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

Skip to comments.

Silenced: Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice, Part 1 [10th Anniv. Warm-up]
WND ^ | June 4, 2001 | Jack Cashill

Posted on 06/22/2006 8:43:39 AM PDT by canuck_conservative

Editor's note: On the evening of July 17, 1996, at 8:19 p.m., TWA Flight 800, a Boeing 747, took off from Kennedy Airport, bound for Paris. At 8:31 p.m., over 730 people watched Flight 800 explode, killing all 230 of the people aboard.

Not long afterwards, millions of Americans watched their televisions in fascinated horror as search and rescue crews looked for survivors among the flaming debris. Only dead bodies were recovered.

Flight 800 is mostly an ugly memory for people these days. The U.S. government issued an explanation that a fuel tank had somehow exploded. Yet, they flatly denied any evidence existed of foul play, including the possibility that Flight 800 had been blown out of the air by a missile.

All but a few journalists accepted the government's version of events. Few bothered to investigate the numerous eyewitnesses, the radar records and the physical evidence that all suggested a strikingly different explanation of Flight 800's untimely demise. And those few who did question the government's version were made to look like fools or, worse, thrown in jail and prosecuted as criminals for meddling in an official investigation.

What really happened to Flight 800? ....

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: New York; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: actofterror; actofwar; anniversary; aviation; brainlessrock; clintoncoverup; conspiracy; crash; explosion; flight800; missile; rockscantthink; rokkebrainisarock; tragic; twaflight800; unsolved; worldnutdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,301-1,322 next last
Yes, an older article I know, but not previously posted; the 10th anniversary of this event is coming up in a few weeks,and I wanted to get the discussion started on this important event, the longest and most expensive accident investigation in American aviation history.

See also this article:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47561

Engineer takes FBI to court (November 25, 2005)

Graeme Sephton is a man on a mission. After seven years of effort, the electrical engineer affiliated with the University of Massachusetts has forced the FBI to defend its record gathering in a federal appeals court in Boston.

Like retired United Airline pilot Ray Lahr on the west coast, Sephton is focusing on one key area of inquiry in the case of TWA Flight 800. This is the airliner that crashed on the night of July 17, 1996, off the coast of Long Island.

Lahr's ongoing case in the Los Angeles District Court pivots on the calculations used by the National Transportation Safety Board and the CIA to postulate a 3,400 foot post-crash climb by the nose-less 747. This contrivance was critical in that it allowed the authorities to explain away the testimony of the 270 eyewitnesses who saw an ascending object strike the plane.

Sephton v. FBI pivots on one essential category of evidence as well ...."

1 posted on 06/22/2006 8:43:42 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
On Aug. 22, 1996, just before the Democratic National Convention,
Ms. Gorelick oversaw a critical Justice Department meeting with the FBI.
Immediately after this meeting, as it happened,
all serious inquiry into the fate of TWA 800 came to an end.

Gorelick was instrumental in the corruption of TWA Flight 800 terrorism investigation
Did Clinton appointee corrupt Flight 800 probe?


Gorelick's book "Destruction of Evidence".

MORE?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1117579/posts
GORELICK GATE - various FR links

2 posted on 06/22/2006 8:45:57 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

be careful--forbidden topic...


3 posted on 06/22/2006 8:49:54 AM PDT by BikerGold (Reliously Uncoooorrrrect...Reliously UUUUUUncorrect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BikerGold

What is Reliously?


4 posted on 06/22/2006 8:51:27 AM PDT by houeto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

I still suspect that a missile strike caused the crash. The accepted argument does not hold water.


5 posted on 06/22/2006 8:52:02 AM PDT by ANGGAPO (LayteGulfBeachClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

The Discovery or History channel did a special on this one night and went through the investigation. Based on what I saw, I believe this.

The aircraft set on the ground with the air conditioner running and heated up the fuel tank directly above it and created fuel vapors. After the aircraft took off, stray electricity got into a fuel sensor that created a spark. The fuel tank exploded and did major structual damage to the aircraft. It broke into and crashed. The black box had a missing part of data that came when sometype of shortage was created in the electrical system. This happened at the same time of the explosion.

The findings are correct.


