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

Skip to comments.

8 years later, TWA 800 case just heating up!
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, July 16, 2004 | Jack Cashill

Posted on 07/16/2004 4:53:39 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

Edited on 07/16/2004 4:55:29 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

Last July 17, the major media made no comment that seven years prior, on July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800 exploded off the coast of Long Island, killing all 230 people on board.

If the media took note of the date "July 17" at all last year, it was only to observe that American soldiers had found it scrawled on walls throughout Iraq. July 17, after all, was Iraq's national liberation day, the day Saddam helped lead the Baath Party to power in 1968, the day he seized the presidency in 1979, and not impossibly, the day he took his revenge on the United States in 1996.

This year, as every year, thousands of TWA Flight 800 family members and other interested parties will honor the date. Among them is Capt. Ray Lahr. Just last week, the retired United Airline pilot learned that his case against the National Transportation Safety Board and the Central Intelligence Agency is still on track. On Monday, Aug. 2, Lahr and his attorney, John Clarke of Washington, will square off against the NTSB and the CIA at the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

Lahr is hoping to force the NTSB and CIA to disclose the data upon which they based what Lahr calls "the impossible zoom-climb." As the agencies and Lahr both understand, the zoom-climb is the Achilles heel of the TWA Flight 800 investigation.

The FBI first publicly advanced the zoom-climb scenario when it bowed out of the case in November 1997. Its agents did so to negate the stubborn testimony of the hundreds of eyewitnesses who had sworn they saw a flaming, smoke-trailing, zigzagging object destroy TWA Flight 800.

To make its case, the FBI presented a video prepared by the CIA. A key animation sequence in that video showed an internal fuel tank explosion blowing the nose off the aircraft, which then "pitched up abruptly and climbed several thousand feet from its last recorded altitude of about 13,800 feet to a maximum altitude of about 17,000 feet." This rocketing aircraft, claimed the video, looked like a missile and confused the eyewitnesses.

This animation was essential to close the investigation. Without it, there was no way to explain what these hundreds of eyewitnesses – many of them highly credible – had actually seen. A veteran safety investigator and a serious researcher in the field of gravity, Ray Lahr watched this animation in utter disbelief. He knew this scenario to be impossible, and he set out to prove it. When he learned that not a single eyewitness had seen the plane ascend, including airline pilots who had watched it from above, he redoubled his efforts to discover the basic physics behind the alleged zoom-climb. For the last several years, however, despite numerous FOIA requests, the NTSB has refused to cooperate. The impressively stubborn Lahr finally took the agency to court.

Lahr has done an excellent job pulling the sometimes-fractious TWA 800 community together to assist him. Many key people have filed sworn affidavits with Lahr, including retired Rear Adm. Clarence Hill, and their collective commentary has to impress even the most skeptical of observers. All of this evidence, including the court papers, can be found at RayLahr.com, as well as in past articles on WorldNetDaily.

One question that has never been resolved is just how the CIA animation project came to pass. Two recent books, however, do shed light on the dynamics of the video's creation. One is the much-discussed "Against All Enemies," by Richard Clarke, then chairman of the Clinton administration's Coordinating Security Group on terrorism. The second is Murray Weiss's recent and highly readable book, "The Man Who Warned America," on the subject of John O'Neill, a terrorist expert with the FBI who died in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11.

Within 30 minutes of TWA Flight 800's destruction, Clarke relates in his book, he had convened a meeting of the CSG in the White House situation room. "The FAA," Clarke reports, "was at a total loss for an explanation. The flight path and the cockpit communications were normal. The aircraft had climbed to 17,000 feet, then there was no aircraft."

Clarke here serves up two significant untruths in a book replete with them. The first is that the Federal Aviation Administration was at "a total loss" for an explanation. In fact, it was the FAA that prompted the meeting and did so for a very specific and frightening reason: Its personnel believed the aircraft had been attacked. As NTSB Chairman Jim Hall would report in a confidential November 1996 report, "Top intelligence and security officials were told in a video conference from the White House Situation Room that radar tapes showed an object headed at the plane before it exploded."

Clarke also deceives the reader about altitude. The FAA never reported an altitude of 17.000 feet – nothing close. The FAA knew that the last recorded altitude of TWA Flight 800 was "about 13,800 feet" as even the CIA animation later admits. In the retelling, Clarke pads in the zoom-climb differential on the night of the crash and attributes it falsely to the FAA.

Weiss, who had excellent access to O'Neill's FBI colleagues, gets much closer to the truth as to the motive behind the emergency White House meeting. "The FAA," he writes, "initially reported spotting a radar blip on their tapes that indicated there was another plane or projectile near TWA Flight 800 when it exploded." This much is true. Weiss, however, is misled on his next point, namely that the FAA told the FBI one day later that "there was no blip. There were no missiles picked up on the JFK scanners." The sighting was an "anomaly."

In truth, to its credit, the FAA refused to change its story despite the pressure to do so. When in November 1996, the NTSB leaned on the FAA to "agree that there is no evidence that would suggest a high speed target merged with TWA 800," the FAA refused.

"We cannot comply with your request," the FAA's David Thomas responded. "By alerting law-enforcement agencies, air-traffic control personnel simply did what was prudent at the time and reported what appeared to them to be a suspicious event. To do less would have been irresponsible."

To set the record straight on this issue, Ray Lahr persuaded one key witness, James Holtsclaw, to go public for the first time. In 1996, Holtsclaw was serving as the deputy assistant for the Western Region of the Air Transport Association. Within a week of the crash, Holtsclaw received the radar tape directly from an NTSB investigator frustrated by its suppression. "The tape shows a primary target at 1200 knots converging with TWA 800, during the climb out phase of TWA 800," swears Holtsclaw on the Lahr affidavit.

In fact, before the investigation was through, authorities would introduce five different explanations to rationalize away that "blip." This obvious dissembling may explain why investigators felt the need to smuggle out evidence. Holtsclaw's informant would be the first of several – at least four of whom would be either suspended from the investigation or arrested.

Within weeks of the crash, the FBI would interview more than 700 eyewitnesses. By its own count, 270 of them saw lights streaking upward toward the plane. Defense Department analysts also debriefed some of these witnesses, 34 of whom, according to the FBI, described events "consistent with the characteristics of the flight of [anti-aircraft] missiles." There were also scores of witness drawings, some so accurate and vivid they could chill the blood.

About four weeks after the crash, Clarke reports in "Against All Enemies," he met with O'Neill, who told him that the eyewitness interviews "were pointing to a missile attack, a Stinger." Given what the FBI knew at the time, this much seems credible.

"[TWA 800] was at 15,000 feet," Clarke allegedly responds. "No Stinger or any other missile like it can go that high." One would think that on so sensitive and contentious a point, Clarke would have made an effort to get the altitude of TWA 800 right or even consistently wrong. He does neither. In his scarily sloppy book, the boastful Clarke finesses credit for the zoom-climb and, in a stunning revelation, seizes full credit for deducing the exploding fuel tank part of that scenario even before the NTSB did.

Clarke, however, has had a hard time keeping his story straight. In an earlier New Yorker article on O'Neill soon after Sept. 11, Clarke tells reporter Lawrence Wright that it was O'Neill who insisted that TWA Flight 800 was out of the range of the Stinger, and O'Neill who believed that the "ascending flare" that the witnesses saw must have been something else, like "the ignition of leaking fuel from the aircraft."

