The Enterprise Mission - The REAL Mystery of Egypt Air flight 990

New developments in the ongoing investigation into the crash of Egypt Air flight 990 show that the Enterprise Mission scenario of some "unexplained" (by conventional standards) event forcing the aircraft down is alive and well. Moreover, the standard scenarios; mechanical failure, onboard terrorist intervention or even a suicide by one of the pilots, are being systematically ruled out as the one eerie new twist after another is revealed.

The investigation has lurched from one improbable explanation to the next as government officials and the empty suits at media anchor desks try desperately to put some non-conspiratorial spin on the cause of the accident. The latest version of events tries to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the co-pilot, at first believed to be First Officer Adel Anwar.

The sole basis for accusing Anwar, 36, of murdering 216 people was an apparent prayer uttered (presumably) by him just before the (apparent) manual disconnection of the aircraft's autopilot. This "prayer," recorded by the plane's cockpit voice recorder and quoted by news sources as "I put my life (or fate) in your hands," has been referred to in these US news accounts as a "shahada." Muslims fearing they are close to death recite the shahada -- "I testify there is no God but God and Mohammed is his prophet" -- to ensure they die believers. However, while the quoted phrase could be interpreted as quasi-religious, clearly whoever was in the co-pilot's seat was not reciting the shahada if these quotes are accurate. In addition, such "prayer's" are very common in the Muslim world, and the quoted statement could be considered little more than the Arabic equivalent of "Oh My God," or a similar exclamation of surprise or fear.

The entire "murder-suicide" scenario being bandied about in the American news media was also in direct conflict with what we now know about the two men in the cockpit. The pilot, Captain Ahmed el-Habashy, was a married man with children and a coming grand child, and by all accounts a happy man. Anwar was scheduled to be married on November the 5th, just five days after the flight, and his fiancée quickly rejected the notion that he would choose to end his life and pointed out that he was on the flight in order to return from the United States earlier than planned for his wedding. In addition, both men had recently passed their semi-annual psychological evaluations with flying colors. Their colleagues and fellow pilots also rejected the notion that either would endanger their own lives or the lives of others.

After word was leaked by the NTSB of it's intent to turn the crash investigation over to the FBI -- a step necessary only if the NTSB had already determined that a criminal act was the probable cause of the crash -- agency officials evidently briefed the White House so that they could update the Egyptian government on the investigation. This idea was dropped later on Tuesday when the Egyptians reacted badly to the notion of the FBI (the same agency that led the whitewash of the TWA 800 investigation) having control of the inquiry. Indeed, official government newspapers reported that they were rejecting the suicide story and insisted that Washington focus the investigation on external causes for the disaster. The South China Morning Post reported Monday that Egypt Air officials are angry that the investigation has focused on the pilots' mental health, and that they believe the black-box data "points to sabotage." The report quotes Essam Ahmed, former head of Egypt Air's committee in charge of investigating crashes, as saying that the pilots were trained to glide an aircraft down if the engines stopped. One Egypt Air pilot was quoted as calling "an explosion, possibly by a missile or some mysterious thing" as the most likely causes.

At that point, with the intense reaction against the idea that Anwar had been responsible for the crash, NTSB officials then shifted their attention to the back-up co-pilot, Gameel Batouti. Leaks from inside the investigation claimed that the "prayer" was preceded by the words "I have made my decision now" and that the actual translation of the prayer was "I put my faith in the hands of God." These same sources then stated that there was "no doubt" that it was Batouti, not Anwar, at the controls of the aircraft when the "prayer" was uttered. This new scenario then began to collapse late Wednesday night when CNN reported that the "I have made my decision now" statement is not on the tape. Quoting what they described as "senior government sources involved with the investigation," CNN then went back to the source of the original report and was told only that the "translations of the tape have been hotly disputed."

Since the story with the "I have made my decision now" quote was only single sourced, and the CNN report denying the phrase was on the tape was double sourced, who (and from what agency) was so anxious to place the blame on one of the pilots that they were evidently willing to make this story up? Since the quality of the tape has been described as "excellent," it's hard to figure out where this major discrepancy came from. In fact, the conflict between the two versions of the tape transcription are so at odds that it seems safe to assume that at least one of the leakers had a specific agenda. Indeed, given the drastically different versions being quoted to media sources, the very integrity of the tape itself must be questioned.

Interestingly, we have now learned (according to MSNBC) that it was the FBI who initially "heard" Batouti say, "I've made my decision..." It was the NTSB technicians today who flatly denied that this phrase was even on the tape!!

