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

Skip to comments.

Cashill: FBI suppressed video of TWA (800) explosion / Are feds hiding crash imagery?
WND ^ | 8/30 & 9/20 | Jack Cashilll

Posted on 09/20/2007 7:33:48 PM PDT by cgk


WND Exclusive Commentary


FBI suppressed video of TWA explosion


Posted: August 30, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


Recovered debris from TWA 800

More than six years after retired United Airline captain Ray Lahr launched his Freedom of Information Act petition into the fate of TWA Flight 800, the FBI has shown him –likely by accident – one seriously smoking gun.

The Boeing 747 blew up off the coast of Long Island on July 17, 1996. One of the FBI documents received recently by Lahr and his attorney details a communication that took place six days after the crash:

"The FBI guy who looked at this must not have read it, or not have realized what it would reveal, Otherwise he would have redacted most of it as before."

(excerpt...)

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


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: cashill; clintonlegacy; doh; fbi; flight800; truth; twa; twa800; twaflight800
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-250 next last
To: StolarStorm
The test was public knowledge. Check archives for tests at that time.

Oh really? Could you perhaps point me to the archives so I can check it out? All I can find is speculation on conspiracy sites.

151 posted on 09/21/2007 5:11:31 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Feel free to file a FOI request. Have fun. You know, you aren’t going to rile me up. Like I said, I know for a fact what happenned. If you don’t know, too bad for you. Not my issue.


152 posted on 09/21/2007 5:14:26 AM PDT by StolarStorm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: CodeMasterPhilzar
I was always under the impression that the plane was well out of range for any known MANPAD system. A small launcher would be required to fire a missile with enough engine time to get to the altitude. Has this ever been proven wrong?
153 posted on 09/21/2007 5:14:33 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (in the halls of Valhalla...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: livius
I read somewhere (don’t ask me where after all these years and all these threads!) that TWA 800 was actually not the target. An El-Al plane was supposed to depart at that time, but there was a delay and TWA 800 left in its place, passing along the beach at just the time the El Al plane would have done.

Anyone who would base his plans on the belief that an airliner would pass by the same spot on the beach at the same time everyday has obviously never flown out of New York and has to qualify as one of the worlds dumbest terrorists.

154 posted on 09/21/2007 5:16:25 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard; mware
587 was a vertical stab connection point failure caused by excessive rudder input control. A well know problem with Airbuses of that vintage and resulted in extensive rework and pilot training.

Sorry that one was a clean equipment failure problem.

155 posted on 09/21/2007 5:22:25 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (in the halls of Valhalla...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
Doesn't any of this bother you?

No. The issued the NOTAM about the training area because there was a P-3C out of Brunswick doing some low-level maneuvers in the area. The P-3 was in the area because a U.S. nuclear sub was transiting the area on it's way to New London and it was common for the Brunswick crews to take advantage of these rtansits to practice tracking subs in real life. If the Navy at first denied assets in the area then it's because they don't like to announce the comings and goings of their subs. Kind of shoots the whole 'stealth' part of their activities right out of the water. So now your questions were answered.

Besides the Navy being in the area, doing something or other, we have a Coast Guard. Certainly a missile fired from the water close to our shore, should arouse their interest. So far as I know it did not.

What Coast Guard assets were in the area and why should they have been on guard for a terrorist missile launch?

156 posted on 09/21/2007 5:22:26 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: StolarStorm
Feel free to file a FOI request. Have fun.

I'd need a whole lot more than some paranoid ramblings before I'd go through all that time and trouble.

You know, you aren’t going to rile me up. Like I said, I know for a fact what happenned. If you don’t know, too bad for you. Not my issue.

Oh please, by all means enlighten us and explain just how you 'know' it happened. I'm up for a laugh.

157 posted on 09/21/2007 5:25:25 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

I thought the official explanation was wake turbulence?


158 posted on 09/21/2007 5:27:02 AM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You’d be waiting an awful long time for that sunrise.


159 posted on 09/21/2007 5:28:11 AM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
There is no evidence that this happened, other than people wanting blame Clinton for something.

Actually, I believe President Reagan would have done the same thing.

ML/NJ

160 posted on 09/21/2007 5:30:20 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I already mentioned how I knew. You are rude. Bye bye.