Weiss likewise gives all credit to O'Neill for the zoom-climb scenario, thinking that it is indeed "credit" O'Neill deserves. Weiss contends that O'Neill not only conceived the zoom-climb scenario, but that he also "persuaded the CIA to do a video simulation of his scenario." Under an eight-panel recreation of the zoom-climb in the photo section of his book, Weiss writes that O'Neill used the CIA video simulation "to quash any fears that the disaster was a terrorist event." This last point is tellingly true.

Clarke and O'Neill have not been the only two agents angling for credit. The best-documented claim, in fact, comes from "CIA Analyst 1" during his April 1999 grilling by a few honest, rank-and-file NTSB investigators. As the CIA analyst relates, the zoom-climb insight came to him like an epiphany. He traced the moment of awareness to the precise hour of 10 p.m. on Dec. 30, 1996.

Said the analyst, "There was a realization, having all the data laid out in front of me, that you can explain what the eyewitnesses are seeing with only the burning aircraft." The analyst came to his startling conclusion after reviewing only about 12 percent of the interview statements. The CIA did no interviews of its own.

What puzzled the NTSB guys was just how many eyewitnesses actually saw a plane with a ruptured center fuel tank rocketing upward with burning fuel spewing behind it (especially with the center fuel tank being essentially empty at take-off). The CIA cited only 21 witnesses. But as the questioning of CIA Analyst 1 wore on, it became clear there were fewer still. An NTSB investigator finally sighed in frustration, "If it's only one or two of [the eyewitnesses], it's not representative of all of them."

Analyst 1 then pulled out his trump card, his key witness, the man who had seen everything: "That [zoom-climb] is something that a few eyewitnesses saw. The guy on the bridge saw that." As we have documented on these pages before, the man on the bridge saw no such thing. The CIA or the FBI (or both or Richard Clarke) manufactured an interview with this man, Mike Wire of Philadelphia, out of whole cloth. Wire's "second interview" is the most crucial bit of evidence in the entire investigation, the evidence around which the zoom-climb scenario was created, and it's fully and provably counterfeit.

Whether Clarke or O'Neill or the CIA analyst were responsible for the zoom-climb scenario individually or together is not relevant to technicians like Ray Lahr. Nor has he focused on how an FBI middle manager like O'Neill could have breached the historic wall between the two agencies and enlisted the CIA in a project that would take at least 11 months from conception to execution. No, what most troubles Lahr is how three men with no discernible aviation or engineering experience could possibly have used any science whatsoever to arrive at such critical conclusions.

The truth of the matter proves elusive. The CIA analyst lied shamelessly in his testimony. Richard Clarke lies shamelessly throughout his book. The jury is still out on O'Neill, but the evidence is not encouraging. As Weiss well documents, O'Neill maintained a wife and two children in New Jersey and simultaneously cajoled at least three women in three different cities into thinking that he was going to marry them. What is more, despite maintaining two households, O'Neill somehow managed to live extravagantly on a government salary. In an otherwise flattering profile, Weiss concedes of O'Neill, "He always seemed to be lying about some aspect of his life."

Whether O'Neill helped conceal the demise of TWA Flight 800 remains unclear. Although Weiss attributes both the zoom-climb scenario and the final TWA 800 report to O'Neill, no reporter made this connection while he was alive. In her book on the crash investigation, "Deadly Departure," CNN reporter Christine Negroni does not even mention O'Neill. In her FBI-friendly book, "In The Blink of an Eye," AP reporter Pat Milton pays O'Neill little heed, but she does reveal that upon hearing the news of the crash, John O'Neill's first call went to none other than Richard Clarke, and it is O'Neill, Clarke's best friend in the FBI, who plays the role of tragic hero in "Against All Enemies."

Ray Lahr will leave it to other courts to establish who was the architect of the greatest peacetime deception in American history. His interest is the zoom-climb scenario itself, according to Weiss, "the most significant part" of the final case-closing FBI presentation.

"A little basic physics," adds Weiss naively, "helped explain what witnesses saw and heard in the summer skies off Long Island." Lahr is hoping that the federal courts will finally force the NTSB and CIA to explain finally what those "little basic physics" are.




TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: clarke; clarketreason; clarkeweasel; concpiracy; conspiracy; klintonkommies; richardclarke; treason; twa800; twaflight800
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-271 next last
To: JohnHuang2
Not that I would ever want to add fuel to the fire, but I heard Georgie Steponallofus say it with my own ears that day, "the bombing of Flight 800." Freudian slip? Yeah, sure.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor_print/887_0_2_0/

201 posted on 07/17/2004 9:11:10 PM PDT by FlyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I'm still putting my money on a boloid that also hit flight 800.

That was considered. I think it's appendix 13 of the report. There are several reasons it was rejected. The most important is that the breakup sequence definitely began in the CWFT and proceeded from there (there are a number of ways to determine the sequence, metallurgy, sooting, etc. and they all agree).

OK, so why didn't a piece of space debris, say, penetrate the CWFT and set off the fuel-air explosion that overpressured the carry-through and broke the plane up? Because there's no hole. The structure was almost all recovered, and the bits that were not recovered, the inner and or outer skin between them and the great outdoors was recovered. (Actually the "missing" bits were probably among the fragmentary wreckage recovered, but couldn't be ID's with certainty and put into place. We are talking a max of a pound or so in sub-one-ounce fragments here and there). And none of those missing tank fragments can be gotten to in a straight line from outside the aircraft, except by going through skin and/or structure that evidences no hole.

SO... Imagine you have a helium balloon inside a shoebox that is taped shut. You come home from school and you open the box and the ballon is popped. You think your brother did it with his bb gun. But there is no hole in the box, and no hole in the balloon that resembles that made by a BB gun. Your brother didn't do it -- at least, not that way.

If you have followed me so far, you see that your space debris theory can't be responsible. ANd by the same reasoning, neither can missile fragmentation. (There are no signs of missile blast or fragmentation, or of a bomb, on the wreckage. Anywhere. And yes, these things leave definite signatures and NTSB metallurgists can spot them almost with their eyes closed). There was no question on Clipper 103. There isn't on TWA 800 either.

Here are a couple experiments that most TWA 800 refuseniks either don't know about, or don't understand:

  1. An instrumented test flight in a similar 747, reproducing the profile of 800, showed that the fuel-air mixture in TWA800s CWFT was explosive at 13,800 MSL (this danger, by the way, is not news to jet pilots or aero engineers. The traditional answer has been to eliminate ignition sources. That will now be supplemented with chemical inerting or the fuel tank ullage).
  2. Test explosions in a scale model of the CWFT produced structural failures identical to those documented in the mishap aircraft.

    Those tests were conducted by Cal Tech's Explosion Dynamics Laboratory (more members of the great conspiracy! Egads how will Jamie Gorelick rub them out now that they know too much? But I digress). Some of the conspiratroids latch onto the fact that these tests did not use Jet A, but they don't understand that the tests could not be conducted at 13,800 feet. The substitute fuel was selected because its properties at the test altitude in California duplicated the properties of Jet A at 13,800. It is very hard to get this across to someone who thinks that Boyle's Law is a cop show on TV....

You are correct about the Iranian Airbus. It was hit by a Standard missile (possibly by two, two were fired) from USS Vincennes. All 290 crew and pax perished. Iranians were very angry about the incident. In defence of the skipper of Vincennes and his officers and men, they were fighting with Iranian light surface vessels at the time, as the US had been engaged in a series of undeclared fights with Iran since 1987 in the Gulf, and a US warship (USS Stark) had recently been hit by a pair of Exocets from an Iraqi fighter, in part because the crew were slow on the trigger. It still was a major blunder and a tragedy.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

202 posted on 07/17/2004 9:56:23 PM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Where is Michael Rivero when we really need him?

Banned, for repeating the jihadi lie that the Joooooz did 9/11... which makes about as much sense as his theories on this.

If you really want to read his superheated, fact-free drivel, you can find him on "whatreallyhappened.com" which is one of his websites (he has several so he can agree with himself). WHat Really Happened. That's as good a howler as Clinton's "Most Ethical Administration in History." But if you want to see what Mikey sayd, go ahead: it's a free country!

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

203 posted on 07/17/2004 10:01:41 PM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OESY
It is consistent with other known information

Oh, I'm going to have fun with this.

  1. regarding spill patterns showing the cockpit separated before the center fuel tank blew

    First place, "spill patterns" refers to fluids. If you want to know the breakup sequence of the aircraft, look at the sequence group's report -- it's all based on physical evidence and it's pretty damn unequivocal. Yeah, Cashill, Sanders, et al lie about it.

  2. how people died with necks broken in the same direction

    Ask a physician what happens to humans when they are inside a vehicle that experiences accelerations of 40+ G.

  3. positive missile fuel residue tests,

    This particular lie comes from Sanders. After being banned from the wreckage storage area, he had a friend steal a piece of upholstery from the wreckage. He, his wife and his friend were all convicted of this theft. He did have it analyzed and declared that the analysis shows that the stuff is rocket fuel. Unfortunately for Sanders the result is inconsistent with any known rocket fuel. It is, however, a good match for seafloor sediment. Dr. George Bizigotti addressed this in great detail and his response forms FAQ 2.1.5 of the alt.disasters.aviation FAQ.

  4. Iranian terrorist claims of responsibility

    That's true, they claimed they did it. They claimed AA 587 too (another mechanical). And they claimed the summer power failures of 2003. But you are in the position of accepting felons (Sanders) and terrorists at their word, while suggesting that thousands of disinterested government engineers and scientists are liars. Time for a vacation...

  5. secret storage of key aircraft salvage

    You mean, they were trying to keep secret the location of stuff ghoulish newsmen were trying to photograph, and creepy collectors, and conspiracy nutballs like Sanders (who was successful, briefly!) were trying to steal? Gee, why would they do that?

    The wreckage is now used as a training aid for investigators, as part of George Washington University's aviation safety program (a very good one!) But wait, is GWU in on the conspiracy too...? [cinching the chinstrap on my foil helmet]

  6. removal of whistleblower protections from naval rescue squads by Clinton's executive order

    I dunno where this howler came from. First, what rescue squads? It was clear within an hour of the crash that no one was going to be rescued. Second, I never heard of anybody in the military having "whistleblower protection." Maybe I missed it -- I only spent 25 years in uniform.

  7. prosecution of dissenters,

    Sanders was not prosecuted for "dissent." He was prosecuted for theft. A jury of his peers found him guilty despite his best line of "dissent" bullshit and a bunch of red herrings his lawyer dragged across the trail. SO was his wife; she now whines that "persecution" cost her her job. (What would YOU do to an employee caught stealing?) They argued this case all the way to the supreme court and lost all the way. Thieves and felons shouldn't get a break because they feel it's really important for them to steal. I have this old-fashioned idea that jail is the place that thieves should be hanging their hats.

  8. press complicity in a reelection year

    The press dutifully reported the process of both the official investigation and the conspiracy nutballs. Ultimately, the official investigation won out because, in the final analysis, it is more credible. When the nutballs can advance Jailbird Jim Sanders (I know, Sanders fans, he only got probation... Felon Jim just doesn't "sing" OK?) and Michael "Blame the Jews!" Rivero as their spokesmen, they ain't gonna get a lot of credibility. Particularly given the tendency of these folks to be economical with the truth.

  9. This glove fits.

    LOL. I always suspected Johnnie Cochran was a closet FReeper....

"Johnnie," please don't take this as a personal attack. You have been exposed to some propaganda on this. The conspiracy minded folks keep moving the ball; when one of their pet theories is disproven (like the Sanders "Rocket Fuel" lie) they either move on to the next, or keep repeating the lie as if they never heard the counter. Listen! Read the ADA FAQ (linked in this post). Then if you have the time read the public docket at ntsb.gov. If you are not an aviator, or don't have a decent science background, you may get stuck at points.

Then read the conspiratorial books with a new eye. Compare the tone, and the assertions versus what is proven in each. Why are Sanders's, for instance, technical experts mostly anonymous? None of them stole anything, so they should have nothing to fear. Is it that they don't exist? Or is it that they, like "aviation professional" Sanders, overstate their credentials? The experts on the NTSB side are all really experts... take a look at the bios of the technical people on that report (they all have real names and real CV's, unlike Sanders's pick-up team).

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

204 posted on 07/17/2004 10:56:48 PM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

bump and save


205 posted on 07/17/2004 10:59:16 PM PDT by krunkygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Almost none of them claimed they saw a missile.

"Almost none?"

Do you speak English as your fifteenth language or something?

What dimension do you live in?

206 posted on 07/17/2004 11:00:04 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

As a multilingual genius, allow me to translate. "Almost none" means a number close to zero. There were 755 recorded witnesses. Few, if any stated they observed a missile. You can read their statements yourself from one of the sites at the link you provided.


207 posted on 07/17/2004 11:22:06 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
besides the fact that there was NO OTHER Boeing plane on which this EVER happened.

Er, how about seven other planes (including military a/c?) Or to quote from Dr Bernard Loeb:

previous fuel/air explosions in the center wing tanks of commercial airliners that contained Jet A fuel have confirmed that a center wing tank explosion involving Jet A fuel can result in destruction of an airplane. Specifically, I am referring to the November 1989 accident involving a Boeing 727 operated by the Colombian airline Avianca that occurred during the climb after takeoff, and the May 1990 accident involving a Boeing 737 operated by Philippine Air Lines that occurred on the ground at the airport.

Speech date 8/22/2000

There also was, after Dr Loeb gave his speech, another fuel-air explosion which destroyed a Thai 737 on the ground. See here. Initial reports were that that was terrorism, too, but it was found to have been a tank blast in the "empty" centre wing fuel tank. (Empty tanks, every pilot, mechanic, and engineer learns, always contain a quantity of 'unusable' fuel, so they are never truly empty once the machine has ever had fuel in it).

Dr Loeb missed this famous accident to an Iranian Air Force Boeing 747 in Spain. (At the time, Iran was a monarchy under Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, and an important US ally in the Middle East). In this case, lightning may have been the ignition source but the explosion that destroyed the plane inflight and killed all on board was most probably a fuel-air blast. I suspect that Dr Loeb did not mention this accident because the finding of probable cause is not 100% for fuel-air.

