Posted on 07/14/2021 3:11:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
Out of curiosity, have you ever served? And if so, in the navy?
There have been a number of accidents where novel mechanical failures and/or pilot-induced mechanical failures of aircraft-type with robust operational histories resulted in catastrophic failures. Alaska Airlines FL-261, AA FL-587 both come to mind immediately.
As aircraft age, the stress and wear of operation can reveal design or operational defects that can, if not remedied, lead to catastrophic failure. In both the aforementioned incidents, maintenance or training corrections needed to be implemented in order to avoid subsequent catastrophic failures...just as it was with TWA 800.
My understanding is that flight 800 was too high for a stinger missile, hence why so many cling to the idea that the navy shot it down.
I read the James Sanders book (referenced in Cashill’s article here) Sanders published shortly after the shoot down. I then met Sanders in person and talked to him in Nashville.
The U.S. Navy had multiple ships in the area the night of the shoot down. They quickly steamed AWAY after the crash. Why would they do that?
There was known to be testing of a “friend or foe” missile project that the U.S. Navy had been secretly working on which could discriminate between enemy aircraft and civilian aircraft. This was apparently a LIVE test that failed.
There is evidence the White House situation room was monitoring events BEFORE the crash.
Bill Clinton was running for re-election. This deadly explosion happened in August before the November presidential election. Any disclosure of a military shoot-down would have been a political disaster for Clinton.
Two Air National Guard helicopter pilots were in the air near the explosion and saw the missile. They initially talked about it and then were ordered silenced.
Hundreds of eyewitnesses clearly saw the missile rise. The FBI said these hundreds of people did not see what they saw.
The FBI unlawfully seized control of the investigation almost immediately. The National Transportation Safety Board is the agency charged by federal law to investigate airliner crashes. They were unlawfully kicked off of the investigation.
The CIA created an animation trying to explain the explosion and aftermath which animation showed the airliner CLIMB after the nose came off. What was the CIA doing in this investigation? The animation so defied the laws of physics as to be laughable to any scientist or engineer.
No.
If that is true then they're doing a terrible job of it, given the number of leaks that happen on an almost daily basis from every branch of government.
And how well was that covered up?
When I read posts like yours, I immediately think of Sean Hannity and his dopey claim that “99% of FBI agents are fine, upstanding law enforcement officers.” And yet every piece of evidence I’ve seen since 2016 suggests it’s actually the opposite — AT BEST.
Correction: Crash happened in JULY
Uh, the military has had that ability for decades before TWA 800. They're called transponder codes.
One of the first things that came to mind for me on 9/11 was this: “Would anyone in the U.S. government ever have come out and admitted that this was a terrorist attack if only ONE aircraft had been hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center?”
I honestly think the answer to that would be NO … and we’d be sitting here on FR today talking about the upcoming 20th anniversary of an incident where the autopilot of an American Airlines passenger jet had mysteriously malfunctioned and flew the aircraft into one of the WTC buildings.
Missile or bomb detonation A review of recorded data from long-range and airport surveillance radars revealed multiple contacts of airplanes or objects in TWA 800's vicinity at the time of the accident.[1]:87–89 None of these contacts intersected TWA 800's position at any time.[1]:89 Attention was drawn to data from the Islip, New York, ARTCC facility that showed three tracks in the vicinity of TWA 800 that did not appear in any of the other radar data.[1]:93 None of these sequences intersected TWA 800's position at any time either.[1]:93 All the reviewed radar data showed no radar returns consistent with a missile or other projectile traveling toward TWA 800.[1]:89 The NTSB addressed allegations that the Islip radar data showed groups of military surface targets converging in a suspicious manner in an area around the accident, and that a 30-knot radar track, never identified and 3 nautical miles (5.6 km; 3.5 mi) from the crash site, was involved in foul play, as evidenced by its failure to divert from its course and assist with the search and rescue operations.[1]:93 Military records examined by the NTSB showed no military surface vessels within 15 nautical miles (28 km; 17 mi) of TWA 800 at the time of the accident.[1]:93 In addition, the records indicated that the closest area scheduled for military use, warning area W-387A/B, was 160 nautical miles (296 km; 184 mi) south.[1]:93 The NTSB reviewed the 30-knot target track to try to determine why it did not divert from its course and proceed to the area where the TWA 800 wreckage had fallen. TWA 800 was behind the target, and with the likely forward-looking perspective of the target's occupant(s), the occupants would not have been in a position to observe the aircraft's breakup or subsequent explosions or fireball(s).[1]:94 Additionally, it was unlikely that the occupants of the target track would have been able to hear the explosions over the sound of its engines and the noise of the hull traveling through water, even more so if the occupants were in an enclosed bridge or cabin.[1]:94 Further, review of the Islip radar data for other similar summer days and nights in 1999 indicated that the 30-knot track was consistent with normal commercial fishing, recreational, and cargo vessel traffic.[1]:94
