studying the Disinformation Manifesto!

As seen in this schematic drawing, the aircraft has several Servo Drive units controlling all flight control surfaces, including the stabilizer trim tabs.

Wrong! You need to pay closer attention. ALL flight control surfaces are clearly NOT controlled by the various servocontrol units seen in the above diagram. Where are the flaps and slats -- or are these not control surfaces? You selected one diagram out of several dozen and (once again) incorrectly drew conclusions. Look at the other diagrams labeled "Pneumatics" and "Hydraulics" and "Electrical" and then tell me again that "ALL" control surfaces are operated by the servocontrollers shown above.

Secondly, there are no such things as "stabilizer trim tabs". There are "elevator trim tabs" which are on the trailing edge of the tail but the "stabilizer" in on the leading edge. You probably got confused (a fairly common occurrence) when the articles talked about the "stabilizer trim system", using trim as a verb which means to balance. The whole discussion of the jack screw, and servomotors has always been about the stabilizer, not the elevators. Evidently, you are just displaying more of you lack of understanding of what you are writing about or you are intentionally trying to change the topic. Which is it?

BTW, even though it has nothing to do with the original discussion, here is a brief description (from Chris' source) about the elevators on the MD-80:

Elevator Movement is controlled by a Control Tab, Geared Tab, Anti Float Tab, Hydraulic Actuator. The unjammed tab can be driven by either control wheel with 25 Kg pressure .

Wow! Maybe you can explain to me how a control surface that can only be operated by sending signals through a computer could possibly be moved by applying enough 25 kg. of pressure. Is that whta it takes to push the computer out of the way? LOL

They are all linked to and digitally controlled by both of two primary Digital Flight Guidance Computer Systems.

Again, this was never even in dispute. When the autopilot is engaged, this is true but, as shown above, there are all sorts of electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic systems which bypass the autopilot computer when it is not engaged.

What follows are just a few of the comments by some of the trollish Pollys, who have proven once again that they are not interested in intelligent discussions, but are only coming to this forum to childishly antagonize those who have real concerns about these matters of extreme seriousness.

Not only do you not understand avionics, you also don't understand internet terminology. First, it is not "trolling" to respond to someone with counter arguments. Some of the insults that have been flung (by both sides) might constitute mild flaming but hardly trolling! And the polly term has been way overused to be rendered meaningless as you now use it to include anyone who was anything less than a 5 on the doom scale. If you knew who Pollyanna really was, even a dolt like you (oops was that trolling?) would figure out that there were very, very few "pollies" who ever posted here.

In addition, although some of them may have some experience in this field, it is clear that they have lied in order to dismiss the possibility that these events could be Y2K related.

An interesting charge from someone who has accused the NTSB of murder and conspiracy and accused Alaska Airlines, Boeing, the FAA, etc. of negligence, conspiracy, and whatever else in covering up a known Y2K problem that puts millions at risk. All this without a shred of factual information.

You have not shown one thing that was said by anyone who disagreed with that was a lie. You use the servo's in the diagram above as "proof" of this lying but I never said there were NO servo's on the MD-80, just that there were none that were part of the stabilizer trim system.

To summarize, at this time the facts (a foreign concept to you by try to keep up) available show that some type of failure to the horizontal stabilizer system was the primary cause of the crash of Fligth 261. It may have been mechanical, structural, electrical, or a combination but that needs to be determined.

Hawk stated, as a fact, that THE cause of the crash was a Y2K compliance problem between the flight computer and the digital servodrive unit that controls the stabilizer system. He also stated as a fact that all of the flight controls on the MD-80 were controlled exclusively by a computer, whether the autopilot was engaged or not. Both of these points have been shown to be false as (1) there is no servo control for the stabilizer, and (2) the electric motors which control it have direct wired thumbswitches at both the captain's and FO's wheels, allowing control of it independent of the flight computer.

Now, if you want to start claiming elevators or something else, go ahead but you will be wrong again. Apparently, that doesn't bother you much!

-- My Full Name (My@email.address), February 11, 2000.

Everybody - can I recommend you slow down a take a breathe of fresh air ...... get the people investigating a little time to get some more information, to investigate better those other MD-80's that were affected at a similar time at least.

I think it's a bit premature to make sweeping conclusion right now.....

On the other hand, follow this investigation very closely. These is good evidence that even the Flight 800 investigation was "managed" to avoid finding evidence of rocket impact....and some claim that specific evidence of rocket casing enclosures and parts have been systematically removed, while other "evidence" of fire was planted.

Are their theories true? Frankly, as long as the current administration is in power - we absolutely will never know. And may not be told until after the threat from them returning to power is over: that is, evidence (if any) supporting these theories will most likely be released only after the death of those who covered up and planted it.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 11, 2000.

