Posted on 02/15/2005 1:19:18 AM PST by JohnHuang2
For every question raised, there has been an "official" answer.
So, where the Boeing models involved 'grounded' when TWA800 happened?
Why did it take FOUR years for them to issue this DIRECTIVE?
Notice it says they issued 'similar recommendations' four years ago. A recommendation is not the same as an FAA DIRECTIVE.
Was the outer skin of the TWA800 ripped OUTWARD or INWARD?
Did all of the EXPERIENCED PILOTS and WAR EXPERIENCED PILOTS have hallucinations, when they claimed they saw a missile trail?
What kind of testing was being done by the NAVY? Were they testing a missile? What method of destruction was this missile(if it existed) designed to effect?
If the CWT caused the explosion, why was the FAA,NTSB not allowed to do the investigating? Why was the investigation and recovery done by the NAVY?
What did autopsies of the passengers on TWA800 show...
Nothing. No bomb parts, no foreign matter that was not attributable to the aircraft. Every body that was recovered was autopsied. Mind you, a body is the best place to find evidence of an explosive.
Did all of the EXPERIENCED PILOTS and WAR EXPERIENCED PILOTS have hallucinations
Who can say what they saw, exept them?
What kind of testing was being done by the NAVY? Were they testing a missile?
The area that TWA 800 went doen is a VERY busy place, aircraft wise. I cannot imagine that the Navy was testing any missile in the area. They have places that they test this stuff, and it is nowhere near Long Island.
If the CWT caused the explosion, why was the FAA,NTSB not allowed to do the investigating? Why was the investigation and recovery done by the NAVY?
The NTSB does ALL investigations of aircraft crashes. They have the experience and knowledge that no other agency has. The FBI were brought in because there was suspicion of a bomb/missile. Basically, they checked the work of the NTSB, and looked over their shoulder during the investigation. The Navy has the finset underwater recovery ships in the world, the Grasp and the Grapple.
The questions can go on and on (They do), but at the end of the day, there is no "smoking gun", only opinions.
I have trouble believing the CWT story, but I also have trouble believing the Navy would be firing missiles into a known traffic pattern of a large airport like JFK. They have plenty of off-limits airspace to do that kind of thing. The terrorist missile story is also weak since they are not normally any use up to the altitudes in question. I'm not sure what to think.
OK. Where did you find the autopsy reports? What doctor(s) did the autopsies?
The area that TWA 800 went doen is a VERY busy place, aircraft wise. I cannot imagine that the Navy was testing any missile in the area. They have places that they test this stuff, and it is nowhere near Long Island.
So, you are saying the NAVY was nowhere near Long Island? That they were not there conducting naval exercises and tests?
Ping for later
If you follow all the reports, in order, you get a strange picture. One of coverups and deceptions. One of lying to pacify the public.
Seems like there are as many theories on why that accident occurred as there are on TWA800.
One thing I know is that you do not run a pump 'dry'. There is a thing called a FUEL GAUGE that can tell you (and your equipment) that the fuel is low or gone, and shut the pumps off.
For what conceivable reason would you have pumps running, if your tank is empty?
In the Thai accident, if you put all the pieces together, you have this.
The AC units were left on all day, heating up the AC units which are mounted under the CWT. This heated and expanded the Fuel/air mixture. The pumps were left running, even though the CWT was empty, causing overheating and spark ignition in the tank.
This ignited the fuel/air mixture causing an explosion which also ignited the C-4 that assassins had attached to the plane.
The explosion in the CWT caused a fire in the cabin of the plane. This burned for almost 20 minutes before causing the collapse of the shell/framework of the airliner.
It would appear that the purpose of the CWT on boeing 737's is not to hold fuel, but to hold flammable vapours that will explode upon ignition by fuel pumps which run dry until overheating. I know boeing engineers must have designed it this way on purpose.
Go to a General Aviation airport shop and buy yourself a copy of the "New York Sectional." Look at the map, and then get back to the group.
ML/NJ
Got one right here. Its not current, but I am assuming that you have a point?
Good lawyering, but no thanks.
So, you are saying the NAVY was nowhere near Long Island? That they were not there conducting naval exercises and tests?
Didn't say that. I just said that the Navy was not likely testing missiles.
The point is that there are a million questions, and every answer leads to new questions. Produce something real, and then we got something to talk about.
The missile flew right over a lady in a tacky cocktail gown
That was no lady that was my wife
I have to admit that I'm not current either, but we're talking about 1996 here.
I don't think these things change much. Look just south of the Hamptons about five inches to the area the bottom of the chart just east of 72-30. Read the little legend there. (I'll give you a clue. You can see what it says at my "It wasn't Terrorists" post that was previously linked on this thread.)
ML/NJ
Although I do not know for sure, I assume that the flight was to intercept the 236 radial at the East Hampton VOR. From everything that I have looked at, the flight never strayed into the warning area W-106.
Given the shear amount of traffic that make that same track out of JFK, not to mention La Guardia and Newark, I cannot see how the Navy could fire any missile in the area without hitting SOMETHING.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you or UCANSEE. I just point out that that I need more than uninformed speculation to convince me. And I don't see much informed speculation.
There is no evidence for a walked on bomb... there are tons of evidence for a missile.
Bump for later.
If it were me,and I had access to a hot tape, first order of business is to make a copy.
So why are you playing games. Quote it, and then tell everyone what you think it means.
I assume that the flight was to intercept the 236 radial at the East Hampton VOR.
You assume a lot. He was probably direct Nantucket. (I'm IFR rated and been direct Nantucket more than a few times myself, albeit lower the the Europe bound jets!)
From everything that I have looked at, the flight never strayed into the warning area W-106.
I think the suggestion is that W-106 (or 105) strayed into the flightpath.
uninformed speculation
You may be uninformed. I do not believe that I that I am; or that I am necessarily speculating.
ML/NJ
Subsequently, in the span of a week, Sen. John F. Kerry made the same reference -- the TWA 800 bombing. Not once, but twice.
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.