6 posted on 06/22/2006 8:52:52 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ANGGAPO

I suggest you study the investigation.


7 posted on 06/22/2006 8:53:45 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

Did Sanders and his wife serve jail time? What was the punishment for "conspiracy"?


8 posted on 06/22/2006 8:59:40 AM PDT by sarasota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD

How do you account for the large number of eye witnesses that say something bright going up before the 'boom'?


9 posted on 06/22/2006 9:08:29 AM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD
Center fuel tanks do not spontaneously explode. Your theory is just as laughable as the CIA's video showing the noseless plane shooting straight into the sky like a missle.

Why did the FBI conduct the investigation, instead of the NTSB? Why were none of the witnesses, including several who are experts in the field of military ordinance, not allowed to testify in the congressional hearing about the missile they saw impact the plane? Why were the Sanders arrested? Why was there no mention of the PETN they found on the airplane seats? Have you seen the video clip of the FBI agent walking through the reconstruction scene saying, "This was no accident. Terrorists shot this plane down with a missile."? Keep drinking that kool-aide if you believe the Clintons' version of events.

10 posted on 06/22/2006 9:09:09 AM PDT by highimpact
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ

Light travels faster than sound. What they saw was the burning aircraft climbing.


11 posted on 06/22/2006 9:22:40 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: highimpact

The entire explosion was recreated under the conditions the fuel tank exploded. Vapors will explode. Ordnance has no "i" in it.


12 posted on 06/22/2006 9:24:37 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD

Flight 800, "by the numbers":


10 - Come July 17, the number of years this crime has gone unsolved.

270 - The number of eyewitnesses that the FBI admitted saw what appeared to be ascending streaks of light.

34 - The number of eyewitnesses interviewed by analysts from the Defense Intelligence Agency's Missile and Space Intelligence Center whose descriptions "were very consistent with the characteristics of the flight of [surface to air] missiles."

1 - The number of eyewitnesses the New York Times interviewed.

0 - The number of eyewitnesses that the New York Times interviewed who had seen an ascending streak.

1 - The number of witnesses, according to the CIA, who saw the crippled and ascending TWA 800 that merely looked like a missile ("the man on the bridge").

1 - The number of interviews the CIA fully fabricated ("the man on the bridge").

3,200 - The number of feet the CIA claimed the noseless plane climbed.

1,700 - The number of feet the NTSB claimed the noseless plane climbed.

750 - Of the roughly 750 total FBI eyewitnesses the number who did not see the noseless plane climb at all, including other airline pilots.

12 - "Or less." The number of total eyewitnesses that, a year later, the New York Times was reporting had seen the crash.

0 - The number of Freedom of Information Act requests to which the NTSB has responded to show its climb calculations.

0 - The number of ships or subs the Navy claimed were within 185 miles of the disaster.

4 - The number of Navy ships or subs the FBI, in its final report, admitted were in "the immediate vicinity" of the disaster.....


Want more? Read here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33567



13 posted on 06/22/2006 9:25:50 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

When you see a streak of light at that distance and the only thing you see is a streak of light, did it come from a missile, a burning airplane, a sea gull who likes to light farts, etc?

See the documentary and come back and comment. It is quite conclusive.


14 posted on 06/22/2006 9:28:22 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD
Jack Cashill is a friend of mine, and when he had James Sanders and his wife in town for a talk I attended. I almost always dismiss conspiracy theories, and I did this one even though the FBI clearly abused Sanders and his lovely wife. However, during the question and answer session one gentleman stood up and said, "I am a retired TWA 747 captain. There are 39 additional retired 747 captains in this room. All of us are in complete agreement that while an explosion in the center fuel tank would have "eventually" brought down Flight 800, it would not have done so immediately, nor in the way described. Something is very wrong with the scenario the government has described." At that point I contacted a close friend of mine, a rocket engineer, and person who held a high position with an airline. He did some research, and after wards said, "An explosion in the center fuel tank did not bring down Flight 800, and of that I am certain."
15 posted on 06/22/2006 9:29:35 AM PDT by GarySpFc (Jesus on Immigration, John 10:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD
You're never going to convince the tin foil hatters that TWA800 was just an accident.