Robert:

Why not call a spade a spade? Are you afraid you will hurt Hawk's feelings if you tell him that he is wrong and that any reasonable summation of the facts available would make that evident. Are you a PE or not? If you are, you display very little of the logic and thought processes needed to be a very good engineer. Now before all the regulars attack, I do give Mr. Cook credit for some insight into the power industry and how power generation, transmission, and distribution works. However, he was wrong about the vast majority of his assessments of what would happen after the rollover and his comment about Flight 800 do little to dispel the notion that he should not be considered an objective authority on anything.

What "good evidence" do you think there is? The whole missle story has been dismissed over and over by everyone except the exterme fringe conspiracy theorists who spend way too much time listening to Jeff Rense. I would be very interested in hearing, as a professional engineer, what you consider to be "good evidence" that a missle brought down Flight 800.

-- My Full Name (My@email.address), February 11, 2000.

I don't give much credence in the field of aviation to anyone who misspells "missile" twice in succeeding sentences.

-- . (Elem@English.teacher), February 11, 2000.

My Full Name (and all the other aliases you use)

What about the residue of a missile on the seat cushions?

BTW, MFN, mind your manners.

-- TrollStomper (DoomersUnited@TB2000.OurNet), February 11, 2000.

Yes, I'm a PE.

That's why I'm recommending a little more analysis right now, rather than immediately jumping to a "conclusion" about the MD80's. Sir Hawk may be correct in his statements, my only complain is that he is a bit too emphatic by eliminating the very real potential that some other failure may be the root cause.

For example, if it were a controller failure, it may, or may not be, a year 2000 induced failure. Thus, I recommend he adopt a slightly more moderate stance, and thus get more people to listen to his statements.

---...---

Never, on this forum, critize a person's spelling. Tain't polite, and doesn't matter. No spellchecker, and the quality of a person's thought are not (in this arena) to be based on their typing skills, or lack thereof.

---...---...---

I do not have the limk immediately available, but will look for it. There are too many discrepancies about the 800 explosion - mostly about the subsequent refusal of the FBI and NTSB to properly investigate and followup on the missile impact theory. Too many "coincidences" of FBI supervision and interference in the salvage operations - before the Navy ship got there, to be explained away.

There was no explosion was needed to destroy the plane - thus no residue would have been found! The government's conclusions were almost entirely from the absence of explosive residue...not on the finding of rocket cases on the sea floor, nor on the enhanced missile capacity available now to terrorists. Thus, the plane was in missile range, at least one boat was tracked oin radar leaving the area at high speed - but was not investigated. Evidence from recorders appears tp have been planted, and evidence from eyewitnesses not followed up.

Or do you believe that the Clintons' FBI and Dept of Justice is impartial and non-political in who it chooses to investigate, and who it chooses to intimidate?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 11, 2000.

Yep, sometimes I type too fast. I misspelled "extreme" too but you missed that. What sort of an English teacher are you? As usual, the dimwits focus on insignificant grammatical mistakes and ignore the substance. I guess choosing a handle of Hawk is sufficient to be considerd an aviation authority around here! LOL

My Full Name (and all the other aliases you use) No other aliases in the last two months, how about you?

What about the residue of a missile on the seat cushions?

And the proof of that would be found where? And the missile would have come from where?

-- My Full Name (My@email.address), February 11, 2000.

If you go back through the mainstream media reports you will find that a Nat Guard Pilot is among the several hundres eye witnesses that saw a streak going toward the plane. Said pilot has almost literally disappeared.

You will also see (in the open press) results of chemical testing that found evidence of specific chemical deposits (as well as metal grain fragments) on some seat cushions which would be consistent with either on board explosives or missile impact. the metalurgical evidence released at first was consistent with an explosion from outside the plane, etc.

There are way too many anomalies in the initial open press reports, those fast written, fast released stories that get out ahead of the "responsible" reportage. THe "RIGHT NOW OPEN MY MIKE" kinds of reportage from people on the scene.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 11, 2000.

Recognizing that the Internet has looser standards, I was careful to specify the aviation field. One might be forgiven for misspelling non-aviation words but not two succeeding examples of a common aviation term such as "missile," particularly when it is misspelled (not mistyped) in the same way it is pronounced--"missle."

How good a teacher am I? You do not find me misspelling "school" as "scool" twice in a row.

-- - (elem@school.teacher), February 11, 2000.

review this, and see if you still agree with the administration's conclusions .... from Newsmax.com.

Remember, these aren't my observations or conclusions. My observation was that the Clintons' FBI abused their FBI files for political blackmail, abused their IRS to attack their politcal enemies, and has killed more Americans in their efforts to remove a legal product from private owners than any other.....and the FBI/ATF that bulldozed the Waco buildings one day after burning their victims inside .... but didn't hide any evidence nor circumvent any future charges of covering up incompetence.