No wonder the Egyptians don't want the FBI to take control of the investigation!

Let's examine the suicide theory a little more closely. Imagine that Batouti's motive was money. If he hoped to collect insurance money to care for his family, why would he basically announce that he was committing suicide? Certainly, his family would have a better chance of collecting if he did not announce for the world to hear that he was taking his own life. No, we find the whole characterization of his alleged remarks as a sort of audio suicide note to be far less than credible.

Batouti's family was also quick to dismiss the idea that he was a murderer. They took issue with media reports that had been depressed recently, and that he had money problems. Reports that he had sent "all his money" home to Egypt before leaving New York turned out to be a $300 wire transfer to pay a phone bill. His family also took issue with the idea that his daughters illness had sent him into depression or made him suicidal. They described him as a happy, jovial and deeply religious man.

This last part also makes it highly unlikely that Batouti committed suicide. Suicide is something of a mortal sin in Islam, and anyone who commits this act does not make it to heaven. It seems unlikely that a man of deep religious conviction would do the one thing that would keep him from paradise in the afterlife.

Unfortunately, the developments of the last few days all point to a familiar pattern from government agencies in recent years. These various stories have the stink of trial balloons on them, as if insiders are leaking different reports to see which ones the public will buy. There is also a significant amount of infighting going on as evidenced by the conflict over the erroneous "I have made my decision now" quote. Insiders have evidently decided that a murder-suicide is the only acceptable explanation for the reams of conflicting data, and have settled on Batouti after their attempts to blame the other pilots failed over the last few days.

This is why it is essential that the Egyptian government at this point become active, full partners in this investigation: to prevent precisely such "spin doctoring" and "rushes to judgment" by those with "an agenda."

Our own scenario, that something external and exotic (and bearing an EMP signature) caused the accident seems to be reinforced by the cockpit recorder findings. The recorder indicates that the "prayer" was spoken just before the disconnection of the autopilot. While NTSB officials have been quick to decide this was the final statement of a suicidal lunatic, it could also be an indication of the co-pilot reacting to the hacking of his control systems (as we speculated initially) or perhaps more ominously to something he saw outside his cockpit window. It should also be noted that the autopilot is computer controlled and can be disconnected by a computer "failure," although that event should also show a series of other failures. While it is seductive to assume a missile, as in the case of TWA 800, there is nothing in the flight recorder data or voice recorder to suggest this. For one thing, the pilot, who left the cabin just before the "prayer," returns to the cockpit and asks "What's going on?" It is logical to assume if his plane had been hit by a missile or a bomb had gone off, he'd have some idea that this was the case. The plane would probably have been destroyed due to the explosive decompression, and at the least the entire plane would have been instantly filled with fog and the windows iced over (as in the Payne Stewart crash). The notion of an explosion is also not supported by the Flight Data Recorder, which shows no such indications. Although the FDR does not monitor cabin pressure on a continuous basis, if there had been a cabin breach the master warning alarm indicating a serious incident should have come on. It didn't.

What happens next is equally disturbing. The plane lurches forward, into a dramatic dive (more than 40 degrees). The plane reaches it's maximum speed (Mach 0.86 -- the maximum safe cruising speed of the aircraft) in the first few seconds. The engines are then throttled back, exactly the opposite of what a suicidal pilot would do, as this maneuver would slow the plane's descent. This behavior is only consistent with a controlled (though extreme) emergency dive. The image of the pilot, put out by the NTSB, in the middle of this mind-numbing emergency calmly reentering the cockpit and casually asking "What's going on?" seems, to put it mildly, something of a stretch. The plane would have been in zero-g, with everyone and everything in the plane completely weightless. The sheer buffeting of the aircraft, from the shock waves creeping back over the wings at Mach 0.86, would have been almost unimaginably violent. For the pilot to even get back into the cockpit under those conditions, would have been something of a feat.

It is at this point that the master warning comes on, and the engine oil pressure is low. Shortly thereafter, the planes elevators -- the control surfaces on the Empennage designed to point the plane up or down -- are found to be in a "split" configuration. This has been spun as a sign that the pilot and co-pilot were fighting each other for control of the aircraft, since with enough pressure on the control column they can be operated separately.

