Skip to comments.Cashill: FBI suppressed video of TWA (800) explosion / Are feds hiding crash imagery?
Posted on 09/20/2007 7:33:48 PM PDT by cgk
FBI suppressed video of TWA explosion
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) Read more at wnd.com ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I expect to wait even longer for John Kerry to say something I would believe.
At least I'm not the only one who thinks so.
Good! it needs to be embarassing.
I'm still waiting for the passenger manifest to be published.
This might be a good place to start: Eyewitness Highlights.
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.
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.
Could be, but why would the terrorists would remain quiet? After all it is their intent to terrorize.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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."