Prof. Spins Alternate TWA 800 Theory

Nearly two years ago TWA Flight 800 exploded and fell from the sky off of the coast of Long Island, N.Y. Investigators have since pointed to faulty wiring in the plane's fuel tank but have yet to find conclusive evidence of what caused the crash.

However, in an article in the April 8 issue of The New York Book Review, Elaine Scarry, Cabot professor of aesthetics and the general theory of value, alleges that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) overlooked a potential cause: electromagnetic interference (EMI) from nearby military activity.

In her article, the English professor details the danger EMI pose to aircraft and how EMI from nearby military aircraft and warships might have caused the guidance and electrical systems of Flight 800 to malfunction. This, she says, may have led to the catastrophic explosion that killed all 229 aboard.

The 19,000-word article addresses several perplexing coincidences, unanswered questions and intriguing leads.

"Each piece that came forward gave me more of an obligation to make it audible," Scarry said.

Her article has been distributed to NTSB staff and has garnered significant media attention, primarily overseas.

In a letter to Scarry dated April 21st, NTSB Chair Jim Hall called the article "quite interesting," and said thatpresently "the [NTSB] investigative team isworking with private concentrators and themilitary to determine the effects of EMI and [HighIntensity Radiation Fields] on Boeing 747s."

Rear Admiral Eugene J. Carrol Jr., a formercarrier group commander and now deputy director ofthe Center for Defense Information, a privateconsulting firm, takes a stronger stance. He urgesa full reopening of the investigation.

"I think NTSB and the FBI really shouldevaluate Professor Scarry's hypothesis," saidCarrol, whom Scarry quoted in her article. "NTSBneeds to review the investigation to see to whatextent the data they have gathered suggests anyother cause of the fuel tank explosion."

Invisible Interference

EMI describes an effect that occurs when energywaves collide. Most commonly seen as the fuzzylines that appear on a television when a hairdryer is turned on or the static heard on AM radiostations during a lightening storm, EMI is causedby the interaction of electric and magneticfields.

Small electrical devices can similarly distorta plane's navigational instruments. To preventjust such electrical interference, the FAArequires all passengers to "turn off allcomputers, headsets, radios and telephones" duringtakeoff and landing. Although the energy radiatedby these devices is small, it can travel outwardto antennas mounted on the skin of the plane,causing serious interference in the aircraft'snavigational instruments and guidance systems.

The danger of EMI is so great that it hasbecome an offensive military weapon. "Jamming," orthe use of EMI to disable enemy radar andcommunications systems, is an integral part ofmodern warfare. Planes, ships and ground-basedtransceivers equipped with jamming electronics canthrow millions, or in some cases, billions ofwatts of energy at enemy targets.

High intensity EMI can also cause sparks in thesame way metal leads to sparks in a microwave. Ifa spark is close to the fuel tank, as FAA reportsshow, the fuel tank can ignite.

"Physical arcing and overheating can beproduced with intense jamming," says Carrol. "Youhave an arc [in military planes], but it's not inthe middle of a bunch of jet fuel."

Military Cover-up?

In her recent article, Scarry notes that EMIhas caused military aircraft crashes in the past.Between 1982 and 1988, six Black Hawk helicopterscrashed as a result of EMI, killing 22. During a1986 mission near Libya, EMI also caused the crashof an F111 bomber and disabled five others.

"If military planes can be downed by EMI, whycan't civilian planes be downed by EMI?" Scarryasks in the article. In trying to answer thatquestion, however, Scarry ran into a wall ofhighly classified military documents.

Two military reports, a 1988 Air Force Studyand the other a $35 million three-year Pentagoninvestigation, have studied the effects of EMI onaircraft. Yet, findings remain classified, withaccess denied to both the public and NTSBinvestigators of TWA Flight 800.

In fact, the only government report on EMIavailable to the public is a 1994 NASA studydetailing the dangers of a special kind of EMIcalled High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF).

"HIRF may often [have] inadvertent effects oncivilian aircraft," the NASA report says. Compiledby researcher Martin Shooman, report findingsindicate that EMIs occur at "an intermediate andnot insignificant level."

Scarry questions the secrecy of militaryactivity on the evening of the Flight 800 crash.If there is no danger, she says, why have reportsbeen classified and why has the military refusedto divulge any information on the location andactivity of military planes, helicopters and ships"in the vicinity"?

The Pentagon was unavailable for commentyesterday.

In her article, Scarry cites evidence ofmilitary activity the night of Flight 800's crash.Planes take the route Flight 800 was flying,referred to as the "Betty route," when militaryexercises force the closing of air space locatedover Long Island in areas adjacent to TWA 800'sflight path.

Scarry says she does not know the "level orintensity" of military exercises underway at thetime of the crash because the Pentagon refuses topublicly divulge such information. In the article,she explores the possibility that the 10 or somilitary aircraft the Pentagon admits were "in thevicinity" at the time of the crash could haveeffected Flight 800.

Most intriguing, she says, was the presence ofa Navy P3 Orion, an airplane full of electroniccounter measures, that crossed 6,300 feet aboveFlight 800, intersecting its latitude andlongitude "the moment the catastrophe began."