Of course, there is another scenario. Assuming for the moment that the man in the co-pilots chair was not suicidal but rather attempting to avoid a mid-air collision or regain control of an electronically "pirated'"aircraft, it seems somewhat unlikely that the split was caused by the two men working at cross purposes. What we propose is that the pilot, upon re-entering the cockpit, was probably thrown violently against the control column as he attempted to regain his seat (a late report on CNN, indicating that at one point the split had the pilot's elevator in the "down" position while the co-pilot's was "up," is completely consistent with this picture!). It would have taken several seconds for him to regain his senses and begin to assist the co-pilot in pulling out of the dive. This idea is further supported by the voice recorder, which indicates (as of this time -- we take no responsibility for new voices magically appearing on the tape) no argument among the two men. In fact, the pilot is heard to say clearly "Pull with me. Help me. Pull with me." This apparently is exactly what happened. The plane then lifted to a descent angle of only about 10 degrees, and both elevators were by then back in unison. This sequence of events strongly points to the fact that the pilots were valiantly working together to save the aircraft, not fighting over who was in control of it."

Unfortunately for all aboard, things then took a dramatic turn for the worse. Just as it seemed the plane had been saved, someone (or "something") literally cut off both the engines! Moments later, all electrical power on the airplane was also permanently lost, since at this point both the transponder and the two cockpit recorders abruptly ceased to function."

It is at this point that things get truly weird. The standard "nitwitness news" concept for the next few moments is that the plane was fully pulled out of the dive and then began to climb -- remember, with its engines shut off -- over 7,600 feet! With no power to restart the engines the plane then supposedly stalled and plummeted the rest of the way into the ocean.

There are several problems with this notion. First is the radar data, confirmed by six different Air Force stations, which does not show a stall but instead a breakup of the aircraft into multiple targets as it flutters to the sea in it's final descent. The maximum stress would have been at the pull up point from the initial steep descent (now determined to be at about 16,400 feet -- 300 feet lower than initially reported). Here, not after a nearly 8,000 foot climb (which the same radar clearly shows was with the plane all in one piece), would have been the max g-loads imposed by the pull up itself. If Flight 990 was going to break up from stress alone, it would have done so before the "magical, powerless ascent."

The other problem is the idea that momentum alone could account for 990's more than a mile and a half in gained altitude. This is utterly ludicrous to anyone who understands the laws of physics, much less anyone who has flown or seen a commercial jetliner like the 767 ... In fact, the radar data was so at odds with common sense that it's accuracy was initially disputed by various aviation experts.

One of the immortal "truisms" of life is the old adage "What goes up ... must come down." Particularly -- if it doesn't have an engine. However, the tragic last flight of Egypt Air 990, for some reason, seems to have driven this basic law of aerodynamics from the minds of almost everyone! Certainly, from the hundreds of reporters covering Jim Hall's (until today) daily "perils of Pauline" NTSB press briefings.

Because, after being solemnly informed during the first digital flight recorder briefing that "someone" had apparently deliberately turned off the 767's two Pratt & Whitney engines on the way down (at about 18,000 feet), no one seemed inclined or apparently even thought to ask NTSB Chairman Hall the obvious next question:

"How did this aircraft -- WITHOUT THOSE CRUCIAL PRATT & WHITNEY ENGINES -- subsequently (according to six independent Air Force radar stations) manage to climb back up from 16,700 feet to 24,000 feet -- almost a mile and a half, against gravity! -- from the bottom of its suicidal dive??!!"

Many reporters (and even aviation professionals) seem to have missed this obvious conundrum, only one of many mysteries increasingly associated with this flight.

Instead, they seem to be unconsciously relying on an almost intuitive "feel" that, like a roller coaster falling down one steep incline and barreling up the next, 990 did something similar; that its own dizzying "zero-g dive" from 33,000 feet somehow gave it enough momentum to manage a climb part way back up to its original cruise altitude.

Nice ... but no cigar.

The laws of aerodynamics, if not the laws of gravity and acceleration itself, simply won't allow this. Which, in turn, creates the MAJOR mystery of this entire flight.

Forget that this was an airliner for a minute, with wings, a rudder, and other aerodynamic surfaces. Imagine it was an unstreamlined spacecraft -- like the Lunar Module -- falling toward the Earth. If this was so, it's downward dive would have continued uninterrupted, accelerating every second as Earth's gravity pulled it ever faster in its fall, until (without engines) it hit the surface at high speed.

This analogy actually is not too bad. The data tape tells us (via Jim Hall) that as soon as the aircraft pitched over into its 40-degree dive, the engines were mysteriously "throttled back." So, in every sense, this plane WAS falling under gravitational acceleration; it was NOT being driven downward by the engines. So, the omnipresent gravitational acceleration of the Earth -- 32.2 feet/sec squared -- was essentially all that was pulling this plane downward.