The Clintons' FBI is highly politicized and completely dominated by one group - who are determined to keep political power, at the point of a gun? a tank? a denied wiretap? .... misleading evidence and denials? .. internal malfeasance and cover-up of politcal payoffs? ... denial of special investigations of Cabinent members associated with the Clintons? stopping internal intervention and delaying tactics during an on-going investigation? ... and what else?

---...---

Letter to Boeing and TWA re: Flight 800Cmdr. William S. Donaldson, III - USN, Ret.

Cmdr. William S. Donaldson, III - USN, Ret. Aviation Mishap Analyst P.O. Box 90, Clements, Maryland 20624 Web site: twa800.com

April 5, 1999 Mr. Philip M. Condit The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, Mail Code 10-10 Seattle, WA 98124-2207

Mr. Gerald L. Gitner Trans World Airlines One City Center 515 North Sixth St. St. Louis, MO 63101

Re: The unexplained loss of TWA Flight 800

Gentlemen,

Over the last four months our investigation into the loss of TWA Flight 800 has produced information far surpassing that contained in our July 20, 1998 Interim Report to Congress. We can now prove, before a jury or other independent fact-finding body, that the aircraft was shot down. We can also explain why the Administration covered it up and expose some of the methods they employed to do so.

Your corporations are being scapegoated and defrauded by Administration officials because, had the truth about this incident been reported before November of 1996, it could have derailed the reelection of Clinton/Gore. Exposed now, it could send guilty parties to jail for Misprision of Felony Homicide.

We can provide your attorney's with witnesses, documents, or reference material that will support the following text:

White House knowledge of a threat prior to the loss of TWA Flight 800

1. The Administration knew that in 1996, surrogates from rogue states had access to MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defense Systems) or shoulder-fired missiles in mid-eastern weapons bazaars. $5,000 would acquire the least capable model, the Russian SA-7. $50,000 would buy the most capable, the Chinese Vanguard, a deadly new missile upgraded from US Stinger technology transferred to the Chinese in the early 90's. Superior to the Stinger, this missile has a much longer range. The Administration also knew Iran had a limited number of US Stinger missiles in inventory.

2. The Administration was aware that, worldwide, MANPADS missiles had already claimed 26 civil transport aircraft and was only a matter of time before a U.S. Flag carrier would be targeted and hit. They knew the Administration had dodged a bullet in 1994 when Maryland State Police found a fully armed French Mistral MANPADS missile ready to fire on its tripod directly under a busy northeastern air route.

3. In response to sanctions unilaterally levied against Iran by Mr. Clinton in 1995, Iranian surrogate's car bombed US troops in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and later smuggled MANPADS missiles into the US from across the Canadian border. Iranian officials warned the Administration that they considered enactment of the Iran/Libya Sanctions Act tantamount to an act of war!

4. When Mr. Clinton signed the Iran, Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, a decision was made by the Iranian Supreme Council to approve attacks on major American targets. Terrorist surrogate groups from nine countries were summoned to Tehran to meet with Iranian officials in June of 1996. Later that month, a huge truck bomb was deployed against the US Air Force barracks complex at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Three weeks later, TWA Flight 800 was shot down only hours after an explicit warning of an attack was received in London and Washington that taunted the President.

5. The White House, the CIA and the FBI were aware of the threat and they knew preventing that attack was their primary responsibility.

6. We can show the Administration anticipated incorrectly that, if the missiles were used, they would be targeted against Olympic air traffic landing or taking off in the Atlanta area.

7. We can provide testimony that immediately after Flight 800 was shot down, Mr. Clinton called an FBI command post supporting the Olympics and informed them Flight 800 was downed with shoulder-fired missiles.

8. The White House, the CIA and the FBI political leadership have waged an unrelenting disinformation campaign from the onset. This has ranged from the White House spokesman stating, "Anyone in government that says this was a missile only has half a brain", and to the CIA cartoon that libeled hundreds of eyewitnesses.

Witnesses or "Untouchables"?

1. The day after Flight 800 was shot down, the Justice Department, helped by 1,000 FBI agents, began the process of converting hundreds of witnesses into the first American "untouchable cast". The political leadership of the NTSB aborted its mission in one surrender of its responsibilities after another. When the Justice Department illegally ordered the NTSB crash investigators to have no contact with witnesses or their statements, and the NTSB complied, the investigation was over, the cover-up and Misprision of Felony Homicide had begun.

2. At the NTSB Public Hearing in December of 1997, the word "witnesses" was not even mentioned. Before and since, they have been ridiculed, slandered and liabled in official videotapes and statements made by government spokesmen.

3. On March 15, 1999 the derailment of the Spirit of New Orleans after she hit a steel truck at a railroad crossing in Bourbonnaise IL, prompted a media wide call for witnesses by NTSB officials. It seems a witness was needed to prove the truck had driven around the safety gate. Apparently, investigations are much simpler and witnesses more creditable for the NTSB when there is no White House interest.

