LETTER TO JAMES K. KALLSTROM FROM JOHN C. GANNON RE TWA FLIGHT 800

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 05782959
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: July 13, 2023
• Document Release Date: August 19, 2022
• Case Number: F-2020-01828
• Publication Date: March 18, 1997

Approved for Release: 2022/06/23 C05782959
Central Intelligence Agency
Wan on. D. C. 20505
2 8 bigt iS91.
Mr. James K. Kallstrom
Assistant Director in Charge
Federal Bureau of Investigation
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Dear Mr. Kallstrom:
As you are aware, missile analysts at the Central
Intelligence Agency have been working closely with special
agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the
past eight months in an attempt to examine the hypothesis
that a missile caused the TWA Flight 800 disaster on 17 July.
Of particular concern to FBI investigators and CIA analysts are
accounts from dozens of eyewitnesses who reported seeing an
object--usually described as a "flare" or "firework" ascend and
culminate in an explosion.
Our analysis demonstrates that the eyewitness sightings
of greatest concern to us--the ones originally interpreted to
be of a possible missile attack--took place after the first of
several explosions aboard the aircraft. We conclude that almost
certainly what these eyewitnesses saw was the crippled aircraft
after the first explosion had already taken place.
Our analysis, combined with the total absence of physical
evidence of a missile attack, leads CIA analysts to conclude
that no such attack occurred.
We are willing to brief you on the details. of .our analysis
at your convenience.
Sincerely,
John C. G nnon .
Deputy Director for Intelligence.
Enclosure:
' Analytic Assessment
Approved for Release: 2022/06/23 C05782959
Approved for Release: 2022/06/23 C05782959
�
Letter to Mr. James K. Kallstrom
( 18 Mar 9 7 )
2
Approved for Release: 2022/06/23 C05782959
Approved for Release: 2022/06/23 C05782959
���
Introduction
On 17 July 1996, Trans World Airlines Flight 800 departed
from New York's John F. Kennedy Airport enroute to Paris. Twelve
minutes into the flight, as the jumbo jet climbed to its cruising
altitude, there was a catastrophic explosion and the Boeing 747
plunged into the Atlantic Ocean 9 miles off the coast of Long
Island. All 230 people aboard perished, making it one of the
most lethal disasters in commercial aviation history. Hundreds
of eyewitnesses in the Long Island area witnessed portions of the
event.
Since then, investigators have been working continuously
seeking the cause of the explosion. They have focused on three
possible causes--a bomb, a missile, or a mechanical failure. Of
particular concern to FBI investigators and CIA analysts are
accounts from dozens of eyewitnesses who reported seeing an
object--usually described as a "flare" or "firework"--ascend and
culminate in an explosion. Many people postulated that these
eyewitnesses saw a missile destroy the aircraft.
At the request of the FBI, CIA weapons analysts were asked
to look into this possibility.. The CIA conclusiOn A missile
was not involved. The eyewitness sightings of greatest
concern--the ones originally interpreted- to be of a possible
missile attack--took place after the first of several explosions
aboard the aircraft. What these eyewitnesses saw was in. fact the
crippled aircraft after the first explosion had already taken
place.
Analysis
A majoi complication in determining what happened to Flight
800 was the fact that the flight data recorder and cockpit voice
recorder ceased operating just after the initial explosion aboard
the airCraft. The data recorder registered no unusual activity
prior to the end of its operation. But the voice:kecorder
registered a fraction of a second of "loud noise" just before it
ceased operating. National Transportation Safety Board analysts
concluded that this was sound from the first explosion--the one
that initiated the destruction of the aircraft.
Based on flight recorder data and airport radar tracking,.
the aircraft's location, altitude; speed and heading at the
instant, its recorders ceased operating are known.- -This
information was used to determine the distance and direction of
travel of the aircraft with respect to each eyewitness at the
instant the aircraft exploded: This; in turn made it possible
Approved for Release: 2022/06/23 C05782959
!Approved for Release: 2022/06/23 C05782959.
to calculate how long it took 'sound from the explosion to reach
each eyewitness, and to associate what eyewitnesses heard with
what they saw.
The concept used here is similar to a technique a person can
use to determine how far away a lightning strike is--by
estimating how long it takes to hear thunder after the lightning
is seen. Because sound in air travels about 1,100 feet per
second, an observer who hears thunder five seconds after seeing a
lightning strike knows that the lightning is about 1 mile away.
On the evening of 17 July, many eyewitnesses reported
hearing a loud "boom" as part of their observations, often
followed at varying intervals by one or two smaller "booms."
Knowing that the first of these sounds originated when the
recorders ceased operating (831:07.5 PM), it was possible to
synchronize many eyewitnesses visual observations with activity
aboard Flight 800 by calculating how long it took sound to travel
from the known location of the aircraft when it exploded to each
of these eyewitnesses.
We can be confident that no sound from the aircraft audible
to eyewitnesses was produced before the sound heard at the end of
the cockpit voice recording. The closest eyewitness hearing such
sounds was more than 8 miles away. Any sound heard at this
distance and produced near the aircraft before the recording
ended would have been recorded.
