They Trust the Radar and Eyewitness Evidence 20 Years After the Crash
On July 7, 2016, Wanda Kemp, who lost two family members aboard TWA 800, sent a letter to NTSB Chairman Chris Hart with a list of questions asking about high velocity debris that radar sites recorded near the jetliner. The NTSB has yet to account for it, and Ms. Kemp wants to know why.
Three days later the Associated Press reported that Lisa Michelson believes witnesses when they “contend they saw a missile strike the airliner.” She lost her nineteen year old son and said it’s a “terrible cover-up”, according to the AP. Some witnesses that Michelson trusts are supported by the high velocity debris Ms. Kemp is asking about. The debris was recorded flying southward, away from the jetliner just as it lost electrical power, consistent with the trajectory of a high speed object seen approaching TWA 800 horizontally and exploding near it.
In video-recorded statements, Ms. Kemp and other family members expressed their support for high level whistle-blowers who cited the above and other evidence in a 2013 petition to the NTSB.
Ms. Kemp’s questions are based on a draft copy of a new statistical analysis of the radar evidence linked below, conducted by the team representing the whistle-blowers.
Ms. Kemp’s Questions: https://twa800project.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/ntsbsuggestedquestions.pdf
Radar report on which her questions are based:
https://twa800project.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/twa800-update-report.pdf
— Letter to NTSB —
Chairman Christopher Hart
National Transportation Safety Board
490 L’Enfant Plaza S.W.
Washington D.C., 20594
July 7, 2016
Dear Chairman Hart,
We are writing to inform you of significant problems with the NTSB’s July 2014 response to the TWA 800 Project’s petition for probable cause reconsideration and to respectfully request that you respond to the attached questions which address these problems.
The NTSB’s petition response contained many inaccurate and confusing statements, which unfortunately render it a misleading addition to the record. For example, in response to the petitioner’s analysis of evidence consistent with high velocity debris, the NTSB suggested that part CW504 (a “portion of the front spar”) may “account” for it. However, that part’s recovery location is inconsistent with the high velocity debris analyzed by the petitioners (see Figure 12 of the attached report) and no NTSB trajectory simulation at anytime, has it passing near or through the area highlighted in the petition, where multiple radar sites indicated high velocity debris traversed. The NTSB also suggested that a section of the right wing may account for the petitioners’ analyses, but no section of the right wing departed the aircraft before or while high velocity debris began appearing in the analyzed cluster.
Also, regarding the NTSB’s attempt to impugn the quality of the radar evidence that indicates high velocity debris, we note that the NTSB provided misleading and potentially irrelevant information in this regard. The NTSB did not report the results of any statistical analysis of the relevant radar data to support the general uncertainties listed, which apparently do not apply to the specific radar data in question. The attached report contains such an analysis, which the NTSB should attempt to reproduce, since it is relevant to the NTSB’s probable cause determination.
In light of the above and the many other significant problems with the NTSB’s petition response, we hope to hear back from you soon with answers to these important questions.
Thank you,
Family Member of 2 victims of TWA 800
Wanda Allen Kemp
cc:
Christopher O’Neil, NTSB Public Affairs
Chairman Frank A. LoBiondo, House Aviation Subcommittee
David Tochen, NTSB General Counsel
TWA Flight 800 