4. We have access to 107 witnesses on 4 aircraft, 19 boats, and 31 locations ashore. They were located in a 360B0 circle around the missile engagement. Their live testimony alone will prove the aircraft was shot down. This is why the Justice Department has kept air crash investigators away from witnesses for 2 1/2 years and also one reason they are conducting a malicious show-trial prosecution of author and outside investigator James Sanders and his wife. It's hard to interview witnesses from a Federal prison. The FBI failed to identify and interview 17 of these people. Among these 17 are witnesses on a boat who may have seen the escaping shooter.

Justice Department suppression of Missile Evidence

1. It appears, aggressive FBI missile-team field agents eventually solved the problem as to the cause of the crash, but had no support in the FBI leadership. In fact, the FBI leadership seems to have deliberately withheld vital information from their own agents.

2. George Gabrial, the senior FBI Agent on Long Island and personal friend of Mr. Kalstrom, was a close witness on his boat. We can provide witnesses who overheard him say he believed what he observed was a missile. FBI missile-team members did not know he was a witness until we informed them.

3. The FBI has videotape that was shown to military experts of a missile shot from off the coast of Long Island that failed to engage a target. This first attempt was nearly coincidental to the Khobar Towers attack 3 weeks before Flight 800s loss.

4. By late September, 1996, FBI missile-team members had established informal liaison with military missile guidance experts. By that time the FBI knew witnesses at sea on all sides were pointing to a missile launch a few miles southeast of Flight 800's explosion point. What they observed fit the profile of a MANPADS missile engagement.

5. In December 1996, FBI missile team members told military experts that two separate commercial fishermen dredged up and threw back a MANPADS first stage, the missile ejector-motor can. The ejector motor, about the size of a Coke can, fires in the tube, ejecting the missile, then drops in the water when the missile 2nd stage booster ignites.

6. The fishing vessel Alpha Omega recovered one of these motor cans in early October, 1996, while trawling for scallops about 2 nautical miles from Flight 800's explosion point. The crewman, not realizing the importance of his find, noted the two distinctive ignition wires attached to the can before he threw it overboard.

7. Despite overwhelming forensic evidence of a weapon impact in the number 2 main tank of the left wing and witness testimony of a missile attack, the Administration would not fund military missile experts or allow the FBI to trawl for missile parts until after the November 1996 elections.

8. The Alpha Omega was one of five trawlers contracted by the Navy Supervisor of Salvage for trawler operations. When FBI agents finally came aboard in November 1996 to begin trawling and brought pictures of three objects they were looking for, it was that point the crewman told them they were too late, he had already found and discarded an ejector can!

9. Responding to the previous findings, Special Agents Bongardt and Otto took a live ejector motor can from a Stinger missile aboard all the trawlers under contract, showing it to captain and crew.

10. Interrogated for hours, the Alpha Omega crewman insisted the can he found had the same features, ignition wires, etc. but was somehow different.

11. That interrogation should have prompted the FBI leadership to suspect they may have been dealing with the longer-range Chinese Vanguard or Russian SA16/18 missiles.

12. It is clear from the Supervisor of Salvage's operational trawling maps depicting "missile firing zones" and the FBI Trawling Operations Manual in our possession, that the Justice Department's intent was to find and hide from "other Interested Parties", missile ejector cans, missile battery cooling units and the last Flight 800 Scavenge Pump the NTSB was trying to blame as a source of a spark.

13. The $ 5 million trawling operation was funded by NTSB, contracted to civilian scallop boats through the Navy Supervisor of Salvage from 4 November 1996 until it was suddenly terminated on 30 April 1997, yet the trawlers were manned 24 hours a day by teams of FBI agents. Up until 30 April 1997 the scallop boat captains had been told the operation would continue indefinitely for months or even years. FBI agents got the word via cell phone to shut down the operations. On two of the boats, when the captains refused to stop until the Navy contractor on board told them to, the agents threatened force to make the captains shut down. The first agent backed down when the captain told him he would go anywhere at gunpoint, but the agent could expect to be charged with piracy on the high seas when they got ashore. The second agent backed down when the captain informed him that he was armed also and he was the captain and they weren't going anywhere!

14. The FBI's trawling plan was flawed in the following ways.

a. The missile firing zones depicted on the charts were 1.75 NM and 2.7 NM radius circles. These distances are accurate for two types of MANPADS but the Chinese Vanguard exceeds those ranges.

b. They used the last transponder response from the aircraft as the aircraft explosion point. The aircraft was traveling east over 2,900 feet between each transponder response. A two-second error would move the trawling off by 1/4 mile.

c. They failed to notice, until December 1996, a recorded surface radar contact only 2.9 NM from Flight 800 when it exploded!

d. They failed to identify that boat!

e. They failed to adjust the trawling lines to cover that boat's surface track while it was in range of TWA Flight 800.

15. The FBI told military experts they had a witness who perfectly described a MANPADS engagement terminating in an impact on Flight 800s left wing root. It includes boost; sustainer-motor burn and total missile fly-out time typical of the US Stinger and its copies.

16. Military thermal imaging of B747-100s provided to the FBI by China Lake Naval Air Weapons Facility, indicate a MANPADS missile fired from a low forward quarter would guide toward the three air pack exhaust ports, directly under the center wing tank and not, as publicly stated for the engine nacelles. See attached Thermal Imaging.

17. Military computer modeling of the TWA 800 engagement, using Stinger data, shows the missiles velocity would degrade to 400 meters per second as it climbed through 13,700 ft. This would cause the circular error probability (CEP) to expand to 20 ft. or more, allowing an impact almost anywhere on the aircraft.

18. Stinger guidance technology provides a last instant steer-forward command to avoid a miss by flying through an engine exhaust plume. Such a command would explain a missile, fired from in front, steering for the air pack exhausts under the center wing, impacting forward on the left wing root leading edge.

19. The Stinger, for example, has a two-pound warhead with three fusing options, contact, penetration and time-out.

20. Using stinger missile fly-out data provided to the FBI by military experts, the combined velocity of missile body and aircraft at impact would be 1950 ft/sec.

21. If the cockpit voice recorder hasn't been tampered with, an audio laboratory should be able to discern this velocity through its analysis of recorded frequencies. This may be why the NTSB has refused to allow the Cockpit Voice Recorder group to convene and study the data generated from the Bruntingthorpe tests done in England.

22. E 3D BD MV2 would predict kinetic energy available at impact of over 1.2 million foot pounds.

23. The kinetic energy from a missile body entering the number two main, BE full of fuel, at mach 1.8 would cause the tank to burst from hydraulic overpressurization.

24. Fused for penetration, the two-pound high explosive warhead, bursting in the fuel could impart an additional 200-PSI spike of hydraulic ram overpressure.

25. Jet fuel is over 700 times the density of air. A MANPADS missile warheads fragment would be stopped in a few feet of fuel, negating high velocity fragment damage to aircraft components. Mr. Kalstroms public statements repeatedly used the lack of high velocity fragment damage as an excuse to ignore witnesses and shutdown the investigation.

26. The Navy China Lake missile impact "Quick Look Engineering Study" identified 4 criteria for expected damage if a shoulder fired missile hit a 747-100 inboard main fuel tank. All four are caused by hydraulic over pressurization of fuel tanks. All four are in evidence on the left wing. None of these criteria have ever been seen in previous air crashes.

27. The China Lake reports first two recommendations were to detonate shoulder-fired missile warheads in fuel tanks to determine if the fragments would be trapped and to do live firing of these missiles at inboard main tanks to compare to left wing damage on Flight 800.

28. Mr. Kalstrom ignored all seven recommendations; cherry picked statements out of the China Lake report and used them out of context in the media to argue the aircraft was not shot down.

29. When Mr. Kalstrom was faced with having to take action on the China Lake report he chose to shut down the investigation.

30. At the time the FBI investigation was prematurely shut down in November of 1997, the FBI had failed to identify a fast moving boat captured on radar only 2.9 nautical miles from Flight 800 when it exploded. Mr. Schirilo, who replaced Mr. Kalstrom, admitted that fact in a letter to Congressman Traficant.

31. After his retirement, Mr. Kalstrom was taped stating the boat captured on radar was really a helicopter. Considering the radar target was non-transponder and was tracked on the surface at speed below 36 knots for 35 minutes prior to disappearing over the horizon, even FBI agents have acknowledged Mr. Kalstroms excuse is nonsense.

32. Witnesses afloat and ashore observed a six second missile burn (Stinger rocket burn is 6 BD seconds) coming from the near vicinity of the unidentified boat.

33. Senior Justice Department officials need to be compelled to answer under oath why testing essential to determine if Flight 800 was brought down by a shoulder fired missile was not funded and why they ignored the forensic evidence, military experts, witnesses and their own FBI field agents.

The Search for the Black Boxes

1. Discovery of the plight of the Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder and their two Ducane Pingers, after water entry, may be the key to unlocking the cover-up. We can show a Grand Jury how Mr. Clinton personally involved himself.

2. The NTSB is extremely sensitive to the subject of Black Boxes. They opened the boxes without any investigators from the Interested Parties present. They refused to allow TWA's investigator to listen to the voice recorder more than once.

3. The Voice Recorder has a "sound like damaged tape" precisely seven seconds prior to its end. Seven seconds prior to missile impact would be coincidental to MANPADS booster ignition. A visually bright event that could be seen by the First Officer.