They want to believe it is part of some massive conspiracy and nothing will ever convince them otherwise.

No matter how many facts can disprove the missile theory it will never be enough.

16 posted on 06/22/2006 9:30:22 AM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Apparently Being Mean to a Troll is Now Grounds for Banning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD
Ordnance has no "i" in it.

Wow. What a stinging rebuke. Does it make you feel superior to correct my spelling? Why didn't you answer a single question in my previous post? I guess you don't like to face the facts when they're inconvenient. For you, the History Channel is the authority.

And no, the entire explosion was not recreated under the same conditions. Never before, nor since, has a center fuel tank exploded mid-flight. Do some real research and use your critical thinking skills, and you'll realize that the entire investigation was a farce designed to fool the public into re-electing Clinton.

17 posted on 06/22/2006 9:31:10 AM PDT by highimpact
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD
BTW, two independent laboratories verified the residue which was found on the seats in the plane were missile solid fuel.
18 posted on 06/22/2006 9:33:49 AM PDT by GarySpFc (Jesus on Immigration, John 10:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD
See the documentary and come back and comment. It is quite conclusive.

You are not alone. The evidence points to an accident. The conjecture points to a cover-up. Isn't that the case with all popular conspiracy theories?

19 posted on 06/22/2006 9:34:54 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (Ninguna tarjeta verde. Ningún Inglés. Ningún servicio.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

See the documentary. It covered that very well. Where the fuel tank ruptured is an important structual member of the aircraft frame. In the test they ran, this structual member was compromised. The aircraft did not blow apart, it basically ripped apart. This probably took up to three to five seconds as the nose section tilted upwards. This was consistent with the tears on the skin of the aircraft. I also had my doubts until I saw the documentary. The investigation was very well done.

Will fuel vapors explode???? Every see an FAE bomb go off? They had one in that airplane.


20 posted on 06/22/2006 9:35:35 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: highimpact

As far as explosives go and investigations of explosives, yes I am quite superior to you.


21 posted on 06/22/2006 9:36:56 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

Really, why would there be missile "fuel"?


22 posted on 06/22/2006 9:38:21 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RacerF150
The evidence points to an accident. The conjecture points to a cover-up. Isn't that the case with all popular conspiracy theories?

Wrong! The engineer in charge of TWA's 747 maintenance was so concerned about the cover up he was the one who allowed Sanders to take scrapings of the fuel residue. Furthermore, aeronautical engineers I have talked to STRONGLY disagree with the government's conclusion.
23 posted on 06/22/2006 9:39:14 AM PDT by GarySpFc (Jesus on Immigration, John 10:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RacerF150

Yes it is very difficult to argue against people's immagination.


24 posted on 06/22/2006 9:40:02 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
You're never going to convince the tin foil hatters that TWA800 was anything other than an accident.

They don't want to believe that there could exist some kind of conspiracy and nothing will ever convince them otherwise.

No matter how many facts can prove the missile theory it will never be enough.

25 posted on 06/22/2006 9:40:23 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

What fuel? Why didn't it burn up in the fire?


26 posted on 06/22/2006 9:41:19 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD; All

Anybody figured out why the NG helicopter that was flying under the 747 never saw any evidense at all of a missile launch. If there was one, no way they could have missed it.


27 posted on 06/22/2006 9:43:52 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BikerGold
Congress should re-open TWA800 and Oklahoma City bombing thorough re-investigation. Jamie Gorelick, Richard Clarke and other corrupt Clinton people should be put to justice.
28 posted on 06/22/2006 9:44:33 AM PDT by wannabegeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD
I likewise was an explosives expert in the army, and so please do not pull any superiority BS on me.

It was RESIDUE on the several rows of the seats was from solid fuel propellant of the type used in missiles. This was verified by two independent laboratories.
29 posted on 06/22/2006 9:45:27 AM PDT by GarySpFc (Jesus on Immigration, John 10:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

I think I can with out any problem.


30 posted on 06/22/2006 9:46:17 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD

One of the great things about Free Republic....whatever the subject, there are Freepers with expert knowledge.


