So people are saying that of all the people involved in this "shooting down" that at least one would have leaked it out by running to some news rag for some money? No one?
Posted on 07/14/2021 3:11:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
Look at Post #57, possible Fauci/Clinton connection
Source?
For some quick background, during the first several years of my military career, I was a LAAD officer; an officer in a unit that employed both MANPADs and pedestal-mounted Stingers (Avengers). I’m also familiar with the now decommissioned MIM-23 Hawk system which is a much more capable, robust SAM system. And during the course of my initial schooling and continued training, I’ve seen most of our SAM systems operate. I wouldn’t go as far as to say I’m an ‘expert’ in air defense missile systems as i was only in that job for a few years, but I probably know more than most.
Could a MANPAD (Stinger) have caused the catastrophic damage that TWA experienced? Almost certainly not. First, given its position essentially in the middle of the Long Island Sound, TWA 800 was very likely out of range for any MANPAD platforms that existed back then. More importantly though, MANPADs use a surprisingly small warhead that is designed to home in on the strongest IR signature, which on an airplane is going to be turbine exhaust. Even in an aircraft with an inboard engine(s) like a fighter - 747s have outboard engines mounted on nacelles - these aircraft experience engine failure that results in a catastrophic fuselage disintegration very rarely; it’s not like the movies where the missile hits the fighter and it blows up into a millions pieces. In fact, the ‘explosion’ is surprisingly muted, just a big puff of smoke really.
An aircraft with an outboard-mounted engine would be that much less likely to experience catastrophic fuselage failure. For example, how many 747s, or other passenger aircraft have seen total fuselage failure due to a bird strike on an outboard engine? None....by design. The same design elements that keep the fuselage secure in a engine/bird strike are the same elements that would keep it secure during MANPAD impact on an engine. There have been a number of incidents where multi-engine passenger/cargo planes have been struck by a MANPAD and continued to operate and eventually land safely.
If not a MANPAD, then what? A SAM from a surface ship or submarine ‘accidentally’ took out TWA 800? In a word, that is INSANE. The pre-launch procedures of a SAM aboard a ship are significant. It’s not like a person can accidentally lean on the ‘launch’ button and then, oopsie, missile away. Accidental launches are, by design, impossible. But, let’s arguendo say that it still happened. What are you going to do with the ship/sub full of sailors who, while sailing in the Long Island Sound, listened as their vessel ‘accidentally’ launched a missile to then find out minutes, hours or day later that at that very moment, a passenger plane fell out of the sky in one of the most notable airline accidents in aviation history? And Pro/Tip: A missile launch aboard a ship is not something that happens without being noticed. Everyone - literally everyone on the ship - can hear a missile launch. And yet, no one has said a word?
I honestly can’t believe 25-years later, there are people who still cling to this ABSURD conspiracy theory.
So people are saying that of all the people involved in this "shooting down" that at least one would have leaked it out by running to some news rag for some money? No one?
They showed the video of the missile on TV one time. It disappeared just that quickly.
Conspiracy theorists seem to think that if one or more particular parts of the standard story/official explanation is incorrect, it automatically proves the entire alternative explanation/conspiracy theory as fact. That's not how it works. Multiple theories can be incorrect at the same time. The alternative explanation/conspiracy theory still has to be proven. Yet they never are.
Does the author Jack Cashill say anyting different? No, he doesn't. Here is is the first sentence of the article
How you can say he said something differnt is beyond me.
On July 17, 1996
TWA Flight 800, a Paris-bound 747 out of JFK, blew up off the coast of Long Island.
You was obviously missing in class when you were taught reading. How you can say he said something different is beyond me.
u>On July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800, a Paris-bound 747 out of JFK, blew up off the coast of Long Island.
p
Iranian Air flight 655 July 3 1988 shot down by US Navy
Great points. What about a onboard bomb? I have always been skeptical of the “exploding gas tank” explanation given no other instances of this occurring
Thanks for the detailed explanation of the MANPADS. But I may be of service here. I was in the navy at the time and a submarine sailor aboard a Los Angeles class fast attack boat.
We don't have anti-aircraft missiles aboard fast attack submarines. Plus would be pretty hard to track an airliner with sonar.
So you can scratch submarine off the list too.
I was involved in USN weapons testing on both coast for 28 years. The BS required to launch a missile is extensive especially over open ocean. NOTAMs is probably the easiest aspect but a requirement although there have been times when the date or exercise area have been wrong and those get a great deal of attention and scrutiny when that happens.
I was at Pt Mugu when Alaska Airline 261 went down. They tried to blame that on Navy missile.
My guess, a CIA operation gone bad. Possibly something that was put on the plane for some reason and it went bad.
I always thought it was a terrorist with a shoulder fired missile from a fishing boat.
I simply don’t have the subject-matter understanding of aircraft design to speak to the bomb theory.
Clearly though, any bomb of sufficient size could cause the kind of catastrophe that was seen in TWA 800.
re. AA Fl-587...There were witnesses on Jamaica Bay near Floyd Bennett that told stories in direct opposition to that which was issued by the government. To my knowledge, none of these accounts have been published.
Remember, this was in NYC and only two months after 9/11. The WTC site was still smoking intermittantly.
Agree. Wish he had at least explained why he ruled out a terrorist/red eye (inert).
Thanks. I wasn’t sure if fast-attack had anti-aircraft missiles or not.
It's happened before. In 1963 a Pan Am 707 was struck by lightning which ignited fumes in a fuel tank, killing 81. In 1990 a Philippines Airlines 737 fuel tank exploded while the airplane was on the ground, killing 8 of the 120 people on board. In 2001 a Thai airliner had a fuel tank explode, fortunately before boarding. It's not common because after each case steps were taken to try and prevent it from happening again.
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.