You really shouldn't post very strong statements of fact when authoritative contrary information is just a Google away. I will presume you have made an honest error. As far as the explosivity of Jet A, check the Cal Tech "Explosion Dynamics Laboratory" on line, they have done extensive research and they explain themselves in laymen's terminology, or in as much depth as you woulf like. As you point out, if the mixture is too rich (too much fuel) or too lean (not enough fuel) combustion, and therefore explosion, is not possible.

For many years aero engineers thought that it was inevitable for you to have a combustible fuel/air mix at certain ranges of altitude and temperature. So the answer has been to try to keep the third necessary ingredient (fuel, oxygen... and ignition), the ignition source, out of the fuel tank. The TWA 800 accident was unable to determine the actual ignition source. To the horror of the investigators, there were several potential suspects. In a belt-and-suspenders approach, the FAA ordered them all fixed. (NTSB investigates, FAA regulates).

After a while, the FAA was not comfortable with even that and as a result inerting systems will be required. (this removes ingredient #2, oxygen). The good news is that FAA and Boeing have come up with a lighter weight and less costly system than the military had been using. In the meantime, as I understand it 74's are all flying with the CWFT full, or at least with too much fuel for combustion of the fuel-air mixture ("too rich").

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

208 posted on 07/17/2004 11:27:31 PM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: EUPHORIC
Me either. It is BS. Technically impossible.

Went to public school, didn't you? Do you have any idea how stupid you look when you post something that assertive, when it is absolutely, completely, wrong? Your statement is contradicted by science and disproven by history (the above mentioned fuel tank explosions). It is as wrong as saying you can't go around the world because you'll fall off the edge.

Here is Cal Tech's explanation of just how it is possible.

Now, I expect you to read that and apologize to everyone on this thread for either lying (which is deliberately posting false information) or running your mouth about stuff you don't understand, and claiming you did. Which, when you think about it, is still lying, once removed, but it may have been through overestimating your own knowledge, so maybe you shouldn't have to wear a scarlet "L" just yet.

You may be knowledgeable about many things, but your post here is a perfect illustration of Will Rogers's famous aphorism. "It's not what we don't know that hurts us. It's what we know that just ain't so."

If you can't understand the words on the CalTech EDL page, maybe you can make sense of the diagram. If you have questions, ask. There are numerous FReepers that did actually take physics (some that teach it).

Sorry for singling you out from all the people that post that guff, but I ran across your post exactly at the point where I had had it with endlessly repeated falsehoods, myths, and lies.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

209 posted on 07/17/2004 11:44:43 PM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

We have a better chance of getting the guy on the grassy knowl than getting to the truth on this one.


210 posted on 07/18/2004 5:21:39 AM PDT by longfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
First it was 'ullage' and now it's 'tatterdemalion'.

Every time go expository on TWA 800, I find myself in need of a dictionary.

What's up with that?

211 posted on 07/18/2004 8:27:51 AM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Few, if any stated they observed a missile. You can read their statements yourself from one of the sites at the link you provided.

I don't understand the psychotic word game you are playing. Let's start with one of my previous links: how does the following article support your statement that "almost none" of the eyewitnesses reported seeing a missile?

One other question: you are really James Kallstrom, aren't you?

New York Post
September 22, 1996
TWA Probers: Missile Witnesses "Credible"

By MURRAY WEISS
Criminal Justice Editor

More than 150 "credible" witnesses -- including several scientists -- have told the FBI and military experts they saw a missile destroy TWA Flight 800, The Post has learned.

Sources provided startling new details from the frustrating two-month probe -- persuading agents to acknowledge that the witnesses' accounts point toward a missile:

The FBI interviewed 154 "credible" witnesses -- including scientists, schoolteachers, Army personnel and business executives -- who described seeing a missile heading through the sky just before Flight TWA 800 exploded.

"Some of these people are extremely, extremely credible," a top federal official said.

Sources said the witnesses lived or were vacationing along Long Island's South Shore in Nassau and Suffolk counties when they saw the object heading toward the sky.

"When we asked what they saw and where they saw it, the witnesses out east pointed to the west, and the people to the west pointed to the east ," one source said.

FBI technicians mapped the various paths -- points in the sky where the witnesses said they saw the rising "flare-like" object -- and determined that the "triangulated" convergence point was virtually where the jumbo jet initially exploded.

Struck by the number and confidence of the witnesses, the FBI sat down many of the witnesses with U.S. military experts, who debriefed them and independently confirmed for the FBI that their descriptions matched surface-to-air missile attacks.

"The military experts told us that what the witnesses were describing was consistent with a missile," a federal official acknowledged. "They told us, "You know what they are describing is a missile.' "

Law-enforcement sources said the hardest evidence gathered so far overwhelmingly suggests a surface-to-air missile -- with the sophisticated ability to lock on the center of a target rather than its red-hot engines -- was fired from a boat off the Long Island coast to bring down the airliner July 17.

That theory would have the attackers launching their missile from a boat and fleeing north into Canada during the confusion immediately after the explosion. Investigators are reviewing an anonymous threat received after the Oct. 1, 1995, conviction of radical sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a law-enforcement source said.

The threat was that a New York area airport or jetliner would be attacked in retaliation for the prosecution of the sheik, convicted of plotting to blow up major New York City landmarks.

Investigators have been unable to find definitive evidence proving any of their three key theories: missile, bomb planted in the plane or a mechanical malfunction.

On Friday, the bomb theory took another tumble when the FBI revealed the plane had carried explosives within a year of the crash as part of a training exercise for drug-sniffing dogs.

That revelation could explain how traces of explosives were found on wreckage of the downed Boeing 747.

The overriding obstacle for investigators probing the missile theory has been the fact that Flight 800's engines show no signs of missile damage.

But military experts told the FBI several modern heat-seeking missiles -- in the hands of terrorists in Africa and available to their Middle East counterparts -- target a plane's "central mass."

These missiles -- launched from a shoulder harness or a small pad -- different from the Stinger missiles that Afgani freedom fighters used against the Russians -- are equipped with a super-sophisticated heat- seeking device and are able to reach higher targets.

TWA 800 exploded at 13,700 feet -- the upper limit for the newest of these portable-type missile systems.

Military experts pointed the FBI to man-portable missiles such as the SA -14 Gremlin, SA-16 Gimlet and SA-18 Grouse -- equipped with "proportional convergence logic" systems that are "sensitive enough to home in on airframe radiation" once it nears its target, rather than isolated hot spots.

Copyright 1996, N.Y.P. Holdings Inc.

212 posted on 07/18/2004 8:44:13 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Few, if any stated they observed a missile. You can read their statements yourself from one of the sites at the link you provided.

Struck by the number and confidence of the witnesses, the FBI sat down many of the witnesses with U.S. military experts, who debriefed them and independently confirmed for the FBI that their descriptions matched surface-to-air missile attacks.

The fact that you resort to childish word games makes you look silly.

213 posted on 07/18/2004 8:46:49 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Heat seeking missiles guide to engines. Not internal fuel tanks.

The latest SAM technology is able to lock onto center-of-mass.

