Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trailing the Truth About TWA Tragedy
The Albuquerque Journal (subscription required) ^ | December 21, 2003 | Thomas J. Cole

Posted on 12/23/2003 3:31:14 PM PST by CedarDave

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last
To: diamondjoe
Al Qaeda has never claimed responsibility for any of their attacks.
21 posted on 12/23/2003 5:23:45 PM PST by cheesebus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cheesebus
Al Qaeda has never claimed responsibility for any of their attacks.

Just what I was about to say. One of the new paradigms of terrorism is that, unlike terrorism of the past, the perps don't require or seek credit. (Another of terror's new paradigms is that the perps don't care if they themselves survive the terror act.) These are examples of what makes this fight against terrorism different and daunting.

22 posted on 12/23/2003 5:36:53 PM PST by gg188
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cheesebus
I think the third of three new paradigms of terrorism is that they don't care if they---in fact they SEEK to---kill huge numbers of innocents in genocidal proportions.
23 posted on 12/23/2003 5:39:55 PM PST by gg188
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: diamondjoe
My main quibble with the thought that this was terrorism is this: when was the last time there was a MAJOR terrorist attack that was never claimed by any terrorist group? There are only a few that could have pulled this off, and Al Qaeda is at the top of that list, yet they have never so much as mentioned TWA 800.

I'll bet that it was Al Qaeda, because it's not their style to claim credit. They never officially claimed credit for the WTC, except through the insinuaitons of Bin Laden on video after the whole world accused them of 9/11.

At the same time, it's quite obvious now that Al Queda has the means and cold bloodedness to murder mass numbers of people.

24 posted on 12/23/2003 6:14:30 PM PST by narby (McGovern lost in 72 - and launched the left's takover of the Dem party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
The Navy was conducting pyrotechnic maneuvers nearby at the time. Any questions?
25 posted on 12/23/2003 7:16:37 PM PST by Gigantor (You're in America now; Speak American!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETCS
Your logic is entirely correct. You base it on your own knowlege of human nature on board a Navy ship.

You could NEVER get 300+ American GIs to "cover up" a shootdown of a civilian airline.

If the Navy were so stupid to try to intimidate that many men/women to cover up a crime of this nature we, and most lucid people, know they would never suceed.

Having said that, there are people on this forum - and this thread - that drop their common sense and logic to believe this could actually happen in this day and age.

And they should know better.

26 posted on 12/23/2003 7:32:38 PM PST by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: diamondjoe
My main quibble with the thought that this was terrorism is this: when was the last time there was a MAJOR terrorist attack that was never claimed by any terrorist group?

AQ never "claimed" the WTC '93 bombing. Nor the Cole. Nor Arrow Air, if you find that crash suspicious (or the prominent role of the 101st in Afgansitan), nor AA587, if that was a successful show bomber or a baggage bomb. Throughout history, terror/sabotage attacks were not "claimed" and were also covered up to keep them from damaging morale.

27 posted on 12/23/2003 7:37:17 PM PST by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: spectre
The Cruiser USS Normamdy was 185 miles away, near the maximum range of her radars and far beyond the range of Standard missiles . However, we know that there were 3 Navy Subs very near the point of impact . My theory is that we were testing Sub-launched SAMs that night and it went horribly wrong .
28 posted on 12/23/2003 8:07:46 PM PST by Freak Flag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: All
You know, I've discussed TWA 800 with people in backgrounds ranging from the military to commercial aviation and all have agreed that it could not have been shot down. Bombed, yes. Shot down, No.

One of the most popular theories is that it was a Stinger, SA-7, or some other IR man portable SAM. Well, the problem with that theory is that these missiles track IR sources. In other words they go after heat and the hottest thing on a 747 would be the aircraft's JT9D engines. If a missile such as a Stinger/SA-7 hit a 747 on its engine, the worst possible outcome out be the engine falling away from the aircraft. Almost all aircraft are designed to have the engine break free from the pylon in the event of a major fire. This will keep the burning engine from causing damage to the wing and igniting the wing's fuel tanks. The aircraft can continue to fly with one engine missing and TWA 800 could have easily returned to JFK with this kind of damage.

Secondly, N93119 (the 747's registration) was well out of the range of a land fired man portable SAM. Also, it was nearing the maximum effective range of the older generation man portable SAM's (the kind terrorists use) if they were fired from directly below it.

Third, others claim it was a U.S. Navy ship that shot down the 747. Well, lets look @ it this way. If it was an U.S. Navy ship, we must assume it was either an SM-1 or SM-2 missile. Other Surface to Air missiles (i.e. Sea Sparrow) are usually carried on aircraft carriers, or non front line ships. That would mean the ship must be an Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate, Spruance class destroyer, or one of the Aegis Guided Missile ships, the Ticonderoga class cruiser or the Arleigh Burke class destroyer.

Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigate:187-287

Spruance Class Destroyer:270-351
Ticonderoga Class Guided Missile Cruiser:364-387
Arleigh Burke Class Guided Missile Destroyer:340-380
Nimitz Class Carrier: 6,000+

Now when these ships fire their SM-1 or SM-2 missiles, not only does everyone on the ship know it but if you don't clear that area of the ship before firing, someone will eat missile exhaust for dinner. Given today’s climate, I don't think the U.S. government could keep that many people quite, even if the person only spoke anonymously. I've spoken @ length with a professor @ my university who is an expert in U.S. Naval history as well as most naval weapons. (If anyone needs proof of his credentials, I’ll post a list of books he has written or contributed to.) He is also of the opinion it would be impossible to hide the fact that a U.S. warship fired a missile @ the same time TWA800 crashed. Someone on that ship would figure it out and blow the whistle.

Some people say “Why would an airliner just blow up in midair?”. Well, two other aircraft have blown up for no good reason. A Philippine Airlines 737-300 suffered a center fuel tank explosion in 1990 and on March 3, 2001, a Thai Airways 737-400 also succumbed to a similar fate. Despite the fact that early evidence pointed to a bomb on the Thai 737, no conclusive evidence to that fact has been found.

N93119 was one of the oldest 747's still in service. Problems with wiring in older aircraft was already well known but no one expected it could lead to a disaster. Also, N93119 sat on the tarmac @ JFK and baked for hours. That day, the center fuel tank only contained a small amount of fuel. Also, the center fuel tank on a 747 sits above the aircraft's air conditioners. The heat from the air conditioning units and from sitting out on the tarmac baking in the summer sun would have resulted in the fuel going from liquid to vapor. Now anyone who has a clue knows that fuel vapor is far more explosive than liquid. Put jet fuel in a bucket and drop a match in and the match goes out. Take a container of fuel vapor and put a match in it and there will be a loud BOOM. It is well within the realm of possibility for an aging, damaged wire to arch and ignite the fuel vapors. The result would be an explosion powerful enough to destroy any commercial airliner.

Then we get into the "eyewitnesses". Eyewitnesses are notorious unreliable when it comes to air crashes. I remember right after USAir 427 crashed how many different stories the eyewitnesses had that were being played on CNN. One claimed the aircraft was on fire. Another claimed the engines exploded, while still another said the engines "popped" and then stopped running. The last one was my favorite. A young woman claimed the aircraft simply stopped in mid air and fell straight down. Now we all know what happened to the aircraft. It suffered an un-commanded rudder deflection, not engine failure, fire, or a total stall. Still, the eyewitnesses claimed this was the case.

The same thing happened with American 587 back on 11-12-01. Eyewitnesses said that the left, right, both, and neither engines were on fire. Some said they heard an explosion while others said they did not. Other people said the right engine fell first from the aircraft while others said the left engine broke loose first. Obviously everyone saw the same event but interpreted it differently.

With the exception of the people who saw a "streak of light" in the sky, there is ZERO proof of a missile. What the people saw was an aircraft explode @ a good distance from their position. Now anyone with ½ a brain will tell you that perception can be distorted by distance. The thing that makes most people who are in the aviation field wary of the conspiracy theories that surround TWA 800 is the fact that all of the so called "evidence" is very weak and almost always can be refuted without much effort.

Those who are skeptical of the conspiracies that surround TWA 800 are that way because most of the theories are so far out there that it is beyond the realm of logic. Some people imply that Klintoon had it shot down because there was someone on board he wanted dead. Others have said it was done because certain foreign military personal were onboard. Why is it so hard to believe that maybe it was simply a mechanical failure that brought down the aircraft?

29 posted on 12/23/2003 9:07:40 PM PST by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: spectre
Then perhaps you could tell us just what you think happened to TWA 800.
30 posted on 12/23/2003 9:26:45 PM PST by Houmatt (Pray for Terri Schindler!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
I have no idea what happened to TWA 800.

It is what is called a mystery.

I do know that anyone who believes over 300 crewmembers of a missile frigate could actually be silenced to cover up the shootdown of an airliner does not have a firm grasp of reality.

31 posted on 12/23/2003 9:34:24 PM PST by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
With the exception of the people who saw a "streak of light" in the sky, there is ZERO proof of a missile. What the people saw was an aircraft explode @ a good distance from their position. Now anyone with ½ a brain will tell you that perception can be distorted by distance. The thing that makes most people who are in the aviation field wary of the conspiracy theories that surround TWA 800 is the fact that all of the so called "evidence" is very weak and almost always can be refuted without much effort.