Using the eyewitnesses' visual and sound observations--
combined with tracking data from the radars and infrared data
from an intelligence sensor-7-cIA analysts were able to
reconstruct the approximate path of Flight 800 from the instant
its recordings ended until itihit the water. The following
postulated sequence of evehts!is based on that analysis:
Just after the initial explosion at 831:07.5 PM, the
aircraft pitched up abruptly and climbed several thousand
feet from its cruise altitude of 13,800 feet to a maximum
altitude of about 17,000 feet. This is consistent with
information .provided by National Transportation Safety Board
and Boeing engineers indicating that the froq"%third of the
aircraft, including the cockpit, separated from the fuselage
just two to four seconds after the initial explosion. This
significant sudden loss of mass from the front of the
aircraft caused the rapid pitch-up.
The initial explosion was not seen by any known eyewitness.
But the subsequent fire trailing from the aircraft was
clearly visible to many of the closest eyewitnesses on the
land and sea, and some of the eyewitnesses in other
aircraft. The rising, burning aircraft is-consistent with
what some eyewitnesses described as "an ascending, bright
white light resembling a'flare or firework."
2
Approved for Release: 2022/06/23 C05782959
'Approved for Release: 2022/06/23 C05782959
Shortly after Flight 800 reached the apex of its
ascent--about 15 seconds or so after the initial
explosion--a second explosion on the aircraft occurred.
This explosion was clearly visible to many eyewitnesses, and
often was described as "a small fireball." It was not as
loud as the initial explosion, but was clearly audible more
than 10 miles away.
Following this second explosion, the aircraft went into
a very steep and rapid descent, falling 2 miles and
traveling horizontally almost 2 miles in less than
25 seconds. As the aircraft descended, it produced an
increasingly visible fire trail. When it reached an
altitude of about 1 mile--42 seconds after the initial
onboard explosion--the aircraft's left wing separated from
the fuselage, releasing the unburned fuel in the left wing's
fuel tanks. The fuel's subsequent ignition and burning
produced a dramatic fireball visible to eyewitnesses more
than 40 miles away, and detected by an infrared sensor
About 50 seconds after the initial explosion--eight seconds
after the left wing detached--the aircraft and detached wing
hit the water.
CIA analysts developed the characterization above using
technical data and accounts from the few eyewitnesses who were
relatively close to the disaster, and who provided detailed
descriptions of what they saw and heard-. This portrayal then was
evaluated against descriptions provided by almost 200 additional
eyewitnesses.
Not surprisingly,, most eyewitnesses'. saw only the. most
conspicuous segment of the disaster--the ignition of. the fuel and
resulting fireball in the 10 secondsor so.jupt_before the
aircraft hit the water.. There are three distinctive .
characteristics analysts used to conclude that these eyewitnesses
saw only the.end of the.airdraft'z descent and .not a ,missile,
First, sound from the initial eXplosion'took.,,krom 42 to
102 seconds to reach each of the eyewitnesses cla.lang to have
heard sounds associated with the disaster. Therefore, things
eyewitnesses reported seeing at about the time when they .heard
the first sound are known to have taken place Well after the
'first explosion occurred.
� Second, many eyewitnesses described only things happening
within about 10 seconds of the time that the left wing. detached
from the fuselage. This was a very well-defined event, resulting
in two distinct fireballs falling to the ocean. The left wing is
known to have detached about 42 seconds after the initial
explosion.
Approved for Release: 2022/06/23 C05782959
Approved for Release: 2022/06/23 C05782959
And third, many eyewitnesses described only things happening
within about 10 seconds of the time that they observed a large
fire or "cascading" flames. These flames could only be from the
burning fuel released 'and ignited after the left wing detached.
Using the above process of elimination, the majority of
observations can be demonstrated to have occurred well after the
initial explosion. Consequently, none of these observations can
be of a missile which caused this explosion.
The remaining eyewitness accounts describe events fully
consistent with observations expected if only the aircraft in
various stages of crippled flight were being observed. There is
nothing in this last category of eyewitness statements that
provides any evidence that a missile was used to shoot down
Flight 800.
Indeed, several eyewitnesses, confident that they had -seen a
missile destroy an aircraft,-were puzzled that they hadn't
actually seen the aircraft before the missile hit it. Only a few
eyewitnesses described seeing the aircraft at all, even though it
should have been illuminated by the setting sun and clearly
visible to any observer witnessing a missile approach and destroy
it. The fact that only a few eyewitnesses reported seeing the
aircraft--which should have been readily visible--suggests that
many eyewitnesses may have seen only the crippled aircraft
without realizing it.
Conclusions
� CIA analysts do not believe that a missile was used to shoot
down TWA Flight 800. To date, there is absolutely no evidence,
physical or otherwise, that a missile was employed.
Speculation that a missile was involved originally was put
forward based totally on the testimony of eyewitnesses who were.
attempting to assist the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
National Transportation Safety Board as these-agencies probed
into the possible causes of the tragedy. Without the assistance
of these eyewitnesses, the accounting given here would not have
been possible.
4
Approved for Release: 2022/06/23 C05782959