The Simulation Of Flight 800.

This section of my website has been awarded a Lycos top 5% of the net award!


This is the video that was shown the first day when it was announced that the investigation had found no evidence of a missile. Note that there is no sign of either a pitch up, or a stall condition indicated in the version shown on November 18th.



Note that in the last half of the "simulation", the 747 is depicted remaining in stable flight even though the nose has been removed.

Let us begin our analysis of why this is inaccurate with an explanation and a diagram from the Jeppeson student pilot manual; the same one every student pilot in America reads.

If an aircraft is stable about its lateral
axis, it will not pitch up or down unless
some force raises or lowers the nose of
the aircraft. If the aircraft is statically
stable about its lateral axis, it will resist
any force which might cause it to pitch,
and it will return to level flight when the
force is removed. This resistance to
pitch-up and pitch-down motion is called
longitudinal stability because the air-
plane is stable along the longitudinal
axis. Of the three types of stability of an
aircraft in flight, this type is the most

To obtain longitudinal stability , the air-
craft is designed so it is slightly nose-
heavy. During normal flight, the aircraft
has a continuous tendency to descend.
However, this tendency is offset by the hori-
zontal tail surfaces (stabilizer) being set at
a negative angle of attack_ This position
produces a downward, or negative, lift so
the downward force on the tail exactly
counteracts the nose hea@ness at a pre-
determined aircraft speed. (See Fig. 1-47_)

Aircraft with natural stability, whether a toy glider, a Cessna, or a 747, achieve that stability by designing the aircraft so that the center of gravity is slightly forward of the center of lift. The plane is balanced by the pressure of the tail downward, called the "tail drag". By keeping the aerodynamic center (the wings) aft of the center of gravity, the plane is kept naturally stable. It will fly with the nose forward. The same with the flights of a dart or the fletching on an arrow. The stable configuration is with the aerodynamic center to the rear of the center of gravity.

With the exception of modern combat CCV aircraft, which require computer control to maintain stability, all aircraft, from the Wright Flyer to the Space Shuttle, follow these same principles.

Without the nose, the center of gravity of the aircraft would move aft of the aerodynamic center. Continued level flight in that configuration is an impossibility. Trying to fly a 747 without it's nose would be like trying to throw a dart backwards. Both would tumble, trying to swap ends. In the case of the 747, the wings, even if they did not tear off while flat on to the 340 knot airstream, would lose all lift, and gravity would take over.


You don't need a degree in aeronautics to prove this to yourself. Just go down to the toy store and blow some bucks on a decent sized balsa or Styrofoam glider. The larger the better. Trim it out so that it flies level, then, while leaving enough material to keep the wing in place, cut off the nose to simulate flight 800's lost forward section. Use the scorch marks in the following photo as a guide.

Now try to get the glider to fly. See if by throwing it level you can get it to climb just 10 feet. See if you can throw it UPWARDS 10 feet.

It is perfectly appropriate to use a model 747 to simulate the behavior of the real airplane. That is, after all, how Boeing designed the damned thing. And let's not forget all those taxpayer funded wind tunnels that predict the performance of full sized military aircraft based on tiny models.

Net Eagle Conducts The Above Experiment!

Re-examine the above video. It doesn't show the 747 pitching up violently following the loss of the nose. It shows the plane continuing in stable flight. The 747 should have swapped ends like a dart being thrown backwards the instant the nose came off. Does the video show that?

No, it doesn't.

The video shows a noseless plane continuing in stable flight.


The 747 is NOT a "fly by wire" aircraft. The control yokes in the cockpit are connected directly to the primary flight control surfaces. The 747 can be (and has been) flown without the hydraulic systems operating.

The connection to the control surfaces is by paired cable. As the nose pulled away, the strain would eventually break one of the two cables. At that point, the other cable would be yanked to the extreme limit of it's travel, and with it, the control surface it was connected to!

This means that the rudder, the elevators, and the outer ailerons were yanked all the way to one side when the nose tore off, which at 340 knots would have thrown the aircraft into a tight roll plus yaw, neither of which is shown on the CIA video tape.

Phone calls to Boeing engineers confirmed the above facts.


There is an old saying that wisdom comes from knowing when to quit.

Take the recent spate of videos by various government agencies purporting to show the demise of TWA 800 in a manner that produced the ascending streak seen by the barred-from-the-hearings eyewitnesses.

This latest offering from the NTSB, shown in place of the already discredited CIA version and the equally discredited network TV versions shown last November 18th at least appears to address some of the criticisms posted to the internet with regard to those earlier efforts. Instead of a wings level climb as seen in the CIA version, the roll that would be expected from the loss of the nose and it's effect on the flight controls is clearly seen. The doomed 747 corkscrews in the sky in great sweeping loops, whereas the CIA's version showed the jet climbing wings-level up, then nosing over and falling more or less straight down. Cinematically, the NTSB's is much more visually interesting than the CIA's version.

And that's the problem with it. It's DIFFERENT from the other versions!