4. Dr. Loeb has refused to release Addendum number two to the Flight Data Recorder Analysis that was written to rebut our interpretation of the last data line. The NTSB even refuses to let the Voice Recorder Analysis group reconvene!

5. The Administration's explanation of the circumstances under which the USS Grasp" divers found the Digital Flight Data Recorder and the Cockpit Voice Recorder is highly questionable.

6. According to divers we interviewed and the Navy Supervisor of Salvage Report, Navy divers from the USS Grasp found the recorders during Dive #2 and Dive #3 on the evening of 23 July 1996. The Administration maintains these same divers found them more than 24 hours later at 2330 hours on 24 July 1996. East coast TV news coverage ends at 23:30.

7. The most probable motive for this deception was to ensure investigators, who are Parties to the Investigation, were not witnesses when NTSB/FBI officials were alleged to have first opened the boxes in Washington during the early morning hours of 25 July 1996.

8. The boxes should have been found in the aircraft tail cone section, or within its debris. Instead, divers from the Grasp found each box 30 feet apart on a hard sand bottom, devoid of any attached debris and neither Ducane Pinger was operating. They appeared just as they would if dropped overboard from a boat!

9. Somehow both Ducane Systems fixed themselves while in FBI custody. They were found to be fault-free in laboratory test days later.

10. The small cylindrical Ducane Pingers are mounted on the narrow front face of each oblong rectangular box. They are protected from damage because they are bolted firmly to the inside angle of a short piece of angle iron. Because of their shape, the probability of either free falling box landing on the bottom with the pinger stuck in the sand, would be akin to a free falling domino landing on it's end and remaining standing in that position.

11. The only way Ducane Pingers can be silenced under water without evidence of damage is by partly unscrewing the battery connection.

12. The probability of both undamaged Ducane Pingers failing simultaneously in a shallow open ocean environment, on top of a hard sand bottom, approaches that of a spontaneous aviation kerosene explosion in an ignition-free Boeing 747-100 fuel tank.

13. We consider the fact the NTSB has remained mute about these alleged Ducane failures is Prima Facie evidence of either abject incompetence on the part of the NTSB who should have opened an inquiry into the cause, or proof of a cover-up of NTSB misconduct.

14. Weeks Marine, Inc. was verbally contracted by both the Coast Guard and FAA officials the night of the crash to position for salvage operations. They were on site the next morning with the best salvage equipment available in the Atlantic. It was superior to Navy assets, but Weeks Marine was stood down by the NTSB. It would be five more days before Navy divers would be on scene to recover recorders, bodies, etc! Why the forced wait?

15. Holding Weeks Marine, Inc. to standby while ordering Navy assets to respond from far away points deliberately condemned victims trapped in bottom wreckage to five additional days of ravage by natural elements. This grossly compounded the grief of the families and put at risk the ability of medical examiners to identify all remains. The White House was responsible for this order.

16. Circumstantial evidence indicates the Administration, knowing the aircraft to be shot down, may have ordered a covert recovery, laboratory examination and reinsertion of the recorders to ensure the aircrew did not describe the attack on audio tape. Scuba divers could have recovered the recorders on the afternoon of 18 July and dropped them back overboard after 10 am 22 July, before the USS Grasp and Navy divers were on scene. During that period of time NOAA research vessel Rude and the motor vessel Pirouette were simultaneously sent 5 miles off the main debris field on a "wild goose chase" by the NTSB. Both ships had been mapping that field with side scan sonar!

17. Properly done, a scuba team equipped with a Ducane locator amplifier tube, held over the side, could position a small boat directly over active pingers, dive and recover the boxes in a single effort. Active pingers can be detected by divers 300 yards away.

18. We have a witness that has passed a polygraph test and has provided a sworn affidavit that a member of the NTSB leadership told him the recorders were found and examined by 20 July. The Coast Guard told both TWA maintenance and Congressman Forbes that the recorders were found on 18 July. The next day, 19 July, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was told the aircraft was shot down by terrorists. Senators Hatch and D'Amato made public statements to the same effect.

19. White House, NTSB and Justice Department officials need to be compelled to explain these events and their actions under oath. We also have other individuals who have asked to remain anonymous who should be questioned under oath.

20. Despite a steep learning curve and the best efforts of some if its most aggressive field agents, FBI leadership has demonstrated itself to be functionally illiterate in the critical areas of; military weapons and tactics, radar interpretation and air crash investigation. The fact the White House failed to immediately assign appropriate elements of the Department of Defense as lead investigators in the missile inquiry is inculpatory.

Gentlemen, we have the "FBI Trawler Operations Manual" and Operations Order as well as other documents left behind aboard a contract boat by FBI agents. If found, the Justice Department intended to hide from your companies; the last fuel scavenge pump, a missile ejector can and the missile battery cooling unit!