161 posted on 09/21/2007 5:32:27 AM PDT by StolarStorm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
That was the start of the “event”. When an Airbus hits wake turbulence the vert stab can go into oscillation and eventually break off. There are pictures of 587 at the rear and you can see the stab is completely gone and the attachment bolts are the only thing left. The show “Seconds from Disaster” (I think) does an hour on this and the corrective steps taken to solve the problem.
162 posted on 09/21/2007 5:34:40 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (in the halls of Valhalla...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950; Palladin
"We know for a fact that cameras and film were confiscated from many people on Long Island who took pictures of the explosion." ***** What alleged "fact" do you have for that statement.

There was a cocktail party on Long Island, I think the Hamptons but it was somewhere on the South Fork on the water. At that party someone took a photograph of it. There were lots of witnesses and at least one picture. The FBI came and took the pictures and the negatives. That is one incident that I know of.

163 posted on 09/21/2007 5:38:20 AM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“Paranoid ramblings”... “conspiracy theories”... is this stuff coming from a handbook? There has to be another, more creative way to belittle people.


164 posted on 09/21/2007 5:43:29 AM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
What Coast Guard assets were in the area and why should they have been on guard for a terrorist missile launch?

Check out the Coast Guard's mission. Pay special attention to the parts about Maritime Security and National Defense. The Coast Guard not reacting is sort of like police doing nothing after learning of a bank robbery.

ML/NJ

165 posted on 09/21/2007 5:48:34 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

FWIW. I’m not ready to say it happened that way, but I certainly concede it’s possible.


166 posted on 09/21/2007 5:49:32 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard

I’m surprised this wasn’t just moved to Chat: Conspiracy or maybe the Smoky Backroom. It was removed from news, extended news & crime/corruption. I thought I was being quite fair.


167 posted on 09/21/2007 5:51:32 AM PDT by cgk (I don't see myself as a conservative. I see myself as a religious, right-wing, wacko extremist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: mware

Refresh my memory. What was the basis upon which the Cardinal was resisting Klinton’s participation?


168 posted on 09/21/2007 5:55:03 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
this makes people look like wackos.

On behalf of everybody who wants the truth about how those 230 citizens were killed to be known, what you think we look like couldn't be any more insignificant.

But it's nice of you to leave the sports threads to share that with us.

169 posted on 09/21/2007 5:57:13 AM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham

This conspiracy stuff is embarrassing.

If?/ claimed by the “government” of the USA many things are conspiracy, as the TWA, why do they lock the investigation away for forty years? Then when we are allowed to view it, half of it is redacted.
Example, JFK assassination?


170 posted on 09/21/2007 5:57:59 AM PDT by buck61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CodeMasterPhilzar

I wondered about that as well. Are they saying that someone tried to shoot it down five days earlier?


171 posted on 09/21/2007 5:59:16 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mazza; rbg81
"Refresh my memory. Did anyone important die on that plane?"

All of them.

172 posted on 09/21/2007 6:00:12 AM PDT by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
Your guest is likely better than mine.

Well, with you not having seen my guest, I must assume yours is REALLY lousy. ;-P

Not to be overtly christian, but I wonder what BJ Clinton sold to the Devil... I'm not convinced he EVER had a soul.

173 posted on 09/21/2007 6:06:07 AM PDT by MortMan (Have a pheasant plucking day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
Why don't you tell me what the truth is, please?

Let's see facts, not theories, and don't tell me you can't because the evidence is hidden in a warehouse in New Mexico.

That's all I want. If you can show me a missile downed the plane, I will support you and your cause, but don't give me loose change logic.
174 posted on 09/21/2007 6:16:12 AM PDT by Perdogg (Join the NCAA basketball thread - Freemail me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: beelzepug
Excuse me, but the "proof" brought up in the post is borderline, no, not even that... Just plain ridiculous. A maybe event 5 days before is a link? Ha.

I'm perfectly willing to learn any new evidence either supporting or rebutting the claim TWA 800 was brought down intentionally. But that wasn't evidence. That was the worst kind of unsubstantiated innuendo.

All that blurb told me is that there was something the investigators discarded as unusable, unworthy of further consideration. Conspiracy nut-jobs immediately latch onto the fact something, anything was discarded and decide that must be the real story. They take that as some kind "evidence" of a conspiracy, of a coverup... It's not evidence, it is worthless noise in the pursuit of real information on the event.

So someone shot a video and saw something funny in it. After the crash what, they turn it over to the investigators. They look at it, conclude that what they see is consistent with a MANPAD, they obviously cannot state it is a video of a MANPAD launch. Apparently, there is nothing else to support/link the event captured on that video with the crash 5 days later. So the video is dropped from the investigation and not mentioned again.