214 posted on 07/18/2004 8:49:13 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

Why did I get a request for a cookie from the New York Times when I clicked on this thread? The article is from WorldNetDaily.com


215 posted on 07/18/2004 8:57:00 AM PDT by fightu4it (conquest by immigration and subversion spells the end of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Radar Images of TWA 800


216 posted on 07/18/2004 9:07:54 AM PDT by zeebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
"how does the following article support your statement that "almost none" of the eyewitnesses reported seeing a missile?"

Unlike you (apparently) and the New York Post, I don't rely on anonymous sources for my information. The transcript of every single witness interview is a matter of public record and available on line. What becomes stunningly clear, is that there is no consistant eyewitness description of what happened that night. Furthermore, as anyone who has witnessed a SAM launch will tell you, the most obvious indicator is the smoke trail it leaves behind. In fact, that is all most people will see. The entire time the rocket burns, it smokes. A lot. So it is incredible that witnesses who reported a streak of light, did not also report a smoke trail. But very few did. Just like very few called it a missile. So you and the Post can say all you want that witnesses observed a missile, but that doesn't make that statement a fact.

Furthermore, not a single investigative body involved in the TWA 800 investigation could find any tangible evidence of a bomb or missile strike in the wreckage (including Boeing, TWA, ALPA and the NTSB). The IAMS report stated they thought an overpressure event happened outside the aircraft, but unless someone created a SAM that explodes without creating shrapnel, it is unlikely such an event occured.

Finally, infrared seekers cannot guide to the center of mass of a target. They can only guide on heat sources, because that is all they "see". An infrared missile will generally lock onto the hottest object it sees, and keep that object in the center of its focal array until impact. It doesn't know if it's locked onto a 747, an F-16, a flare or the Sun. It just knows it has to hit the hotspot. Radar guided missiles will guide to center of mass, but if you want to argue TWA 800 was shot down by a radar guided missile, you're opening a whole new can of worms that is even less likely. Bottomline, not surprisingly, the Post and its anonymous sources don't know what they're talking about.

217 posted on 07/18/2004 9:26:27 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Being tasered was the single worst experience of my life (coming, as it did, on a day that was already bad), and I still feel residual effects.

So what did all those people see?

Are they all lying?

218 posted on 07/18/2004 9:30:35 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
"Are they all lying?"

No. They are all telling the truth. It is folks who report that these people say they saw a missile fly up and impact TWA 800 that are lying. It is a lie made to support an otherwise unsupportable theory. It is a lie that is told over and over again with the hope that it will eventually become "truth". But the truth is on the record, and the record is a collection of signed statements by witnesses who do NOT say they saw a missile fly up and hit an airplane.

219 posted on 07/18/2004 10:32:35 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite

Er, I have a big vocabulary?

Hey, how many FReepers know what a 'hoplite' is? (was)?

ullage: the part of a fuel tank not containing liquid fuel, therefore, the part which will normally contain fumes from the evaporation of the fuel. It's a highly arcane technical term and maybe I should not have used it without defining it.

tatterdemalion: shabby; wretched; all beat-up! Can also be a n. for a person (especially a boy) in such condition. It might be archaic; my grandmother used to use it.

And yeah, I really use words like this in conversation... most of my friends an co-workers do too, but then, some folks need to know what an "ullage" is.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F


220 posted on 07/18/2004 10:37:22 AM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Half Vast Conspiracy
What is to be gained from shooting down this airplane or knocking down a federal building, if no one knows you did it?

I'm not much of a conspiracy fan, but this is pretty easy, really.

Suppose it isn't a terrorist, but it is Saddam. He makes a point of communicating to the Clinton Regime that he is perfectly capable of perpetrating these kinds of attacks at will -- unless, of course, BJ holds the course, drags his feet, and makes sure that we lay off Iraq. Do you think, for one minute, that Slick Willy would have the kahones to confront Saddam and bring it public? (Not I.)

221 posted on 07/18/2004 10:49:34 AM PDT by Nevermore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

Great article!

God Bless Ray Lahr for his persistence in finding out the truth about "the greatest peacetime deception in American history".

The parents of the fifteen students from Montoursville, PA, who were shot out of the air that night, deserve to know the truth. So do all the other families and loved ones of the victims of the terrorist attack on July 17, 1996.

And Richard Clarke deserves to be hanged from the tallest tree.


222 posted on 07/18/2004 10:55:01 AM PDT by Palladin (Proud to be a FReeper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

BWAHAHA!

Yeah-- a shoulder-fired boloid.


223 posted on 07/18/2004 10:59:43 AM PDT by Palladin (Proud to be a FReeper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
The last time a friend pulled a big word out on me was when I learned that 'sesquipedalian' meant six legged, as in a man on horseback.

Of course, now that I look it up in order to check the spelling I find that it actually means 'long winded'.

And to think, I thought his s&*t eating grin was due simply to his utilization and subsequent definition of a word I was unfamiliar with.

Aye carumba.

224 posted on 07/18/2004 11:57:04 AM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F

So the boloid came in one of the wndows.


225 posted on 07/18/2004 1:35:21 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
But the truth is on the record, and the record is a collection of signed statements by witnesses who do NOT say they saw a missile fly up and hit an airplane.

Link, please, Mr. Kallstrom, disgraced former FBI agent.

226 posted on 07/18/2004 1:35:49 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Witnesses

Look for the section titled "Witness Group Chairman Factual Report". There are 32 appendixes of witness testimony.

227 posted on 07/18/2004 3:35:04 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Oh!

An NTSB report.

Is this the same NTSB that bowed to FBI pressure and wouldn't allow eyewitness testimony at the Baltimore hearing?

228 posted on 07/18/2004 3:50:30 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Where do you think ALL the witness reports came from? Remember that NY Post article you posted? Same witnesses. Remember that newspaper ad you posted in post #123? You got it. Same witnesses. Go to www.twa800.com. It is one of the most widely read TWA 800 conspiracy sites on the internet. Guess where all their witness data comes from. The same 755 witnesses. Now, unless you have another source for witness data concerning TWA 800, I've just sent you a link to the most complete set of data that exists. Enjoy.


229 posted on 07/18/2004 5:49:52 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
So the boloid came in one of the wndows.

And hyperspaced through the cabin deck? That's what it'd have to do, to get to that CWFT without leaving a mark. Also -- any idea how much energy anything from space has when it's still solid at 13,800 MSL?

Anyway, read that Appendix or Annex to the investigation and you'll see chapter and verse on how it was investigated and by whom.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

230 posted on 07/18/2004 7:23:13 PM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
I posted this story quite a bit earlier and you may have missed it.  It concerns a boloid that smacked a Chevy Nova parked in a driveway not all that far away from the Flight 800 path.  Sure, it happened in a different year, and it was on the ground, but this one came right through the world's busiest air corridor.

".... remember one of these spectacular meteors on a Friday night in October 1992. A brilliant greenish meteor traveled slowly across the sky in front me and astonished fans at a Westover High School football game. The meteor was a primetime event all along the East Coast since many other Friday night football fans caught a “falling star,” too. The meteor would become a meteorite seconds later, so called because wasn’t consumed by our atmosphere, it fell to Earth. Actually, it fell on the back of a 1972 Chevrolet Nova in Peekskill, N.Y. It pretty much totaled the car, which was parked in a driveway.

(SEE: http://www.fayettevillenc.com/special/backyard/98as2607.htm  )

 

231 posted on 07/18/2004 7:38:45 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
"Here is Cal Tech's explanation of just how it is possible."

