Posted on 10/15/2007 12:25:05 PM PDT by yankeesdoodle
What we concluded, in fact, is that this extraordinary video has the potential to break the TWA Flight 800 case wide open.
The video had been shot from a U.S. Navy P-3 Orion that had been flying almost directly above TWA Flight 800 when it exploded off the coast of Long Island on the night of July 17, 1996. For the record, the P-3 is a long-range, antisubmarine warfare patrol aircraft with advanced submarine detection and avionics equipment.
According to the P-3 crew, all of whom remained stubbornly evasive about their mission when questioned, the plane was flying at 22,000 feet and heading south when the first explosion occurred about a mile away. One unnamed member of the crew was a New York Police Department representative of the NYPD/FBI Joint Task Force – tasked with fighting terrorism in the New York City area.
When the crew members learned of the blast, they promptly circled back over the area for half an hour and offered to help. This video was shot during that period. There is no mistaking the perspective as the
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I have no idea where you are going with that statement.
Shiot????
My typos are getting worse.
Shot.
*sigh*
The artticle could have been written better, yes.
Dubya said, “This is a terrorist attack”.
Clinton?
“Oh Moooonica...”
Besides being great reads, his books have laugh out loud lines.
There’s no video at the link.
Why don’t we spell missile correctly? One would think that with all the Scud missiles, cruise missiles, antiballistic missiles, interplanetary missiles, and other flying missiles we would be familiar with spelling missile by now.
What souls? Ever see The Producers?
Good place to bump this thread.
The Launch Vehicle, a boat set on fire by the launch of a missle that over 300 eyewitnesses report in great detail.
He has alot more to follow, that is guaranteed.
Remember Pierre Slesinger was in Paris when it happen and he was insistent that it was an act of friendly fire that took out the plane.
I think he got some inside information and the Clinton Administration was not fast enough to tell him to shut the hell up.
I know a woman who saw it and she says it was a missile.
I'm not "for" or "against" conspiracy theories. I like to keep my Occam's razor nice and sharp and let the chips fall where they may. The odds against the center fuel tank explosion occurring as officially described are astronomical. Now, given the flight hours logged over the decades by the 747 airframe, ask yourself what the odds are of this *systemic design flaw*, resulting in its one catastrophic event within the same three weeks as the Khobar Tower bombing....
laugh out loud lines
Yes that it does.
I still have Wild Fire waiting for me to read.
Blast from the past -- also known as eb4.
I guess after the Kennedy asassination the President would have had to start walking everywhere.
Why don’t we spell missile correctly? One would think that with all the Scud missiles, cruise missiles, antiballistic missiles, interplanetary missiles, and other flying missiles we would be familiar with spelling missile by now.
“We’re on a missile from god.”
Or, a missile is as good as a mile?
It’s not a common event, but 14 fuel tanks have exploded on commercial jetliners.
That’s enough to suggest that one could randomly have exploded within 3 weeks of some terrorist attack. Sure, picking a SPECIFIC terror attack lowers that odds, but you didn’t pick one at random, you picked one that happened within 3 weeks of the explosion.
I could show you hundreds of terror attacks that didn’t happen within 3 weeks of the explosion, which shows that, for any particular terror attack, the odds are it wasn’t within 3 weeks of the TWA explosion.
When the Challenger exploded, the odds of it exploding were also astronomical, if measured by past occurances.
But if you search the literature, you will find that a lot of work has been done both after AND before the TWA explosion to deal with the problem of fuel tank explosions.
So it was something that was a known risk, albeit unlikely.
Unfortunately, unlikely risks sometimes become real accidents.
I use a simpler rule. Given that we can’t keep our most important national security secrets out of the New York Times, the chances that a coverup of the size necessary to hide all the evidence of a missle attack on a jetliner is astronomically small.
Plus, if terrorists were able to blow TWA 800 out of the sky, why are there not other examples of airplanes in the U.S. being blown out of the sky, or any near-misses? Before TWA 800, the chances (as measured by occurance) of a terrorists shooting down an airplane in the US were NIL, MUCH less than the chance of a fuel tank explosion.
But we are to believe that the terrorists successfully blew up a plane with a missle from a boat in 1998, the entire thing was covered up so successfully that nobody in government has leaked it, and the terrorists have never again even tried to repeat the attempt, even though according to the conspiracy buffs we have done NOTHING to protect ourselves from a repeat attack because we refuse to acknowledge it happened the first time.
Amen!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.