Suppressed? You better believe it was suppressed. Why? Because it is just the kind of thing that if/when it gets out, will cause exactly this kind of hand wringing, finger pointing, this-must-be-it jumping to conclusions. After the investigators are satisfied it is not related, they don't want to have to spend time/energy/resources fighting public opinion and media circus refuting every third wild theory involving the video.

If that discarded video from nearly a week before the crash is the kind of "evidence" there is to support the missile claim, then IMHO there is nothing there to see/learn.

175 posted on 09/21/2007 6:17:31 AM PDT by CodeMasterPhilzar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: ryan71
Something like this, impossible to keep secret.

JFK, RFK, MLK

176 posted on 09/21/2007 6:18:37 AM PDT by IncPen (The Liberal's Reward is Self Disgust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane

I remember that - the people were on the Today show with the photo - then later it was reported that the photo was confiscated by the FBI. The photo clearly showed something that looked like a missile heading toward the plane.


177 posted on 09/21/2007 6:19:41 AM PDT by jpp113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24

I think that the reason for the suppression is clear. If it was admitted that a missile was responsible, the terrorists would have been given a hugh victory. I hate to say it, but Clinton probably made the correct call in suppressing the facts. Flame away.


178 posted on 09/21/2007 6:25:42 AM PDT by Agent Smith (Fallujah delenda est. (I wish))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Agent Smith
The prevailing missile theory is that the US Navy shot it down. People who push a missile must embrace this possibility.
179 posted on 09/21/2007 6:29:40 AM PDT by Perdogg (Join the NCAA basketball thread - Freemail me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: cgk

Being from Kansas City and knowing of Jack over the years is the one thing that has kept my mind open to the allegations of Federal manipulation. I have to ask myself, if Jack has been on this track hw can I ignore it?


180 posted on 09/21/2007 6:32:39 AM PDT by KC Burke (Men of intemperate minds can never be free...their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cgk

There’s no way to prove it, but I think that this was not a fuel tank explosion, that it was a mistake by the military under Clinton, that he ordered the FBI to cover it up, and Bush came into office with the promise to continue the coverup.
I hope we find out the truth one day.


181 posted on 09/21/2007 6:38:50 AM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
If I remember correctly...(and it's been a few years) The flight was climbing at around 13,000 to 14,000 ft. This puts it just at the extreme altitude limit for most small man portable SAMs. (For example, if you believe internet research, that is well above the Stinger's reach. SA-7s are even less capable)

In other words, they would have had to have been in the most favorable launch position, directly under the course track of the aircraft and linearly somewhere on a line slightly in front of it to slightly behind it. It would depend on the seeker sensitivity of the missile - if it could lock on from a slightly forward aspect angle. That would be best, then the missile could fly nearly straight up. From slightly behind, the seeker gets a better look at the hot engine exhaust, but has a slightly longer tail-chase intercept.

I don't remember the specifics of the witnesses that claim to have seen a missile trail. Here again, if I remember correctly they thought they saw something arcing in, not climbing straight up. The other consideration is, why was there only one?

Think about it, put yourself in the planners position. You're a terrorist organization, and you want to shoot down an airliner, strike a blow, etc. You're going to go to all the trouble of setting this up... Why shoot only one missile? They are not that expensive. If you can find a source to get one, you can probably get more than one. A big 4 engine aircraft might just shake off a single small missile hit. Heat seekers go for the engine exhausts and fragment. 747s fly very well on 3 engines... We may hate terrorists, but don't assume they're stupid just 'cause they're fanatics. Something the size of a 747 I'd shoot at least 3 at it, figuring 1 to miss, and needing 2 good hits to have a fair chance of bringing it down - giving the pilots too many problems to cope with in time. I don't recall any of the witnesses described multiple missile trails.

I don't think anyone can definitely prove there wasn't a missile (hard to prove a negative). But examining the data it looks extremely unlikely.

182 posted on 09/21/2007 6:39:36 AM PDT by CodeMasterPhilzar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
I think the connection they are trying to make - and it is thin... Is that there was some group with MANPADs in the area and one was fired 5 days before the crash.

So the theory would be something like either they were practicing/training (?) or that the tape shows an attempt at another aircraft earlier.

The first theory begs the question, why would they be so foolish as to train in such a populated area? That would be stupid, begging to be seen/reported. I still hold terrorists are fanatics, but not stupid. I don't think it would've been someone training.

The second theory begs the question, how did they miss? Why wasn't the missile heard/seen/reported by anyone? Also, if you took a shot, you would immediately execute your escape and evasion plan. They would not have stayed around or come back just a few days later to try again.

That's why I think investigators looked at this, said yes, it is consistent with the launch of a MANPAD. But it apparently is not definitively a launch. Also, there is apparently nothing else to indicate a launch took place, and nothing else to tie it to the crash a few days later.

183 posted on 09/21/2007 6:48:52 AM PDT by CodeMasterPhilzar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: CodeMasterPhilzar

it looks extremely unlikely.

= = =

Would that be so even for an advanced, higher umph, military model of such missles?

I think the evidence that the plane was shot down when taken as a whole . . . is more than impressive. I think it’s conclusive almost to the max.


184 posted on 09/21/2007 6:53:23 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
There has to be another, more creative way to belittle people.

Sometimes that's all it's worth. Cindy Sheehan types like SolarStorm may be convinced that the military leadership is full of bloodthirsty incompetents but I'm here to tell you that it isn't true. I spent 30 years in the Navy, active and reserve, and all of it on the East coast. And in all that time I never once heard of a missile firing outside of the Atlantic Fleet Missile Range in the Caribbean, and never heard of a live firing test or exercise of any kind north of the Virginia capes. The reason should be obvious for anyone with any sense at all - it is the most densely travelled air space in the world. The risks of accident are too great. So there is no conceivable reason for doing so. Give the military some credit for not being terminally stupid.

185 posted on 09/21/2007 6:53:59 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: StolarStorm
I already mentioned how I knew. You are rude. Bye bye.

No, you didn't. You said that they were public knowledge but without pointing to any evidence supporting it. I had an uncle that said it was public knowledge that the government faked the moon landing. I didn't believe him, either. So toddle off if you want, but if I see you spreading nonsense again you can expect me to call you on it again.

186 posted on 09/21/2007 6:56:21 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
You’d be waiting an awful long time for that sunrise.

I expect to wait even longer for John Kerry to say something I would believe.

187 posted on 09/21/2007 7:00:29 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham; willk
This conspiracy stuff is embarrasing.

At least I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Good! it needs to be embarassing.

188 posted on 09/21/2007 7:01:23 AM PDT by Designer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jewels1091
"hhhmmm, now why would clinton’s fbi do that?"

I'm still waiting for the passenger manifest to be published.

189 posted on 09/21/2007 7:02:50 AM PDT by Designer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
If you can show me a missile downed the plane, I will support you and your cause, but don't give me loose change logic.

This might be a good place to start: Eyewitness Highlights.

ML/NJ

190 posted on 09/21/2007 7:03:24 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
The eyewitness views were included in the final report. However, even though it was expected that there were inconsistencies in the eyewitness reports, none of the eyewitness provided anything that was consistant with a MANPAD attack.
191 posted on 09/21/2007 7:06:31 AM PDT by Perdogg (Join the NCAA basketball thread - Freemail me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Right.

And more than 150 people, credible persons all, unrelated in any way, shape, or form, in many different vantage point geograpghical areas, are all liars, drunks, confused, media whores.

Metal from the plane clearly shows something went IN, and something came OUT.

Go ahead, flame me, I have a triple layer, double reinforced, Nomex suit on. And a spare in the closet.

I said nothing about clintoon.

192 posted on 09/21/2007 7:07:47 AM PDT by papasmurf (I'm for Free, Fair, and Open trade. America needs to stand by it's true Friend. Israel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
none of the eyewitness provided anything that was consistant with a MANPAD attack.

This is certainly a Clintonesque reply.

I have never suggested that the missile which downed TWA 800 was a MANPAD. In fact, I believe I have refuted this idea.

You said you wanted evidence that a missile downed TWA 800. Not all missiles are MANPADS.

And while the eyewitness accounts might not be consistent with a MANPAD attack, they are certainly not consistent the idea that no missile at all was involved.

ML/NJ

193 posted on 09/21/2007 7:17:36 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight

Could be, but why would the terrorists would remain quiet? After all it is their intent to terrorize.


194 posted on 09/21/2007 7:18:29 AM PDT by pepperdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

I feel insulted now. I wasn’t attempting to give you a Clintonesque response. I have mentioned before that people who believe the missile theory would have to accept the possibility that a Naval missile downed the plane, which very few are willing to do.


195 posted on 09/21/2007 7:22:41 AM PDT by Perdogg (Join the NCAA basketball thread - Freemail me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: cgk
The only conspiracy I believe in here is the one our own federal government perpetrated on the American people as to the cause of this crash.

736 eye witnesses saw a bright flash rising UP and hit the plane (a missile). The CIA tried to convince us that the bright light was debris floating DOWN from the plan contrary to all of the witnesses.

Give me a break.

Here is a 6 part series on Youtube. The last 2 sections give most of the evidence for a terrorist attack via 2 surface to air missiles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em6hZ-ZKsRc 5 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7Nm2Ql1-qk 6 of 6

Bill Clinton didn't want to have to deal with terrorism, especially Islamic terrorism and sully his presidency with having to respond, so he ignored it and had all involved government agencies cover up the real cause.

196 posted on 09/21/2007 8:04:04 AM PDT by A. Patriot (CZ 52's ROCK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
Actually I got some inside information. I know someone who was on the Cardinal staff at the archdiocese.

His dislike for Clinton was common knowledge. I will have to do a check on old threads but I think it somehow became known in the media about the confrontation.

197 posted on 09/21/2007 8:23:15 AM PDT by mware (By all that you hold dear..on this good earth... I bid you stand! Men of the West!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
When the 747 had the front nose blown off, it lost tons of balance, making the tail heavier. The nose rises

The nose (section) broke off, and would fall immediately, The tail does not get "heavier" but the center of gravity of the remaining part of the fuselage moves dramatically, and instantly, aft causing the tail to drop and the wings to STALL almost immediately as the maximum angle of attack is rapidly exceeded.

That plane would not "Zoom Climb" for 15 seconds with no nose, it would be in a near horizontal Accelerated Stall after about 2 seconds and then drop like a stone.

You are claiming that somehow, a plane that had just blown into two pieces and had all it's engine and flying surface controls severed, was able to maintain stability to climb vertically for over 15 seconds before it pitched over and headed down.

Ridiculous.

A lightly loaded 747 can climb at about 6000 FPM, You are claiming that crippled, out of control, plane with no inherent stability can outperform that by a factor of 2

And finally, can you account for this eye witness testimony?

......Writes Dwight Brumley, a 20-year Navy vet who watched the tragedy unfold from above, after watching "Silenced":

"The CIA animation in no way represents what I saw that night. Based on the time line, as I understand it, the "flare" that I reported seeing off the right side of and below USAir 217 could not, I repeat, could not have been TWA 800 in crippled flight just before and after it exploded. There are two reasons why. First, TWA 800 would have been moving in my field of view from left to right, not from right to left as I clearly observed; and second, my understanding of the basic laws of aerodynamics leads me to conclude there is no way that TWA 800, with the nose section gone, could have possibly climbed 3,000-4,000 feet as the CIA video portrays."

198 posted on 09/21/2007 9:57:30 AM PDT by Wil H (Turning $1000 into $100,000 through cattle futures requires the "willing suspension of disbelief")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: A. Patriot; ml/nj; Perdogg
James Sanders in his book Downing of TWA Flight 800 says terrorists intended to ram a airliner departing JFK with a smaller plane packed with explosives. US intelligence learned of the plot and alerted the US Navy. The Navy attempted to shoot down the smaller plane with two missiles but the plane was closing fast on TWA800. One missile hit TWA800, which explains the propellant residue, and the other hit the smaller plane, which explains the large, non-fuel explosion external to TWA800, but close enough that the concussion destroyed it. That senario is plausible and is consistent with all of the evidence.
199 posted on 09/21/2007 10:00:51 AM PDT by foxfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: A. Patriot; ml/nj; Perdogg
James Sanders in his book Downing of TWA Flight 800 says terrorists intended to ram a airliner departing JFK with a smaller plane packed with explosives. US intelligence learned of the plot and alerted the US Navy. The Navy attempted to shoot down the smaller plane with two missiles but the plane was closing fast on TWA800. One missile hit TWA800, which explains the propellant residue, and the other hit the smaller plane, which explains the large, non-fuel explosion external to TWA800, but close enough that the concussion destroyed it. That senario is plausible and is consistent with all of the evidence.
200 posted on 09/21/2007 10:01:50 AM PDT by foxfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-250 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