In your dreams, pal. The main evidence comes from a photograph, and the eyewitness accounts of 258 people. These people said they saw an object come from the water and strike the plane. If anyone with half a brain does not realize 1) light travels faster than sound, and 2) unless all 258 witnesses were standing on their heads, debris does not fall up, regardless of what the government told them, you have to wonder which half they have, because it obviously is not the thinking half.

32 posted on 12/23/2003 9:36:35 PM PST by Houmatt (Pray for Terri Schindler!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
If you want to wear a tin foil hat, be my guest. I will not without some real proof.

Oh, and that so called "picture" of the missile shows something that looks more like a TLAM or ALCM than a SAM. SAM's do not fly straight and level along the surface of the water and then magically turn straight up at the last moment.

Eyewitnesses are not reliable sources no matter how many there may be. Go back and study several dozen aircraft accidents that have eyewitnesses and you will see each person's story is different and only agree on the general points and rarely on anything specific.

33 posted on 12/23/2003 9:41:22 PM PST by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
(snip)Some people imply that Klintoon had it shot down because there was someone on board he wanted dead.(snip)

And we wonder why we are called "wingnuts" and "Far right extremeists". I despise Clinton as much as any other person in their right mind, but please, just damn.
34 posted on 12/23/2003 9:45:14 PM PST by BritExPatInFla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
Oh, and that so called "picture" of the missile shows something that looks more like a TLAM or ALCM than a SAM. SAM's do not fly straight and level along the surface of the water and then magically turn straight up at the last moment.

The photo shows a missile in flight near a populated area. Last time I checked, doing something like that is a big no-no, as it endangers the lives of civilians. It does not matter what kind it was.

Eyewitnesses are not reliable sources no matter how many there may be.

Gosh, it did not take too long to unload the biggest pile of poppycock, did it? Sorry, guy, but there were 258 people who reported the same thing. This was not some rape in the subway, this was an object coming from below and striking the plane.

If you wish to either call these witnesses liars or believe in your heart of hearts that debris fall up, you can be my guest. But that does not make it reality.

35 posted on 12/23/2003 10:05:52 PM PST by Houmatt (Pray for Terri Schindler!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
My, aren't we hostile tonight. You didn't eat part of that mad cow did you?

:Thinking: Trying to talk aviation with 99% of the population is like trying to discuss religion with an atheist.

36 posted on 12/23/2003 10:52:51 PM PST by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks
Well said, and too many people would have been involved in any missile scenario (two is too many) either terror or accident for any solid evidence not to have leaked out. Just one suspect would do it for me. Anyone have any names?
37 posted on 12/23/2003 11:18:16 PM PST by ChEng
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145; Houmatt
Most , if not all the folks who subscribe to this theory have never observed a missile launch from a USN ship. I've been involved in many, including shots from Arleigh Burke Destroyers and Ticonderoga Cruisers. In several shots I was in the firing chain as Combat Systems Coordinator. Many steps are taken to ensure a safe range before a launch. Notices are sent prior to the scheduled exercise. ATC's know in advance, and if an air lane passes through the area, the lane is closed. The range is cleared and confirmed GREEN. If anyone fouls the range, the shot will not happen. Even if a missile is in flight, pressing the "Break Engage" VAB will destroy the missile in flight in the case of a fouled range.

Also, the 747 does not resemble the flight profile of any target we would shoot at in an exercise firing. Our targets simulate small radar cross section anti-ship cruise missiles. They either come in very low, nearly skimming the wave tops, low at supersonic speed, or in a steep dive at supersonic speed. Both missiles and targets are expensive, so we have extensive coordination with the range. The ship knows where the target is coming from and we are kept advised of target status. A missile shot is not a test of the crew, to see how they perform tactically. We can practice tactics by placing the system in training. The missile shot is to test the weapons system, either against a new threat, a specific missile against a specific threat or just verifying proper system operation.

As far as an accidental launch, there are two sets of keys (Firing Inhibit Switch and Remote Launch Enable Panel) that must be inserted and turned, as well as a safety switch on each missile canister. I can assure you we are not cruising around US coastal waters with all of these safeties bypassed.

And still, if disaster struck by some unimaginable chain of events, how do you get 300 sailors to ignore what they know is right and lie? It's been over 6 years. Many of these sailors would be civilians now, but no one talks?

38 posted on 12/23/2003 11:53:34 PM PST by ETCM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson