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...)
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
There, fixed it!
Though, Perdogg has a point, If it was a missile, which I am almost cetain it was, it doesn't necessarily have to be a terrorist act.
The US armed forces have plenty of missiles too, and the Navy were testing them close by in an exercise to try out forward linked radar between multiple vessels to extend their early detection capability .
· Test results conflict about the contents of red residue.
In March 1997, freelance journalist and ex-Seal Beach policeman James D. Sanders said red residue found on a piece of the jetliner’s seats was consistent with exhaust from solid fuel for rockets. A missile scientist said the elements were consistent with rocket fuel. Sanders used that and other evidence to conclude a missile with an inert warhead shot down Flight 800. His evidence and conclusions were published in The Press-Enterprise.
FBI and NTSB officials said the red residue was adhesive and that their tests showed it to be 3M’s Scotch-Grip 1357 High Performance Contact Adhesive. However, Scotch-Grip 1357 is green, not red.
Three independent laboratory tests show Scotch-Grip 1357’s makeup is significantly different than the residue Sanders had tested independently in a Southern California laboratory.
The test the NTSB commissioned the National Aeronautic and Space Administration to conduct on the adhesive and Flight 800 seats is so dissimilar to Sanders’ test that the results “are like comparing apples and oranges,” according to Semtec Laboratories of Phoenix, Ariz., a private test laboratory.
Laboratory manager Ed Holdsworth, who examined the conflicting test reports at the request of The Press-Enterprise, said they showed the adhesive and red residue differences to be significant.
“Clearly the data do not support the statement that the analyses are `consistent with’ the residue being 3M adhesive,” his report said. But he cautioned he also could not say the red residue was consistent with rocket propellent, in part because of “the lack of any basic data on what the residue from a solid fuel rocket motor should contain.”
Two independent tests at a branch of the Los Alamos National Laboratory at Florida State University determined the 3M adhesive and seating material from a TWA sister plane to Flight 800 were missing almost half the elements found in the red residue Sanders had tested. Of the eight elements common to the 3M product and the red residue, most were present in significantly smaller quantities in the adhesive.
The FBI’s original samples and Sanders’ sample also came from different spots, according to investigators. The FBI’s came from inside a plastic inset on seatbacks while Sanders’ was fabric from the top ridge of a seat.
Eye witness are very unreliable. Especially recalling at a later time of an event, of which they were not ready to record.
I don’t believe it was error, and if it was a set up it would of been done at night, not illuminated with a setting sun against a darkening sky off a densely populated coast.
And what is the FAA, the Navy, the ATF, the FBI, insurance investigators and Boeing too in on it? That would be thousands. No way.
I hope we hear of one next week. I think we’ll need Boeing to issue a recall on whatever airframe the Iranian Dictator decides to fly on, to look for other shorts in the fuel tanks.
Nice repair job! :)
This would not be a secret for more than 12 hours.
Anyone who has spent any time in the navy would tell you that the scenario is implausible and down right iidiotic. Why would they turn to the Navy and not the Air Force? An F-16 or F-15 would be better equipped to intercept a small airplane. And then there sheer insanity of firing missiles into an airspace populated by dozens of commercial aircraft and expecting both of them to hit one small target. Do you honestly think that the military leadership of this country is that stupid?
Ideas like this always strike me as disinformational backfires. (i.e crazy ideas that are associated with an inconvenient truth, that can be used to discredit the inconvenient truth. Other examples are some of the stories about Vincent Foster and the "clipper chip" or supposed runs he made to Swiss Banks.) So the Navy knew about this "smaller plane" and just happened to decide to conduct some exercises in the area that day? I don't remember. Does Sanders suggest that this "smaller plane" was actually there and such an attempt was made. If yes: Isn't it remarkable that no one saw this "smaller plane" including the FAA Radar? If no: Did the Navy shoot at the nonexistent plane? And what kind of a "smaller plane" was this? None of the planes I've flown can fly and/or climb that fast. These are the ravings of a madman.
ML/NJ
I heard John Kerry say we had troops in Iraq a time or two. Must be a lie.
I knew that plane was taken down by a missile, I always believed that to be the case. The thing is if the terrorists did it and got away with it why did they stop?