A review of recorded data from long-range and airport surveillance radars revealed multiple contacts of airplanes or objects in TWA 800's vicinity at the time of the accident.[1]:87–89 None of these contacts intersected TWA 800's position at any time.[1]:89 Attention was drawn to data from the Islip, New York, ARTCC facility that showed three tracks in the vicinity of TWA 800 that did not appear in any of the other radar data.[1]:93 None of these sequences intersected TWA 800's position at any time either.[1]:93 All the reviewed radar data showed no radar returns consistent with a missile or other projectile traveling toward TWA 800.[1]:89
The NTSB addressed allegations that the Islip radar data showed groups of military surface targets converging in a suspicious manner in an area around the accident, and that a 30-knot radar track, never identified and 3 nautical miles (5.6 km; 3.5 mi) from the crash site, was involved in foul play, as evidenced by its failure to divert from its course and assist with the search and rescue operations.[1]:93 Military records examined by the NTSB showed no military surface vessels within 15 nautical miles (28 km; 17 mi) of TWA 800 at the time of the accident.[1]:93 In addition, the records indicated that the closest area scheduled for military use, warning area W-387A/B, was 160 nautical miles (296 km; 184 mi) south.[1]:93
The NTSB reviewed the 30-knot target track to try to determine why it did not divert from its course and proceed to the area where the TWA 800 wreckage had fallen. TWA 800 was behind the target, and with the likely forward-looking perspective of the target's occupant(s), the occupants would not have been in a position to observe the aircraft's breakup or subsequent explosions or fireball(s).[1]:94 Additionally, it was unlikely that the occupants of the target track would have been able to hear the explosions over the sound of its engines and the noise of the hull traveling through water, even more so if the occupants were in an enclosed bridge or cabin.[1]:94 Further, review of the Islip radar data for other similar summer days and nights in 1999 indicated that the 30-knot track was consistent with normal commercial fishing, recreational, and cargo vessel traffic.[1]:94
The four-year NTSB investigation concluded with the approval of the Aircraft Accident Report on August 23, 2000, ending the most extensive, complex and costly air disaster investigation in U.S. history at that time.[7][8] The report's conclusion was that the probable cause of the accident was explosion of flammable fuel vapors in the center fuel tank. Although it could not be determined with certainty, the likely ignition source was a short circuit.[1]:xvi Problems with the aircraft's wiring were found, including evidence of arcing in the Fuel Quantity Indication System (FQIS) wiring that enters the tank. The FQIS on Flight 800 is known to have been malfunctioning; the captain remarked on "crazy" readings from the system approximately two minutes and thirty seconds before the aircraft exploded. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800
No 747s, but other Boeing jets have. I believe two 737s, a 727 and one or more 707s. Not only before this 747, but also afterwards.
I think the two 737 center tank explosions were very similar to flight 800 747. On the ground running the AC units for a long time (located adjacent to the tank), which heated the nearly empty center wing tank to well above the flash point of jet-A fuel, and faulty wiring running through the tank created sparks.
That combination is fortunately rare. Faulty wiring and a nearly empty tank heated to above the flash point by running the AC too long.
Note that the 737 that exploded after flight 800 had aftermarket wiring for an illuminated logo which is believed to be the cause of the spark.
There was also one aired (no cable at the time so OTA, CBS, NBC, FOX orABC) that was from inside an aircraft. It was cast in the green tinge of low light footage. Camera was aimed at two individuals in what appeared to be military garb sitting nxt to each other as if at the controls of an air craft. Time and age have dimmed my memory of exactly what was said on that clip, but I never saw it re-broadcast.
Perhaps Muammar Gaddafi was ‘Arkansided’ to remove the last loose end. Hillary bragged about offing him on the road out of Tripoli.
I wasn’t on the type of ship that could shoot down an airliner. (I was on a Los Angeles class submarine.) It would be nice if there was someone on this board who has experience with Aegis combat systems and could explain the steps required to accidentally (or purposely?) shoot down an aircraft.
Not that I know anything about IFF, but I’d imagine quite a few sailors would like to tell their officers that they’re idiots for targeting a civilian airliner.
I just don’t buy both an actual accident and then one of the most successful cover ups in history.
Look at Post #57
Look at Post #57, there could be a Fauci connection
Don’t get me started on this travesty of justice.
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.