Blather and conjecture. Nothing more.

"Sorry for singling you out from all the people that post that guff, but I ran across your post exactly at the point where I had had it with endlessly repeated falsehoods, myths, and lies."

Bit fed up with yourself I take it?

232 posted on 07/18/2004 8:41:49 PM PDT by EUPHORIC (Right? Left? Read Ecclesiastes 10:2 for a definition. The Bible knows all about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
No I saw it. Yes, rare meteors do strike the earth. Yes, there is no reason one could not strike an aircraft while in flight, and if it did, chances are just about unity that it would be curtains for said aircraft. Agreed?

But... could it do it without leaving a trace of itself or its entry? It couldn't. Look what happened to that Nova:

It pretty much totaled the car
. There would have been zero doubt looking at that Nova what happened to it, I bet. People wouldn't have been looking for a guy in a turban driving a phantom Kenworth.... This post, to an astronomy group long before the TWA investigation has closed, expresses some skepticism about the meteorite theory and discusses the evidentiary difficulties. The author notes that "even if [a puncture] is found, a meteorite impact is still the least likely cause. A man-made object is still far more likely." At that time he had no way of knowing that no suspicious puncture would be found.

We don't have an aircraft known to have been downed by a celestial object for comparison, but the wreckage of aircraft known to have been downed by bombs (ex. PA103) and struck by missiles (three civil a/c I've seen the photos from are the two Air Rhodesia Viscounts and the DHL Airbus) have always had plenty of evidence of that damage.

Here's another list where a JPL scientist is addressing some of the shortcoming of the meteorite theory, in a polite discussion with a meteor-theory supporter. You may wish to read the whole thread. Early in the investigation, a letter writer to Scientific American led them to question several scientists, who come up with a split decision. They say car strikes happen from time to time: one guys says three times last century, one says five or ten in a decade. An aircraft strike is much less likely than a car strike -- maybe 1,000 times less likely -- but certainly not impossible.

Here are official links on TWA 800:

  1. TWA 800 NTSB Main Page

  2. The public hearing Agenda & Presentations.

  3. All the Exhibits. You can also get these on CD-ROM for $5 if you have a slow connexion. (Important note: I have been all through this trying to find the meteorite annex I read before. It is on the table of contents for the CD, but it isn't on the website any more! At least not at this address. But I know I found that .pdf at ntsb.gov. So I will keep looking. I could find the one I've got archived, but IMHO it is more trustworthy coming from an official source).

  4. This interesting series of reports from an av-savvy journalist attending the hearings. Pay particular attention to Day 3's events. (the complete transcript of the hearings is at the previously-provided NTSB link).

That should give you some interesting reading. Bottom line: a meteor strike on an aircraft in flight is possible but extremely improbable. One that gets in and blows up the plane from inside out without leaving its mark from outside in is even more so.

Personally, I don't sweat any meteors while in a plane... most crashes are still human error, which happens a hell of a lot more frequently. The meteor event that concerns me is the possibility of a dinosaur-killer making all the environmentalists happy by messing up life for us humans (and this is probably even more unlikely. Also, we humans can consciously adapt, a capability the poor lizards lacked). Anyway, here are a few links for you to chew on.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

233 posted on 07/18/2004 9:31:18 PM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
Lots of things are improbable and totally mysterious. Back in the early 1980s I had three close co-workers die over the space of less than a year of brain tumors.

We'd had half a dozen other folks on that same floor die in a bit longer period of time from various types of cardio-vascular problems ranging from inflammation of the soft-tissue surrounding the brain to plain old fashioned aneurysm.

This is out of an employee population of about 200 people, so it was fairly frightening. Intriguingly most people didn't seem to notice!

During that same period of time, on January 13, 1982, to be precise, we had a plane crash in DC. SEE: http://www.roadstothefuture.com/AirFlorida_SubwayDis.html

Roughly a half hour after the crash there was a subway derailing. My secretary was in the car where she saw, upfront and at close hand a couple of men crushed to death. She was never right again particularly after she heard about the lawyer whose office was directly overhead ours who'd died on the plane.

I was on the bridge and saw the plane hit the cars on 14th Street Bridge and then bounce over upside-down into the Potomac.

At roughly the same time the controller operating a computer punchcard reader on our "ground" floor failed right as it was handling one of my jobs. The printout said "abend 15:28" (or thereabouts).

Adding to all of this, there were hundreds of automobiles in NW DC having ignition problems because, for some unknown reason, their electronic systems were working improperly. Then the new electronically controlled traffic control signals in the near downtown area went out.

The fellow at NTSB (whose article I referenced) believes the plane crash and the subway derailment are UNRELATED, except in time.

He doesn't know about the controller that went out ~ it was in a large windowed room immediately adjacent to the airshaft to the subway tunnel running past our building. The train derailed because a switch at the bottom of that tunnel failed.

One of my coworkers (who later died of a brain tumor) noticed that several of these events happened in a straight line. The plane sat at the end of a large hanger for several hours before it made it's fatal trek down the runway. That point connected with our computer room and the subway airshaft. The traffic control lights that failed were on the same line as were the expensive automobiles with the ignition problems. Eventually we discovered that all the folks with the brain tumors were on that line as were two Department of Defense microwave transmission towers.

Was there a connection of all these events with what was going on with those towers, or was this all coincidental?

Even worse, was there a cover-up? One thing about DOD microwave towers, the FCC doesn't officially know if DOD even has towers, nor do they regulate them! Fortunately the NTSB held hearings on all three sectors of its jurisdiction ~ air, rail and ground ~ at roughly the same time so it's possible to read the different conclusions regarding the probable causes of each "unrelated" event.

The plane crashed because it had too much ice. However, when the pilot throttled up the plane, his instruments record no additional fuel flow to the engines. On that plane the device controlling fuel flow was on top of the cabin in a fiberglas housing. Was it damaged perhaps? NTSB recommended that METRO put aluminum housings around it's switch controls in the tunnels, and to please remove them to someplace other than the bottom of those airshafts. The recommendation for the traffic control systems was similar ~ shield the switches! Again, was this a coincidence or a "Ko Inky Dink"?

234 posted on 07/19/2004 4:54:21 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
I've just sent you a link to the most complete set of data that exists.

Data supplied by the coverup agency. How convenient.

235 posted on 07/19/2004 6:12:02 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
TWA800

Since you have answers for everything, then please tell me when it became proper protocol during aircraft recovery to blast every object with saltwater prior to securing?

Every part of TWA800 was blasted with saltwater prior to up loading upon the decks of the Navy ships. News footage documented this.

236 posted on 07/19/2004 7:28:07 AM PDT by Deguello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Cancer clusters are creepy things. A friend of mine died over seven grueling months due to a brain tumour. His wife's big brother was diagnosed two months after him (same disease) and just beat him into the grave. At the funeral, the wife discovers he had a kid she never knew about (ouch) and the "surprise" daughter tells her, "it's been a tough year for me, my mother has terminal brain cancer."

I'm amazed that the lady has not become a gibbering idiot, as Fate singled her out for a pretty bad beating (Hubby didn't do her any favours with the secret kid thing, either, but you can only be so mad at a man that is dead).