If the Arabs blew it up Clinton would have had to do something about it. He didn’t want to face that kind of war.The Balkan War was easy, sanitary, and “virtuous.” Reacting to the destruction of 800 would get us into an unpredictable and messy war. If it was a US military accident, well a coverup for that is obvious- he couldn’t stand to take the political blame for something like that and, as the sitting president, he would have had it poured all over him. Clinton was not a man for hard decisions.
Not true.
The MANPADS Menace: Combating the Threat to Global Aviation from Man-Portable Air Defense Systems
MANPADS can strike aircraft flying at altitudes up to approximately 15,000 feet (4572 meters) at a range of up to 3 miles (4.82 kilometers).
MANPAD Protection for Commercial Aircraft (See: Zone of susceptibility, page 4)
Makes no sense. The Air Force is charged with the air defense of the continental U.S. and not the Navy.
In any case, we will probably never know what kind of intelligence the government had and how it figured into any tactical decisions regarding this threat, if indeed, this is how events unfolded that day.
We'll never know if any such threat existed at all or if it is all a figment of someone's imagination.
I do not think it was insanity to fire missiles at a target that was seen as a bona fide threat. No, I do not think the military leadership is stupid, but they do have to operate in this real world of limited information and opportunities.
You don't think it's insanity to be shooting missiles in the general direction of dozens of civilian airliners? May I ask what your military background is?
This was not a threat to our continent. The terrorists were already here.
You don't think it's insanity to be shooting missiles in the general direction of dozens of civilian airliners?
It is insane to shoot in the "general direction" of anything. In this case, they would have been shooting at a bona fide target that just happened to get too close to TWA 800. There is always the possibility for unintended consequences when you shoot at anything.
May I ask what your military background is?
My military background is irrelevant to this discussion. But, if you must know, you can check my profile.
Then it's a matter for law enforcement, not the military.
It is insane to shoot in the "general direction" of anything. In this case, they would have been shooting at a bona fide target that just happened to get too close to TWA 800. There is always the possibility for unintended consequences when you shoot at anything.
And even more of a possibility if you're stupid enough to be shooing into an area chock full of unintended consequences. The idea that any commander on the scene would shoot two missiles after a small plane in airspace full of larger planes is insane. How would he be sure he's shooting at the right target to begin with? And what the hell does he do with his second missile if the first impacts the target? It makes zero sense at all.
My military background is irrelevant to this discussion. But, if you must know, you can check my profile.
Well yes, background is important because it's an indication of how much you understand the subject you're talking about. For the record I was an active duty naval officer for almost nine years and did many more years in the reserves. My active duty time was spent on DDGs and FFGs assigned to the Atlantic Fleet. I participated in about a dozen missile shoots, involving my ship or others, both day and night so I think I can speak with some authority on the matter. And the scenario you describe is the absolute height of insanity. I don't know what exactly brought down TWA 800 but I can say that based on everything I've read about it I have absolutely no doubt at all that it was not an errant military missile.
Not necessarily.
And the scenario you describe is the absolute height of insanity.
It's James Sanders' scenario, not mine. I'm still skeptical about a lot of it and your devil's advocate approach gave me a few things to ponder.
My active duty time was spent on DDGs and FFGs assigned to the Atlantic Fleet.
Hey, I'm just a dumb jarhead. I don't know what DDG or a FFG or a CVBT is and I don't really care. Sounds like your want to get into a pissing contest, but I am going off to enjoy the weekend. See you around.
It would definitely take planning and an experienced operator to tag a 747 at 14,000 feet from the back.
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Reports/CrashOfAA587.pdf
Most diver’s in the Navy are able to id different types of fragments + that they [the divers] had tv cameras on the helmets for the top side “brass” to see what was going on. When in doubt bury it in deep waters....
There were many more, reported in the first hours after the explosion. I was glued to the TV and heard the many eyewitness reports early on. And also all the people complaining on TV that their film and cameras were taken by the FBI.
Because the “incident” affected so many people in my town, I became a TWA 800 news junkie and read every thing I could find about it. Unfortunately, I wasn’t online yet at that time.
As happens in many such “incidents”, the first reports ...the ones that contradicted the Clinton party line...were censored and never shown again.