Now, total velocity on Earth gained in a true gravitationally accelerated fall (with, remember, no air resistance!) would simply be:

Vel = a (acceleration) X Time = 32.2 feet/sec squared X Time (seconds).

So, the data recorder tells us this "fall" occupied about 40 seconds. How fast would 990 be traveling at the end of such a fall? Well, multiplying those two numbers gives us:

1288 feet/sec.

This translates to 878 miles per hour!

Obviously, something's wrong. From both the ground-based Air Force radar, and the on-board digital recorder, we now know that the maximum velocity of the aircraft was about 0.9 Mach (Mach 1 = the speed of sound). Since Mach 1 is about 700 mph, 0.9 is "only" 630 miles per hour. What are we missing?

Air resistance .. and the flight path angle.

The difference -- between the theoretical downward gravitational acceleration of 990, and 990's measured maximum velocity, was about 250 mph! That difference was caused (in this ideal case) by a) the fact that the aircraft was not plunging straight down, but at a 40-degree angle to the horizontal, and b) from simple friction with the air: flowing over, under, and around Flight 990 ... as it plunged toward the moonlit Atlantic that fateful night.

The 40-degree descent angle produced a difference between aircraft velocity along this slope, and the true vertical "sink rate" of the aircraft, via the well-known sine relationship:

Sin 40 degrees X true aircraft velocity = vertical descent rate

In this case, sine 40 degrees X 630 = ~ 400 mph (590 feet per second).

In other words, about half of 990's theoretical gravitationally-induced velocity was stripped away by its angle of decent, and simple friction with the airflow!

The latter is called, in aerodynamic parlance: "terminal velocity."

So, we have an airplane hurtling downward at a 40-degree angle (meaning, it's also moving forward, parallel to the surface of the ocean), at about 400 miles per hour. At that angle its horizontal velocity was only slightly higher, about 480 mph.

Hall then informed us that, somehow, the plane began to flatten in this deadly dive. The nose came up, the angle to the horizontal began to lessen ... all consistent with the pilots reasserting aerodynamic elevator control (remember, this was an airplane!) over the aircraft's fatal flight.

Hall also informed us that at this point, at about 18,000 feet, the g forces inside the aircraft from this "flattening dive" went up from zero during the initial dive, to about 2.5 times the usual Earth's gravitational acceleration. The reason was exactly analogous to a race driver making a high speed turn -- called usually "centrifugal acceleration." In this case, instead of being horizontal (like the racing analogy) the attempted "turn" was vertical -- "up!" Which would have made objects inside the airplane appear to be pulled to the floor of the cockpit (and the cabin) with about two and a half times Earth's normal gravitational force.

But -- this of course had NOTHING to do with the actual constant gravitational acceleration still pulling on this aircraft.

Now, according to several aviation experts we've consulted in the last few days (including a known former 767 Captain himself), this Boeing aircraft is "rated" at about 2.5 g's. Higher centrifugal acceleration than this, and Boeing can't guarantee that "things might not begin to come apart!" Actually (according to the former Captain), the aircraft can take 4 to 5 g's before structural failure is a serious potential. The obvious reason the pilots attempted to hold the g forces to about 2.5 was both to "keep it to the manual," as well as for their own ability to continue to control the aircraft. Any higher acceleration, and the g- forces from the tighter upward turn would have pinned the pilots uselessly in their seats under 4-5 g's -- unable to physically move the control surfaces of a potentially disintegrating aircraft.

This delicate balance -- between too much centrifugal force (too rapid a flattening of the deadly dive) and too little (resulting in the plane continuing down into the ocean) -- was the awful situation that confronted the 990 cockpit crew that night.

As we said earlier, the fact that at the end of the available data tape the previously "misaligned" elevators were mysteriously "back in synch," PROVES that BOTH pilots were desperately pulling on their yokes IN UNISON ... NOT fighting, but cooperating ... in a valiant effort to flatten out the deadly dive. However, when the data recorder's power fails -- seconds after the engines are mysteriously "turned off" at about 18,000 feet -- the pitch angle of the jet was still (according to the data tape) directed downward -- by a significant 10 degrees.

And that was, we now learn from the on-board pressure altimeter data on the tape, at 16,400 feet -- not the earlier cited "16,700."