31 posted on 06/22/2006 9:46:20 AM PDT by Churchillspirit (We are all foot soldiers in this War On Terror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD

Thats Hogwash! The truth is coming out and Jack and others are doing a great Service to Our Country in pursuing this.
No plane has ever climbed 3000 ft after loosing its entire nose.radar painted it falling after the explosions.


32 posted on 06/22/2006 9:48:08 AM PDT by True Republican Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Churchillspirit

I still have all ten fingers and both feet.


33 posted on 06/22/2006 9:48:23 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD
What fuel? Why didn't it burn up in the fire?

You say you were an explosives expert in the army, and yet don't understand there is always residue left from burns?
34 posted on 06/22/2006 9:48:39 AM PDT by GarySpFc (Jesus on Immigration, John 10:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
Wrong! The engineer in charge of TWA's 747 maintenance was so concerned about the cover up he was the one who allowed Sanders to take scrapings of the fuel residue. Furthermore, aeronautical engineers I have talked to STRONGLY disagree with the government's conclusion.

You can end debate with imaginary friends.

35 posted on 06/22/2006 9:49:45 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (Ninguna tarjeta verde. Ningún Inglés. Ningún servicio.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD
From another thread on FR:

The two National Guard pilots in their nearby helicopter now picked up the streaks high in the sky. Said Capt. Chris Baur: "Almost due south, there was a hard white light, like burning pyrotechnics, in level flight. I was trying to figure out what it was. It was the wrong color for flares. It struck an object coming from the right and made it explode." Maj. Fritz Meyer, a winner of the Distinguished Flying Cross for his service over Vietnam, saw the southbound missile clearest. "It was definitely a rocket motor," says Meyer. Delgado saw TWA Flight 800 "glitter" in the sky and the ascending object move up toward it. He thought at first it was "going to slightly miss" the 747, but it appeared to make "a dramatic correction at the last second." Then Delgado saw a "white puff." "From my vantage point," says Goss, "there was a direct explosion that followed and then after that there was a second explosion that was off to the east a little farther that was much larger." Meyer saw a bright white light also. "What I saw explode was definitely ordnance," he said. "The initiating event was a high velocity explosion, not fuel. It was ordnance." "About two seconds later," claimed Meyer, "lower, I saw one or two yellow explosions, from that the fireball, third. The first two high velocity, the last low-velocity petrochemical explosion." "Then a moment later there was another explosion and the plane broke jaggedly in the sky," says Lisa Perry. "The nose is continuing to go forward; the left wing is gliding off in its own direction, drifting in an arc gracefully down; the right wing and passenger window are doing the same in their direction out to the right; and the tail with its fireball leaps up and then promptly into the water below. The sounds were a huge BOOM! – then another BOOM!"
36 posted on 06/22/2006 9:49:47 AM PDT by jaydubya2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: True Republican Patriot

It painted parts of it falling. The aircraft was already in a nose up attitude with a lot of power on. When the front section of the aircraft broke off, the remaining section would have been tail heavy, lighter and still had power on. No problem climbing an additional 3000 feet. Which brings up the question on how they knew it climbed 3000 feet. Radar immage would be a good guess.

Although it is not a good example, remember when the shuttle blew up? The boosters continued to climb and fly around.


37 posted on 06/22/2006 9:53:27 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

Now anyone who originally held this conviction of a missle strike and government coverup was labeled as a "tin foil hat" type or worse (shudder) a wingnut. People right here on FR said as much.

Now it's a Clinton administration obstruction and obvious coverup to a terrorist attack? Yes. Yes it was.

It's a pity it's taken ten years to reach that conclusion; and also a pity its' taken pure partisanship to admit to this.


38 posted on 06/22/2006 9:53:35 AM PDT by Dazedcat ((Please God, make it stop))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RacerF150
You can end debate with imaginary friends.

I never claimed to know the engineer in charge of TWA's 747 maintaince. However, James Sanders and others did. The engineer was later arrested by the FBI for allowing Sanders to obtain the residue.
39 posted on 06/22/2006 9:54:17 AM PDT by GarySpFc (Jesus on Immigration, John 10:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

I've taken a few samples myself in explosive incidents and accidents.


40 posted on 06/22/2006 9:55:00 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

The documentary had a lengthy section on these men and what they saw.