If Cardinal O’Connor refused to be seen in public with Clinton, that begs the question of why. Could it be more than Clinton’s adultery and promiscuity? Could it be more than Clinton’s “pro-choice” position on abortion? Could it be that the cardinal had some familiarity with the details of the Vincent Foster case and the rest of the Clinton Body Count and realize that Clinton’s “compassion” for the TWA 800 victims was nothing more than a charade?
Cashill is a serious historian with a Ph.D. degree, who is not out to get laughs, merely to inform. WND is just as good as its individual writers, and Cashill is tops.
Please read Cashill's books on TWA 800 and "Ron Brown's Body" to prove to yourself he is a respectable professional.
I never said he was out for laughs. I do think he is out for money though.
Serious historian? He strings events together and speculates as to what it means
Heck I do that, but I don't make it my livelihood :0)
THE LINDA KABOT PHOTO
The photo taken by Kabot depicts a bearing of north/northeast. TWA Flight 800 was south/southwest almost directly behind her.
Photograph analyzed by CIA National Imagery and Mapping Administration (NIMA) advised that
1. THERE IS OBJECT IN PHOTO
2. OBJECT IS NOT A MISSILE
3. OBJECT APPEARS TO BE AN AIRCRAFT
Not possible to ID aircraft because:
Not possible to determine distance of object from camera.
Exact time of photo unknown. (time frame only is known)
Insufficient detail in photo to determine type of aircraft.
4. OBJECT IS NOT A DRONE
No drone exercises conducted near Long Island July 17, 1996
http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/51099lsa.htm
Why shouldn't he be out for money? Isn't writing non-fiction an honorable profession? If this were a just world, guys like Cashill would be earning far more for exposing the truth about the Clinton years than those left-wing media shills in the MSM who have consistently defended the criminal enterprises of the Clintonistas because their megabucks employers would fire them or worse if they told it like it is.
Can't happen. You blow the front off that plane, and it loses the power control to the fuel pumps, and as much fuel as those engines need to run there’s no way on God’s Green Earth they will keep pushing the plane up.
BTW, I have it on good authority that at least one person who survived the OC bombing was killed aboard TWA 800. Probably coincidence but maybe not.
Especially since the published ceiling for the Stinger is 9500 ft... The SA-7 is 2300 meters...
The other consideration I forgot to mention is that why would terrorists be there in the first place? It is the wrong place. The descriptions I've read of flight 800 state that it was unusually low. It had been prevented from a normal ascent due to an inbound flight. So normally, at that range out from the airport the aircraft would be even higher.
Now, putting yourself in the position of a terrorist... Why would you position yourself where aircraft would normally be even higher, just about guaranteed to be out of range? You don't plan for luck. Luck usually runs against you, and there are generally enough unknowns that in planning operations you control everything you possibly can. So terrorists would've stationed themselves closer in, where nominal aircraft ascent profiles would have had them in range.
As for where a heat seeker generally hits... What they "see" is a large blob of heat - the exhaust from the engines at a higher temp than the surrounding air.(*) As they close, the exhaust ducts and aXX-end of the engine resolve to even hotter than the air flow. So the heat seekers fly towards the exhaust plume, then correct into the back of the engine. Depending on the system they either contact detonate (dangerous to rely on, may not actually hit), or proximity detonate (extra hardware/software though), or simply detect the rapid rate of change of the target's relative position at closest point of approach, and detonate. That's one reason most SAMs carry fragmentation warheads - they only have to get close, then trash the aircraft's systems.
(*) Unless you're a newer Sidewinder like the AIM-9X. They are so-called "all aspect" missiles. The word is they can detect the temperature differential of the leading edge of a wing. At high speed air friction heats the leading edges... So they can be fired from the front aspect of the target.
Alright already I guess I should have been more explicite in saying anyone political...Of course every life is important.
Amen.
How? What determines which is which? Color? Shape?Missiles go boom, and when they go boom they tend to fragment into a lot of little tiny pieces. The same kind of pieces you get when an airplane crashes. So you tell me how you determine the fragments of a Stinger from the fragments of a 747?
Not really trying to get into a pissing contest, just defending the military from those who would attack it and try and discredit it and bring it down. I cannot understand how someone can believe the military is stupid enough to shoot down a U.S. civilian airliner, evil enough to cover it up, and yet honorable enough in the war in Iraq. It's the same military in both situations, and if you believe they shot down and covered up TWA 800 then I assume you believe that they're out there murdering civilians and committing atrocities in Iraq.