This means, of course, that the plane was still headed toward the ocean when transponder contact with the
aircraft was also permanently lost. Ground-based radar stations continued to "skin track" 990 in its downward flight, but the lowest altitude HAD TO HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than the earlier-cited figure ...

Which makes 990's "magical" climb back to 24,000 feet from this still-to-be-determined lower altitude -- and, remember, without either of its crucial engines! -- all the more "miraculous" ...

Why are we so fixated on this?

Because this was NOT a "spacecraft," falling in some airless, "ideal" planetary orbit. It was an aerodynamically-limited commercial aircraft (and a BIG, heavy one at that -- fully laden with fuel for a 6000 mile transoceanic flight, as well as passengers and luggage), attempting (without working engines) to forestall the inevitable ... a deadly crash into the north Atlantic.

According to the Air Force radars, it was temporarily successful. Or ... was it?

The ground-based data says that the plane was ultimately able to convert its still significant 10-degree downward motion (as recorded on the aircraft's flight recorder) back to horizontal. This means that Flight 990 at that point was essentially "a hundred-ton glider." All its previous downward and horizontal velocity was now directed parallel to the Earth's surface.

Let's assume, allowing for the inevitable friction with the air (or "drag," as it is known), that the final horizontal velocity was about 600 mph (880 feet per second), down from the previous 630. This is a very conservative assumption, allowing only 30 mph to be lost through aerodynamic friction in the final restoration to horizontal flight, but it makes the calculations easier (in fact, the actual velocity should have been considerably lower -- perhaps only 550 mph at this point).

Now the pilots, instead of turning the aircraft and logically attempting to make it to the nearest major airport -- in this case Nantucket, about 60 miles away -- for some reason attempted to gain significant altitude ... still without any operating engines! According to the radars, the plane rose sharply from (a now indeterminate, but even lower altitude) to that increasingly astonishing 24,000 feet.

At least a mile and a half (and now more likely, perhaps 10,000 feet -- 2 full miles) straight up. And all ... without a single operating engine...

How do we know this? Because -- the radar transponder and aircraft voice and data recorders never came back on. So, there was obviously NO power in that aircraft from the generators running off those engines!

So, let's demonstrate why this is simply unbelievable ...

Remember the initial "fall" from 33,000 feet? Since 990 is at this point flying without engines, all its energy for gaining altitude is contained solely within its forward flight (momentum). But, as the pilots begin to bring the nose up, to gain precious altitude, that momentum will rapidly "bleed off" as friction with the airflow and from gravitational deceleration. The efficiency of this conversion will be closely coupled to the aircraft's "angle of attack" -- the upward angle to the horizontal that the pilots ultimately select.

Because of the still existent problem of "g forces," as well as the danger (without engines!) of an outright stall, that "elevation angle" would have probably been no greater than about 10 degrees. This, then, is THE major problem. For, a ten degree "up angle" for the climb would result in a ballistic rise (against downward gravitational acceleration) of only (sin 10 degrees X aircraft velocity =) 104 mph (152 feet per second), as opposed to a continued horizontal velocity of 590 mph.

The main problem with this analysis is that the actual (radar-derived) total time for the climb to 24,000 feet (from the lowest point of the dive -- see NTSB graphic, above) was only 30 seconds. Because the vertical component of this climb is totally ballistic and (like a stone thrown upward) reaches zero velocity at the top of the arc (determined solely by gravity's downward acceleration opposing the upward component of velocity), we can invert our previous velocity equation and use it to calculate just how fast the plane would fall vertically (neglecting friction) if accelerated downward from that maximum altitude (24,000 feet) in those same 30 seconds.

This turns out to be 966 feet per second; or, 659 mph!

There's no conceivable way -- with only a 10-degree angle of attack -- that this aircraft could reach this altitude this quickly! Remember, that angle only results in a 104 miles per hour "upward climb."

So, let's increase our angle of attack. Let's throw conservatism to the wind (and the possibility of g-forces shattering our airplane), as well as the effects of those g-forces on our crew, and triple the angle of attack -- to 30 degrees.

Again, the upward component of our (conservative) horizontal 600 mph is determined by the sine of this angle of attack, times the horizontal velocity. Or,

0.5 X 600 mph = 300 mph. Too low by over a factor of two!

But, because these gravitational accelerations are NOT "linear," this shortfall in upward speed (if the pilots attempted something as "insane" as a 30-degree angle of attack) would result in the aircraft only climbing about 3000 feet before it's momentum was totally exhausted!