TWA Flight 800 was the 27th civil aircraft shot down worldwide by shoulder fired missiles. The Administrations actions have greatly increased the danger of a recurrence, not only because of the deception of this case but because administration policy deliberately fails to link any terrorist act to the government of the Sponsor State. This provides political cover for the Administration's lack of action and sanctuary to deadly enemies.

I will point out the coincidence of the Clinton Administration's pro Arab, anti Israeli policy shift and the arrival on our shores of a creditable anti-aircraft threat under the control of rogue states. In 1994, the Maryland State Police found a fully armed French MANPADS missile, the Mistral, ready to fire on its tripod, directly under a heavily used air corridor near Westminster Maryland.

Our research also found U.S. Stinger technology transferred to China in the early 90s enabling them to produce the Vanguard, a quality shoulder fired Chinese missile. It was deployed first in 1996. If past history is an indicator, the China / Iran weapons transfer link bodes ill for future air commerce.

In a worse case scenario, absent a respected American Commander-in-Chief, Irans Supreme Council, or other rogue state, could successfully shutdown or disrupt major traffic hubs worldwide by activating surrogate cells armed with Vanguard. If they can shoot down one, why not a half dozen on a single day?

Gentlemen, the time to act is now, regardless of any arrangements you may or may not have had to accept. Once the American people understand the truth, your corporations will be indemnified against any further political extortion from this administration.

We would ask, in the interest of long term air safety, that you take an aggressive and public pro-active stance. Challenge the Administration; educate the media and the electorate. Severance from a politicized and fraudulent Federal investigation is no penalty and maintenance of the status quo is certainly no prize.

Sincerely,

Cmdr. William S. Donaldson

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 11, 2000.

My Fool Name said

Wow! Maybe you can explain to me how a control surface that can only be operated by sending signals through a computer could possibly be moved by applying enough 25 kg. of pressure. Is that whta it takes to push the computer out of the way? LOL

Maybe that's what stripped the screw when the computer failed, you dumbf*ck.

-- you're an idiot (@ .), February 11, 2000.

My Fool Name said

Wow! Maybe you can explain to me how a control surface that can only be operated by sending signals through a computer could possibly be moved by applying enough 25 kg. of pressure. Is that whta it takes to push the computer out of the way? LOL

Maybe that's what stripped the screw when the computer failed, you dumbf*ck.

-- you're an idiot (@ .), February 11, 2000.

Now that's a textbook troll post!

-- i oughta know (doublestandard@this.place), February 11, 2000.

My Fool Name says..

" Hey Chicken-Hawk! Help me out here! I can't seem to find the damned stabilizer servocontroller and servomotors in any of those schematics. Surely someone as brilliant as you will have no problem finding them and pointing them out to all us ignorant slobs! I mean, surely you would never post something that you were not absolutely 100% sure of, would you? "

Not only are you dumber than all crap, I think your'e blind too!

"Wow! Maybe you can explain to me how a control surface that can only be operated by sending signals through a computer could possibly be moved by applying enough 25 kg. of pressure. Is that whta it takes to push the computer out of the way?"

The servo drive controls the motor you ignorant slob!

You are losing the battle big-time moron, get lost.

-- whatanass (myfullname@has.braindamage), February 11, 2000.

First, to the only reasonably intelligent person who disagrees with me, thank you for posting the information Robert. That is a lot to digest but I do notice that much of it is phrases such as "We can prove ..." but without the actual proof. Not to say such proof doesn't exist but it makes me more skeptical.

Now, to the School teacher: Excuuuuse me! I never implied nor claimed to be an aviation expert so what is your point. My background is in automatic control systems, primarily industrial applications but the underlying concepts are the same. The fact that the only thing you can challenge is my spelling speaks volumes!

To the idiot:

Maybe that's what stripped the screw when the computer failed, you dumbf*ck.

Maybe you should try reading the whole gist of the argument before responding so you don't look like such an ass! Hawk stated that all control surface movement was done through the digital flight computer and I merely pointed out an example that proved otherwise. Also, how would adjusting the hydraulic actuator on the ELEVATOR affect the jackscrew on the STABILIZER a separate mechanical and electrical system. Reading comprehension -- try it, you'll like it.

And finally, to whatanass:

Not only are you dumber than all crap, I think your'e blind too!

Maybe you can point it out since you are so intelligent. I see servos for the elevators, rudder, ailerons, and autothrottle, but none for the stabilizer, the part in question! Hawk even posted a link to a complete description of the operation of the stabilizer which showed it had no servo. Try again!

The servo drive controls the motor you ignorant slob!

What are you babbling about? A servodrive controls a servomotor. The stabilizer uses standard DC motors with forward and reverse motion, which can be operated by switches wired DIRECTLY from the flight console to the motor. How many times does this have to be repeated? hawk even provide the link to the Aviation Week article that described it. The stabilzer does not have a servodmotor or a servodrive, period!