And a DDG is a guided missile equipped destroyer. An FFG is a guided missile equipped frigate. The same kind of ships you think shot down the airliner.
Not really, the parts would be of different size, shape & color from the aircraft. Plus not all of the rocket parts would be severly fragmented. There would be some parts left in pretty good shape to id them “if found”.
I have been trying to remember the name of the Ron Brown associate who died in that crash...for years.
Was this the man who was scheduled for, but missed, the flight that Ron Brown died in?
I know, crazy, but I really heard that reported (someone missed the flight at the last minute) I heard it at the time...then never again.
Bingo...that is what I was referring to!
“This conspiracy stuff is embarrasing.”
Sometimes it sure is, for those not wanting the spotlight put on something.
Let’s say you and I got together and fr-mailed eachother and came up with a plan to show up on threads such as these and immediately throw out the word conspiracy and offer nothing else substantive. You and I would no doubt have conspired together to execute a plan. You are now part of a conspiracy to show up on threads such as these and immediately throw out the word conpiracy.
Would that not be both true and totally accurate, while still being a conspiracy? Yes it would be.
Stalking me????? You are disturbed.
Demanding to know my military background, for what, to compare it to yours, and throwing around acronyms that most people don’t know, for what, to compare with my acronyms, sounds like begging for a pissing contest. By the way, why don’t you put all of this good stuff about your military background in your profile?
just defending the military from those who would attack it and try and discredit it and bring it down.
You can’t really believe that I am trying to bring down the military?
I cannot understand how someone can believe the military is stupid enough to shoot down a U.S. civilian airliner,
No one is accusing the military of stupidity. No one is accusing the military of targeting TWA 800. Sanders is saying that the military was targeting a terrorist-operated airplane that was threatening TWA 800. Mistakes and collateral damage are a fact of life, even when you think you have a clean shot. What about the Iranian airbus that the US Navy shot down during the Gulf War.
Also, under the right circumstances, the US military would target a US civilian airliner as they certainly would have done on 9/11.
evil enough to cover it up,
No one is saying the military is evil. Sanders, and those who believe his theory, accuse the Clinton administration of the cover up, not the military.
if you believe they shot down and covered up TWA 800 then I assume you believe that they're out there murdering civilians and committing atrocities in Iraq.
You are over the top. How does anything I have said in this thread lead you to infer that I believe the military is committing murder and atrocities in Iraq? Now, that is a non-sequitur.
No, I did to show that I'm speaking from experience and not just stating uninformed opinion or parroting conspiracy theories. If you consider that engaging in a pissing contest then so be it.
You can’t really believe that I am trying to bring down the military?
You are saying that you believe the U.S. military is incompetent enough to shoot down a civilian airliner and devious enough to deny it and cover it up. That they are, in fact, cold-blooded murderers. What would you call that?
No one is accusing the military of stupidity. No one is accusing the military of targeting TWA 800. Sanders is saying that the military was targeting a terrorist-operated airplane that was threatening TWA 800. Mistakes and collateral damage are a fact of life, even when you think you have a clean shot.
Shooting two missiles at a small airplane in the middle of the busiest air corridor in the world is stupidity. The whole scenario is insane. And one would have to believe the military brass was insane if you honestly believe they would do that.
What about the Iranian airbus that the US Navy shot down during the Gulf War.
The Navy didn't deny that or try and cover it up. You're claiming that they did with a U.S. airliner and U.S. civilians.
Also, under the right circumstances, the US military would target a US civilian airliner as they certainly would have done on 9/11.
With an Air Force jet at close range. Not with a navy ship hundreds of miles away.
No one is saying the military is evil. Sanders, and those who believe his theory, accuse the Clinton administration of the cover up, not the military.
Oh give me a break! Clinton covered it up but not the military???? How could Clinton pull something like that off without the help of the military? You are making less and less sense as you go along.
You are over the top. How does anything I have said in this thread lead you to infer that I believe the military is committing murder and atrocities in Iraq? Now, that is a non-sequitur.
You say that you believe that they U.S. military is capable of killing U.S. civilians and covering it up, but then suggest that they would never, ever do the same in Iraq? Please!
OK, what do you think happened to TWA 800?
forgot what I was gonna say...
forgot what I was gonna say...
Your tagline says/reads it all! I agree with it.
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.