And it shouldn't be.

Not if everyone is supposedly working from the data of what really happened.

If these videos are all the result of thorough scientific investigation of the actual crash, the only thing that should vary from video to video is the camera point of view. The 747 should behave EXACTLY the same in every single version. There shouldn't be a single variance at all. If the wings remain level in one, they should remain level in all. If the 747 corkscrews in this latest version, it should have been corkscrewing all along.

Even without resorting to experiments with a model glider to prove that the noseless 747 would tumble in the sky, the mere fact that the videos show different things from one version to the next is the clearest proof that what we are seeing isn't science, but trial and error, searching for something that will sell a desired outcome to the largest percentage of the people who see it.

No wonder the eyewitnesses aren't being allowed to speak at the NTSB hearings!


Lou Desyron

"We saw what appeared to be a flare going straight up. As a matter of fact, we thought it was from a boat. It was bright reddish-orange color. Once it went into flames I knew that it wasn't a flare."

Naneen Levine

"I thought it was something on the beach going straight up. The red dot went up like this, sort of curved. It came to a point where I thought little fireworks were going to come down or just fade and be a flare."

11-9-96 N.Y. Daily News

"Red meteor with a smoke trail"

Paul Angelides

These statements plus the scanned police reports reveal a consistent description of the object being red, and in many cases leaving a white trail. Kerosene, when dumped into the air and ignited, burns bright yellow and leaves black smoke.



The Washington Weekly

Last week, the FBI called a press conference to announce that it
was closing down the investigation into the crash of TWA 800, and
that it was ruling out any foul play.

There was only one problem: the evidence. No less than 244
witnesses had seen the crash and a number of them had seen a
missile ascend and explode near the Boeing 747. So James
Kallstrom of the FBI spent much of his press conference on an
attempt to explain away the evidence. The rest of the time was
spent by Kallstrom praising government officials for their
"heroic efforts" in investigating this case.

Earlier this year, the FBI had tried to float a theory to explain
why so many witnesses saw a streak of light arc upwards just
before the explosion. The FBI suggested that a stream of leaking
fuel ignited and was visible miles away as a long trail of
burning fuel. This had worked well as a special effect in the
action movie "Die Hard," but was so ridiculous in the real world
that the theory was laughed off.

So the FBI went to the CIA to come up with a more plausible
scenario. Presented with much fanfare, dramatic narration and
music, a CIA video showed a computer animation of a Boeing 747
losing its nose section and then continuing to climb 3000 - 4000
feet before falling out of the sky.

Apart from the fact that the slow ascent of a burning 747 is
difficult to mistake for a fast missile -- especially by military
pilots trained in the detection hostile file, and who say they
unmistakably saw a missile -- the CIA has a slight problem with
aerodynamics in this scenario.

Any child who has played with model airplanes knows what happens
when the nose section is removed or the center of gravity is
shifted aft: the plane stalls. Washington Weekly columnist
Edward Zehr, a former aircraft engineer for Grumman Inc.,
confirms that even if the engines should continue running, a 747
will stall as well, and then fall from the sky. In short, half a
747 has about the aerodynamic properties of a pig.

There was another piece of revealing evidence that Kallstrom did
not mention. That was the wayward fax sent by Teledyne Ryan
Aeronautical to the FBI responding to an inquiry whether remnants
of a drone found at the crash scene matched anything produced by
Teledyne. Teledyne goofed, and sent the fax to the wrong number.
After the recipient was threatened by the FBI to destroy the
original, she brought it to The Southampton Press which published
it. What was a drone, often used as a target for missile
practice, doing near TWA 800 if there is no evidence of foul

So if the CIA video is not based on fact, does that mean that
this is the first time the CIA has employed its propaganda
division for domestic purposes and put its name to it?

If so, the mainstream press swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
The New York Times, as usual, uncritically propagated the FBI/CIA

"The F.B.I. has been justly criticized in recent years for
erratic and often furtive behavior, first with the Branch
Davidians in Waco and then at the Ruby Ridge standoff. This
time it appears to have acted with admirable thoroughness and

Waco (1993) happened before Ruby Ridge (1992), pigs can fly, and
the FBI acts with "admirable thoroughness and openness." Who
needs the Internet when we have such a great "free press?"

In Response To The Error In Their First Video, A Second Version Appears To Have Been Put Out.


This version of the video appeared after the above article appeared in the Washington Weekly echoing the internet discussion that a noseless airplane could not be expected to remain in stable flight. This version, unlike the excerpt shown on the 18th (top of this page) does appear to address the issue of a pitch up, but not the stall which would follow it. Note also the depiction of the noseless aircraft falling wing first, tail last, which is contrary to what would really happen with the center of gravity shifted aft of the center of lift.

More Articles

Statement from Boeing.

From The New York Observer.

Michael Sweeney's Letter To Congress.

Back To The Top.

Back To The Crash Page.

Back To The TWA Page.

Mail to:

drupal statistics