As I said above, this example was simply to refute Hawk's assertion that all controls had to go through the computer. A hydraulicly controlled actuator which can be moved with 25 kg. of force is not reliant on the flight computer for anything when the autopilot is disengaged. Maybe you and idiot can get a group discount on reading lessons.

You are losing the battle big-time moron, get lost.

Translation: We can't keep up this sham of an argument any longer so go away before you make us look like complete morons.

-- My Full Name (My@email.address), February 11, 2000.

Link to Cmdr. William S. Donaldson's letter that Robert posted above http://twa800.com/Sanders/CEO .htm">

My Full Name said, "First, to the only reasonably intelligent person who disagrees with me, thank you for posting the information Robert. That is a lot to digest but I do notice that much of it is phrases such as "We can prove ..." but without the actual proof. Not to say such proof doesn't exist but it makes me more skeptical."

MFN, with 1,000 FBI and the full force of the Administration's life threatening pressures on the NTSB and everyone connected to the Flight 800 to cover up what really happened, certainly you can imagine that people such as Cmdr. Donaldson are careful about how and to whom they will disclosed the information they have.

In the letter, Donaldson says, "When the Justice Department illegally ordered the NTSB crash investigators to have no contact with witnesses or their statements, and the NTSB complied, the investigation was over, the cover-up and Misprision of Felony Homicide had begun."

How can the Justice Department justify an order of forbidding investigators to interview or have contact with witnesses?

He goes on to say "This is why the Justice Department has kept air crash investigators away from witnesses for 2 1/2 years and also one reason they are conducting a malicious show-trial prosecution of author and outside investigator James Sanders and his wife. It's hard to interview witnesses from a Federal prison."

So Sanders and his wife are in federal prison for investigating the flight, (perhaps he aproached witnesses and obtain damaging info?) Do you realize that Cmdr Donaldson himself risks of being put into federal prison if he attemps to bring forth publicly the "proofs" you're talking about? Then what help can he be to bring the truth out in public from a cell in federal prison? One man against Goliath.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 11, 2000.

I will state one more time, the trim motors are not digital servo motors and are not subject to timing failures which your originaly claimed were the problem.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), February 11, 2000.

WW,

There you go again, just can't seem to get it through your THICK head.

No one said the MOTORS were digital. The SERVO DRIVE is digital. This is similar in concept to an electronic ignition on an automobile. The motor is NOT digital, but a digital electronic device CONTROLS it.

It is a SEPERATE piece of equipment!

It is a SEPERATE piece of equipment!

It is a SEPERATE piece of equipment!

It is a SEPERATE piece of equipment!

It is a SEPERATE piece of equipment!

Got it yet? I thought not.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 11, 2000.

Ok, I know my spelling is bad too, but if you are going to capitalize a word over and over, use a SEPARATE spell checker.

Does anyone get to the bottom of these really long posts?

-- I'mSo (lame@prepped.com), February 12, 2000.

Of course, ImSo. As you surely know, people have died and probably will keep on dying because of this yet unresolved "stabilizer" problem on MD-80s and DC-9s and possibly Boeing aircraft (Egypt Air). In that case it's a BITR only for those of us that get to read about it, but it's definetly TEOTWATKI for those that get a stiff leg, don't you agree?

Consequently, as TPTB and the press do not help any to clarify this situation, many a fat fish comes here to find out deeper and meaningful information, plus analysis. Not always do they find it, but eventually it's here for whoever has an open mind and looks hard enough.

As you should know ImSo, embedded systems elsewhere are also partially or totally affected by Y2K, although it's hard to know their precise identity, location, and impact. So because of this the Yourdon forum also makes for interesting reading.

And it's not only yourdonites that lurk thoroughly and constantly. It's journalists (check the New York Times quotes taken from 'Mad Monk' and 'Kritter' statements) and intelligence service people, not just FBI, but also private, worldwide.

Whether you like it or not ImSo, Y2K still remains a one trillion dollar problem ($1,000,000,000,000 --that's thirteen digits) yet unresolved.

Until we all find out the etiology and epidemiology of this bug, we are all still facing the real possibility of an AIDS-type epidemic in the technology arena. In case of doubt, look what's happening to oil production, distribution, and refineries.

The fat lady ain't sung yet.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), February 12, 2000.

There does not appear to be a "computer" with a potential Y2K error that caused the crash. No-where in the diagram is there a reference to one. So the diagram shows wolf is wrong.There is no "main computer" that could have a Y2K problem and send out the wrong signal. Also, just because there are wiring diagrams, it does not mean the signals are digital, there is a lot of electronic voltages flowing through them.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), February 12, 2000.

And yet ANOTHER emergency landing of an MD-80 series aircraft at Sky Harbor International Airport, Arizona.

Should Sysops open up a new "MD-80 accidents and failures" category?

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), February 12, 2000.