"If a sudden pulse or electromagnetic spike canshort out a wire or...by disrupting electroniccircuits, simply cut off the fuel supply or makethe flight controls on a plane go dead," Scarrysays," isn't it relevant to determine theelectromagnetic features of the air through whichthe plane aspired to fly that night?"

Evidence From the Black Box

A Boeing 747-100 like Flight 800 has over 150miles of electrical wiring, Scarry says, and manysystems can be disabled or act erratically in thepresence of EMI. According to Scarry, EMI cancause a pilot flying such a craft to lose controlof steering mechanisms as the aircraft controlsurfaces (rudders, ailerons and flaps) becomeunresponsive to cockpit "fly by wire" controls.

In her article, Scarry cites evidence thatFlight 800 may have exhibited symp-9THEOR

Rear Admiral Eugene J. Carrol Jr., a formercarrier group commander and now deputy director ofthe Center for Defense Information, a privateconsulting firm, takes a stronger stance. He urgesa full reopening of the investigation.

"I think NTSB and the FBI really shouldevaluate Professor Scarry's hypothesis," saidCarrol, whom Scarry quoted in her article. "NTSBneeds to review the investigation to see to whatextent the data they have gathered suggests anyother cause of the fuel tank explosion."

Invisible Interference

EMI describes an effect that occurs when energywaves collide. Most commonly seen as the fuzzylines that appear on a television when a hairdryer is turned on or the static heard on AM radiostations during a lightening storm, EMI is causedby the interaction of electric and magneticfields.

Small electrical devices can similarly distorta plane's navigational instruments. To preventjust such electrical interference, the FAArequires all passengers to "turn off allcomputers, headsets, radios and telephones" duringtakeoff and landing. Although the energy radiatedby these devices is small, it can travel outwardto antennas mounted on the skin of the plane,causing serious interference in the aircraft'snavigational instruments and guidance systems.

The danger of EMI is so great that it hasbecome an offensive military weapon. "Jamming," orthe use of EMI to disable enemy radar andcommunications systems, is an integral part ofmodern warfare. Planes, ships and ground-basedtransceivers equipped with jamming electronics canthrow millions, or in some cases, billions ofwatts of energy at enemy targets.

High intensity EMI can also cause sparks in thesame way metal leads to sparks in a microwave. Ifa spark is close to the fuel tank, as FAA reportsshow, the fuel tank can ignite.

"Physical arcing and overheating can beproduced with intense jamming," says Carrol. "Youhave an arc [in military planes], but it's not inthe middle of a bunch of jet fuel."

Military Cover-up?

In her recent article, Scarry notes that EMIhas caused military aircraft crashes in the past.Between 1982 and 1988, six Black Hawk helicopterscrashed as a result of EMI, killing 22. During a1986 mission near Libya, EMI also caused the crashof an F111 bomber and disabled five others.

"If military planes can be downed by EMI, whycan't civilian planes be downed by EMI?" Scarryasks in the article. In trying to answer thatquestion, however, Scarry ran into a wall ofhighly classified military documents.

Two military reports, a 1988 Air Force Studyand the other a $35 million three-year Pentagoninvestigation, have studied the effects of EMI onaircraft. Yet, findings remain classified, withaccess denied to both the public and NTSBinvestigators of TWA Flight 800.

In fact, the only government report on EMIavailable to the public is a 1994 NASA studydetailing the dangers of a special kind of EMIcalled High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF).

"HIRF may often [have] inadvertent effects oncivilian aircraft," the NASA report says. Compiledby researcher Martin Shooman, report findingsindicate that EMIs occur at "an intermediate andnot insignificant level."

Scarry questions the secrecy of militaryactivity on the evening of the Flight 800 crash.If there is no danger, she says, why have reportsbeen classified and why has the military refusedto divulge any information on the location andactivity of military planes, helicopters and ships"in the vicinity"?

The Pentagon was unavailable for commentyesterday.

In her article, Scarry cites evidence ofmilitary activity the night of Flight 800's crash.Planes take the route Flight 800 was flying,referred to as the "Betty route," when militaryexercises force the closing of air space locatedover Long Island in areas adjacent to TWA 800'sflight path.

Scarry says she does not know the "level orintensity" of military exercises underway at thetime of the crash because the Pentagon refuses topublicly divulge such information. In the article,she explores the possibility that the 10 or somilitary aircraft the Pentagon admits were "in thevicinity" at the time of the crash could haveeffected Flight 800.

Most intriguing, she says, was the presence ofa Navy P3 Orion, an airplane full of electroniccounter measures, that crossed 6,300 feet aboveFlight 800, intersecting its latitude andlongitude "the moment the catastrophe began."

"If a sudden pulse or electromagnetic spike canshort out a wire or...by disrupting electroniccircuits, simply cut off the fuel supply or makethe flight controls on a plane go dead," Scarrysays," isn't it relevant to determine theelectromagnetic features of the air through whichthe plane aspired to fly that night?"

Evidence From the Black Box

A Boeing 747-100 like Flight 800 has over 150miles of electrical wiring, Scarry says, and manysystems can be disabled or act erratically in thepresence of EMI. According to Scarry, EMI cancause a pilot flying such a craft to lose controlof steering mechanisms as the aircraft controlsurfaces (rudders, ailerons and flaps) becomeunresponsive to cockpit "fly by wire" controls.

In her article, Scarry cites evidence thatFlight 800 may have exhibited symp-9THEOR