I'm very familiar with the Air Florida crash (as you might expect). The wing icing was not as big a deal as you might expect: the two biggest factors were a tiny plug of ice in a hole that air travelers don't even know about, and the crew of the airliner not doing the right thing in the emergency. The rescue efforts that closed the highways were surprisingly effective, and one passenger selflessly passed a number of others to a Park Police helicopter before succumbing to exposure himself; a real hero.

Jets have a throttle just like that on a piston plane, but the pilot doesn't set the power level by manifold pressure or RPM as he does in a piston-engined machine. In the old days they did use RPM, or %RPM. But with modern high-bypass fanjets they use the EPR, engine pressure ratio, gage. This is a barometric gage that compares the pressure in the front of the engine to the pressure in the back. (I.e. the air is coming in to the engine at X pressure and it is going out at 1.4X, so we have EPR of 1.4).

Jets don't take off at full throttle (1) to save fuel and (2) for noise abatement. So instead pilots (or despatchers) calculate the necessary EPR setting for each takeoff. These are subtle differences but over a fleet of hundreds or thousands of planes the fuel bill really adds up. What happened to AF 90 was that ice had closed the forward port. So the EPR on the gage was higher than the actual EPR -- they took off with the throttles too low!

Computer studies showed that, airframe ice or no, the 737 was close enough to flying that had the pilots simply gone to full power, the accident would never have happened. They do deserve credit for one thing, because in that stressful situation with their doom staring them in the face, they flew the plane all the way to the ground. A plane that crashes under control is more likely to have survivors than one in which control is lost. So the pilots' performance was mixed in a very stressful situation.

On that plane the device controlling fuel flow was on top of the cabin in a fiberglas housing.

I'd like to know your source for this. I do not believe that the throttle in that 737 is electrical (will have to hit the books, but fly-by-wire wasn't happening then (1982), and IIRC it was a fairly old 73, a 737-200 which would've been built in the sixties. The throttles were strictly mechanical, or hydraulic, I'd wager).

As far as DOD use of the electromagnetic spectrum is concerned, there are certain frequency ranges that are reserved for military use and certain it shares with the public and commercial bandwidth users. military microwave stuff (US and foreign) is not too different from what long-distance telephone uses. New technology doesn't normally get tested inside the beltway, either: too many ears. If they are playing with something powerful and novel they try to do it in the middle of nowhere.

I don't know enough about ground transit to comment on how that works, but the train was backing up when it derailed? That's kind of odd; at least in my mind I associate derailments with speed. That roadstothefuture site is very interesting -- it looks like they are gonna replace the Wilson Bridge and make a whole chapter of FReeper Travis McGee's novel obsolete. Thanks for turning me on to that site.

As far as cover-ups are concerned, the military is not very effective at keeping secrets. Even important national security information leaks out unless it's very closely held -- and most people agree on the importance of keeping that secret. In the past, when groups inside the military have tried to keep unlawful or immoral acts secret, there has usually been somebody who's stood up and called "enough." Think of My Lai, the Sergeants' Scandal, the APG trainee sex abuse case, and Abu Ghraib. MG Taguba's report on Abu Ghraib singled out the young enlisted man who dropped a dime on Abu Ghraib for praise.

I note that the conspiracy guys, cause there is no substance to their story, can change direction on a dime. Before 911 the Navy shot down the plane and covered it up. (Gee, remember the Navy coverup when the sub hit the Japanese educational trawler? They hung the skipper out to dry. As a coverup you have to call it a bust). After 911 the Ay-rabs dood it (this change probably saved a tinhat or two from a beating by sailors, at least).

I think Boeing would have loved to say, "[Somebody] blew this out of the sky and our machine is good to hook." Instead they said "We have a previously unsuspected design and manufacturing flaw, so all y'all are gonna have to rip out miles of wiring, change some fuel pumps, and have every Boeing plane you own out of service (and not earning) for a week or two each. By the way, don't fly with this tank empty any more, even though it's gonna cost you big bucks to haul thousands of pounds of unneeded fuel on every flight."

People like the rogue-submarine or the terrorist missile angle because it ties everything up in a neat package, like the end of a television show. I guess a lot of people live so vicariously through the TV they have lost a grip on the fuzzy inconclusiveness of many things in real life.

Ah, well, back to work. Metallurgy and physics of structural failure in old wing spars - and how to repair same. Another one that we thought we had licked, that threw a curve at us in 2003. The operators want an inexpensive, but safe, fix. So wishful thinking drives them to tend to compromise safety if it is not right in front of their noses. The manufacturer wants all fixes to be declared invalid so he can close out his liability tail on these old airplanes. "Scrap 'em all, and we'll sell you a new one." The engineers are saying, "we didn't anticipate THAT failure mode." The lawyers are saying, "Whatever you do, better make sure there's a handsome paycheck for ME, and don't make the things stop crashing until my sailboat is paid for."

At least there's no conspiracy involved in small aircraft accidents when the people aboard die one and two at a time. Unless one of them is a celebrity.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

237 posted on 07/19/2004 8:03:28 AM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
Can you give me a reason why TWA 800 was blasted with saltwater prior to uploading upon Navy Ships?

As a note, I have seen the wreckage of the V-22 Osprey that crashed into the Potomac River. This was after delivery back to Bell Helicopter Plant 8. The engineers wanted everything as found, so all mud, moss and other river trash was left in place.

238 posted on 07/19/2004 8:51:51 AM PDT by Deguello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

>>A missile system like the SA-6 is not composed of a single, autonomous vehicle.<<

Right, two autonomous vehicles, connected by a single cable or data link. If a battery can "relocate to an alternate firing position in approximately 15 minutes", set-up can't be too complex. Iran's military has employed the SA-6 for quite some time, so skilled operators or training would not be a problem.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-6.htm


>>...if a SAM had been responsible for the downing of TWA 800, the evidence would have been obvious and undeniable. Even the smallest SAM warheads are designed to direct thousands of fragments into the targeted aircraft with the hope of puncturing some vital system.<<

True. If all the sheet metal in the aircraft's vital areas, such as the fuel tank, had been recovered and was available for independent inspection, I might be looking at alternate explanations as well.



239 posted on 07/19/2004 8:54:12 AM PDT by MarshHawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: MarshHawk

bump


240 posted on 07/19/2004 9:04:39 AM PDT by grannie9 (I live for today, 'cause I can't remember yesterday, and chances are tomorrow could suck.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
"Data supplied by the coverup agency. How convenient"

I must have missed your alternative source.

241 posted on 07/19/2004 10:15:05 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Deguello
"Since you have answers for everything, then please tell me when it became proper protocol during aircraft recovery to blast every object with saltwater prior to securing?"

I have no idea. I've never participated in Naval salvage. Maybe they were trying to wash the mud off to avoid fouling the decks.

242 posted on 07/19/2004 10:28:59 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: MarshHawk
"Right, two autonomous vehicles, connected by a single cable or data link..."

If it could be done, it would be. There are small navy's all over the world (like Iran) that would love to have shipborne, radar guided SAM systems. Many of them operate systems like the SA-6 from the ground. Don't you think that if you could just bolt one to a ship and employ it, they would?