Far below the (now necessary) 10,000 feet this aircraft somehow climbed without its engines ... as recorded by the ground-based radars...

Something's truly wrong here.

It is our belief, based on this analysis, that the answer to this now major, demonstrable abrogation of the basic "laws of physics" and aeronautical engineering, is the REAL reason there's been so much deliberate confusion and "misinformation" regarding "what happened" to Flight 990 on that night.

This is the reason, we believe, why there is a now-desperate effort to "convict" the relief co-pilot of a "murder/suicide."

Because if "they" do not, if they are forced to address what REALLY may have happened to this aircraft, the government agencies in charge of this investigation will ultimately be forced to confront how Flight 990, against all reasonable observations and assumptions, apparently somehow managed -- for at least those final 30 seconds -- to literally defy the laws of gravity
that night!

Some careful speculations.

Is this perplexing mystery (an aircraft which apparently climbed 10,000 feet -- without either of its engines!) somehow related to the equally puzzling, suddenly "evasive action" apparently undertaken by Gameel al-Batouti? Is this why the relief co-pilot suddenly cut off the autopilot (if, in fact, he did), and plunged the aircraft into a steep and ultimately fatal dive ... to avoid imminent collision with another vehicle he saw rapidly approaching at their cruise altitude of 33,000 feet ... potentially one operating on an electrogravitic drive?!

We know (from the previously "leaked" NASA shuttle videos -- STS 48 and STS-80) that such "anti-gravity" technology exists -- and is currently being utilized by "somebody" ... according to the now-confirmed "NASA ritual alignments"; the encounter of the STS-80 mission with such vehicles, in December, 1996 not only occurred at 19.5 degrees, over the Brazilian Amazon ... but on orbit "195!" Most appropriately, the astonishing official NASA video sequence provocatively ended with an image of ... Orion.

Commercial pilots (other than those on Egypt Air) have recently reported a rash of strange encounters with similar "exotic aircraft"; Art Bell actually played an FAA audio "air to ground" recording of one such encounter, over Dallas, just last week!

Did one of these mysterious "electrogravitic vehicles" (operated by an "unnamed agency") accidentally come too close to Flight 990 on the morning of October 31st, and thus precipitate this ultimately tragic series of events ..?

And, given the incredible improbability of these Egypt Air specific "alignments" (see previous analysis) how can anyone argue that such an encounter -- if it took place -- would have been, merely "accidental?"

Such a scenario not only provides a plausible explanation for the peculiar ELFRAD signatures that we've been citing (from the "craft's" electrogravitic engines!), it goes a long way toward ultimately explaining how this doomed 767 aircraft "magically" managed to climb 2 miles vertically ... without engines of its own ... in less than 30 seconds!

It also could explain all the other seemingly contradictory, perplexing aspects of this tragedy -- from the autopilot mysteriously disconnecting; to the fatal "dive"; to the bizarre throttleback (in the middle of that dive) of the Pratt & Whitney engines; to their cut-off; to the eventually "misaligned" elevators themselves ... all (in this scenario) potentially triggered by the conflicting electronic interference of the "electrogravitic field" acting on the 767's heavily computerized controls.

And ... prolonged proximity to such an intense "field" would also explain why Flight 990 (according to the Air Force radar) ultimately "came apart" -- but, strangely, at the apex of its "climb" -- when, paradoxically, the mundane aerodynamic forces acting on the aircraft at that point would have been the smallest!

Is this why there was the stunning lack of any retrieved victims from this crash (and the early, highly unusual governmental warning to these grieving families, "don't expect to find anyone intact!")? And is this why only "small pieces" of this aircraft have been found ..?

It is hard to forget the images from a curiously similar catastrophe -- the eleven-year-old tragedy of Iran Air Flight 655, downed by "accidental missile fire" from the USS Vincennes, then operating (during the Iran-Iraq War) in the Persian Gulf. The civilian airliner -- a European-made A300 Airbus, with 290 souls aboard -- was hit by TWO high explosive Vincennes "Standard" missiles, with the wreakage and victims then plummeting almost 14,000 feet. While the Egypt Air 990 wreckage fell farther on that night (from some 24,000 feet), remember that it did not fall at an any faster rate (because of atmospheric terminal velocity).

Publicly determining if any part of this bizarre scenario is true must now assume the highest of priorities, not only to fully understand how this aircraft finally "died" ... but how 217 people -- who (remember!) the alignments compellingly argue were sacrificed this night -- were deliberately murdered in the process!

Stay tuned.