41 posted on 06/22/2006 9:56:15 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD

Then you should understand why there would be residue from the missile propellant if the plane was struck by one.


42 posted on 06/22/2006 9:58:20 AM PDT by GarySpFc (Jesus on Immigration, John 10:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dazedcat

I was suspect myself until I read the facts about the investigation. However, I did question the distance a shoulder fired missile had to go to hit the aircraft and the fact it did not hit a heat source such as an engine.

I personally felt that it had to have a bomb on board.


43 posted on 06/22/2006 9:59:42 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD

Sounds to me like you have your head buried in the sand. If you're such an expert, why do you get your information from the Discovery Channel? Please tell, Mr. Military Superior Explosives Expert Potentate, all about the PETN they found on the seat backs, and how it got there from a spontaneous center fuel tank explosion?


44 posted on 06/22/2006 10:01:26 AM PDT by highimpact
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD
"The findings are correct."

And the 270 interviewed witnesses (both civilian and military) saw exactly what when they claimed to see something streaking towards TWA800?

A 747 split in 2 climbs how many thousand feet even though the Boeing engineers say the engines throttle down when communication is lost?

What did the Clinton talking head George Stephanopoulos on ABC mean when he mentioned the downing of TWA800 (after Bush was elected)?

I am also very surprised that Boeing would use any sensor in a fuel tank that was not intrinsically safe. In my former job everything we placed in the Gravure press room was intrinsically safe because of the explosive nature of toluene. I guess Boeing engineers are not as smart as me! If they are installing electrical devices on planes that are not intrinsically safe NOBODY should fly.

45 posted on 06/22/2006 10:01:39 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (The difference between democrats and terrorists is the terrorists don't claim to support the troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

It would also have fragment holes in it and there were none. Why wouldn't the missile strike an engine or a heat source? What is the range of a shoulder fired missile. What is the launch signature? Why did no one see the launch if there were so many witnesses?


46 posted on 06/22/2006 10:02:20 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD

You ought to do some reading on this before you make blatantly wrong statements on this subject. I will not address anymore of this nonsense. The rockets were going up at the time and as you point out a totally irrelevant example. I suggest you read Jack's other works past and future and go to the websites such as TWA800.com to read first hand the interviews and other evidence. Alas, why am I sure you will not.


47 posted on 06/22/2006 10:02:23 AM PDT by True Republican Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
Lahr's ongoing case in the Los Angeles District Court pivots on the calculations used by the National Transportation Safety Board and the CIA to postulate a 3,400 foot post-crash climb by the nose-less 747

This had alway been a bone of contention in that the radar track does not support the "Zoom climb" after the nose was first lost....

While the radar track does not show altitude, only ground speed and direction... you can deduce climb or dive from ground speed (straight ahead and level true ground speed ...90 degrees straight up or straight down = 0 ground speed... as you go in to a climb you see ground speed lose then a speed up and you come over the top )

.... TWA 800 radar track just show basically simple curve in loss of ground speed

All the rest of official story could be true... but the "Zoom climb" to explain the upwards light streak seen in the sky by the witnesses does not seen to be supported by the radar track

And the only reason the"Zoom climb" is in the official story IS to explain the upwards light streaks seen in the sky by the witnesses that others say was a missile(s)...

Add in the fact that the witnesses content they saw the light streaks go up first then the explosion fit a missile(s) hit before not a zoom climb after

And add in the fact that Bubba admin at the time seem to be motivate to "not want" any terrorist acts so he didn't have to confront it (it cost political capital and support to take any hard stand, ask Bush)...so if you could explain it away as something else... do it

So yes I have strong doubts on this one

48 posted on 06/22/2006 10:03:57 AM PDT by tophat9000 (If it was illegal French Canadians would La Raza back them? Racist back their race over country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD
As far as explosives go and investigations of explosives, yes I am quite superior to you.

I'm sure you're quite knowledgeable on the subject. However, that doesn't preclude you from also being quite wrong.

49 posted on 06/22/2006 10:04:13 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: highimpact

PETN is not a missile fuel, it is an explosive. It is usually a part of an explosive train. The main use is in Det Chord.


50 posted on 06/22/2006 10:04:20 AM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,301-1,322 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