"If all the sheet metal in the aircraft's vital areas, such as the fuel tank, had been recovered and was available for independent inspection"

98% of the aircraft was recovered. I'm sure you aren't really going to argue that all the fragments of an exploding SAM warhead managed to limit themselves to the 2% that wasn't. Considering NO agency (including Boeing, TWA, ALPA, IAMS, FBI etc) could find any tangible evidence missile or bomb fragments hit any part of the aircraft, I'd say it's a safe bet that none did.

243 posted on 07/19/2004 10:36:48 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
"Maybe they were trying to wash the mud off to avoid fouling the decks."

With all the quasi logic in your previous posts, this is all you got?

Sorry, you have no support from me. You just blew yourself out of the water.

244 posted on 07/19/2004 10:42:32 AM PDT by Deguello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Deguello

Unless I said "Because the evil Navy was clearly involved at every level in a giant government conspiracy, and was washing away all signs of a missile impact with that great covering agent known as common saltwater (which incidently the wreckage had been soaking in for a couple weeks already)" you probably wouldn't be satisfied, and frankly, I don't care whether you like my answer or not.


245 posted on 07/19/2004 10:51:46 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: pctech

Who is to say it was a stinger? Maybe it was something larger launched from a truck? Maybe a SAM 2 or something--or maybe something launched from an airplane miles away? Or maybe something from a boat or ship? We need to look into possible weapons and launch sites.


246 posted on 07/19/2004 10:59:15 AM PDT by Hollywoodghost (Let he who would be free strike the first blow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
Rather complex and lengthy response.

Since I am relating nothing more than an experience living on the line of sight of a rather powerful microwave running between Naval Weapons Research Lab (formerly at Whiteflint MD) and the Marine base at Quantico, there are a lot of items you mention I simply can't comment on.

However, regarding the device "on top" of that plane, I ran into that when seeing if that model of plane had devices that had been "hardened" against cosmic rays.

It hadn't been and had a rather definite ceiling.

Here's the idea on microwave transmission ~ this DOD operation was very powerful obviously. Further, we have to presume it had the ability to toke up in response to any signal interference, so the more interference the more toking.

The conditions in the vicinity of National Airport that day were incredible. At the top of the stack there was a supercold layer of air. At the bottom of the stack there was a moderately cold, but dry layer of air. In between we had a supersaturated layer of warmer air.

Can you say "ICE"?"

I think the ceiling for this activity was just a few hundred feet. When we got to 14th Street bridge to cross from DC to Virginia we were encountering snowflakes as big as baseballs! I'd never seen anything like it. Although there was negligible wind at ground level, the moist air was rising into the super cold region like it was being heated.

Recalling those conditions, I had gone on a search for just how much power you could pump into a bank of supersaturated moist air with any microwave transmission system. This was to see if we had an engineered accident rather than an accident accident, with the communication system turning up the signal strength to compensate for the increasing volume of ice being created in the rising column of moist air.

You really can't talk to DOD about such things, and I don't mean turning the power up. I suppose we'll never know if that particular microwave beam was the cause of the ice. On the other hand, the computer controller in our building that failed was immediately adjacent to the airshaft to the subway where the electronic controls for the rail switches were housed. Microwave frequencies are reflected by concrete rather like visible light is reflected by mirrors. If the beam was powerful enough, we could have had energy bleeding from it into the shaft.

At the same time folks in office buildings and apartments immediately along the line of sight would be regularly exposed to excess microwave energy and might well suffer injuries associated with overexposure. Brain tumors happen to be one of those things.

Plus, all of the folks affected were housed on the 8th floor. We were able to determine that the center of the beam was parallel to the 8/9th floor junction, and about 12 feet away from the Westernmost wall.

The next year an untended computer printer sitting in a room on the 9th floor at the Westernmost wall burst into flames and gutted the 9th floor.

Gotta' watch those untended computer printers FUR SHUR. This one cost $35,000,000 before everything was back to normal. But, no doubt, the subway wreck and the airplane crash had nothing to do with each other ~ or maybe they did.

247 posted on 07/19/2004 11:08:03 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
Rather complex and lengthy response.

Since I am relating nothing more than an experience living on the line of sight of a rather powerful microwave running between Naval Weapons Research Lab (formerly at Whiteflint MD) and the Marine base at Quantico, there are a lot of items you mention I simply can't comment on.

However, regarding the device "on top" of that plane, I ran into that when seeing if that model of plane had devices that had been "hardened" against cosmic rays.

It hadn't been and had a rather definite ceiling.

Here's the idea on microwave transmission ~ this DOD operation was very powerful obviously. Further, we have to presume it had the ability to toke up in response to any signal interference, so the more interference the more toking.

The conditions in the vicinity of National Airport that day were incredible. At the top of the stack there was a supercold layer of air. At the bottom of the stack there was a moderately cold, but dry layer of air. In between we had a supersaturated layer of warmer air.

Can you say "ICE"?"

I think the ceiling for this activity was just a few hundred feet. When we got to 14th Street bridge to cross from DC to Virginia we were encountering snowflakes as big as baseballs! I'd never seen anything like it. Although there was negligible wind at ground level, the moist air was rising into the super cold region like it was being heated.

Recalling those conditions, I had gone on a search for just how much power you could pump into a bank of supersaturated moist air with any microwave transmission system. This was to see if we had an engineered accident rather than an accident accident, with the communication system turning up the signal strength to compensate for the increasing volume of ice being created in the rising column of moist air.

You really can't talk to DOD about such things, and I don't mean turning the power up. I suppose we'll never know if that particular microwave beam was the cause of the ice. On the other hand, the computer controller in our building that failed was immediately adjacent to the airshaft to the subway where the electronic controls for the rail switches were housed. Microwave frequencies are reflected by concrete rather like visible light is reflected by mirrors. If the beam was powerful enough, we could have had energy bleeding from it into the shaft.

At the same time folks in office buildings and apartments immediately along the line of sight would be regularly exposed to excess microwave energy and might well suffer injuries associated with overexposure. Brain tumors happen to be one of those things.

Plus, all of the folks affected were housed on the 8th floor. We were able to determine that the center of the beam was parallel to the 8/9th floor junction, and about 12 feet away from the Westernmost wall.

The next year an untended computer printer sitting in a room on the 9th floor at the Westernmost wall burst into flames and gutted the 9th floor.

Gotta' watch those untended computer printers FUR SHUR. This one cost $35,000,000 before everything was back to normal. But, no doubt, the subway wreck and the airplane crash had nothing to do with each other ~ or maybe they did.

248 posted on 07/19/2004 11:08:18 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
On Monday, Aug. 2, Lahr and his attorney, John Clarke of Washington, will square off against the NTSB and the CIA at the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

Anybody going?

249 posted on 07/19/2004 11:17:15 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
"I don't care"

Oh...hit a sore spot.

I need to be shown proof that a jumbo jet in a stall situation and frontal area removed can climb a couple more thousand feet. The AA Simulators in Fort Worth will be fine.

I need to be shown ALL the videos that were taken into evidence that counter independent witnesses, to see this stream of flaming Jet-A.

I need to be told about changes in protocol to prevent evidence tampering that instead hindered the process.

Let's hear from the NG pilots that were witness to the event. One as a civilian works out of Hicks Airport in Saginaw, Texas.

Let's rescind Clinton's EO to the military to keep quiet.

I need quiet a bit more than what's being given, to be convinced either way.

250 posted on 07/19/2004 11:23:41 AM PDT by Deguello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-271 next 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