Posted on 11/16/2007 10:04:18 PM PST by Sioux-san
On the Sunday morning of July 3, 1988, at the tail end of the Iran-Iraq War, an Aegis cruiser, the USS Vincennes, fired two Standard Missiles at a commercial Iranian Airbus, IR655.
The first missile struck the tail and right wing and broke the aircraft in half. All 290 people aboard were killed. Misunderstanding America, the Iranians claimed that our Navy had intentionally destroyed the plane.
The Navy did no such thing.
(Excerpt) Read more at cashill.com ...
about how men are involved in the launch of a missle from one of our navy ships that would be capable of taking down flight 800? any navy FReepers out tonight?
Having served on an Aegis cruiser (The Vincennes, although a few years after the shootdown), I find it highly unlikely that TWA 800 was the result of an accidental shot from the Normandy. It just doesn’t work that way. Most of the time, the magazines were empty until you prepared to deploy, and you certainly didn’t operate live fire exercises in the vecinity of Long Island. The missile ranges are much farther south, off Norfolk.
And the Iranian diesel sub that fired the missile got away.
What do you make of the missile sitings in the Long Island area about six days prior to the TWA 800 incident?
I don’t question your analysis, but something sure seems to have been taking place around Long Island in that time frame.
The Navy also admits there was a training exercise in the TWA 800 vacinity on the night of the TWA 800 incident.
Dang...
sightings = sitings
I remember it well.
There was at least one book written about this incident, speculating that it could have been a navy training (inert) missle, that punctured the cabin, leaving red “missle fuel residue” that the FBI confiscated (except his remnant) and was witnessed by about 286 people including on duty pilots. The FBI further harrassed his gov’t employee wife, etc... I believe that radar shows the missle approaching the plane. I am not saying that I believe that our navy did it, but I do believe that a missle from somewhere took flight 800 down.
thanks, bfl
That was it! Larry King Live.
More from Cashill - Pt. 10 on TWA-800:
# Naval presence. Despite at least six credible sightings of a Navy warship off Long Island after 3 p.m. on July 17, the Navy insisted it had none within two hundred miles of the crash site. Under duress in November 1997 the FBI admitted that the Normandy and now three submarines—Trepang, Albuquerque, and Wyoming—were in the “immediate vicinity” of the crash site.
# Mystery ships. For five months the FBI denied the existence of a “surface vessel” that it would later identify as being three miles from the crash site, having a speed between twenty-five and thirty-five knots, and fleeing the scene. The FBI finally admitted its presence but never identified it.
That link I just supplied in 13, is real key for me. All those witnesses that were discredited, over 200 of them, now have a verification of sorts.
As it happens one of the biggest pushers of the “Navy missile theory” was an antiwar conspiracy theorist whose website featured crap written by Ismail Royer, one of the Paintball cell / VA Jihad terrorists- a group headed by a cleric with ties to Iraq. I guess if my buddies were Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorists I’d want to distract people with accusations against the Navy, too.
I had realized that the FBI had taken over the NTSB investigation. I had not heard of the exact government mechanism they used to do it.
This article makes it clear what took place.
http://www.cashill.com/twa800/top_fbi_lawyer.htm
bttt
“I and a few others in this board saw John Kerry slip up in a interview immediately after 911 and call TWA 800 a “terrorist act”.”
This doesn’t mean Kerry had any actual proof, just that he was “hoping” at the time.
Yes.
Clinton had the FBI take over the TWA800 disaster within minutes of it occurring,and had the FAA stand aside.
But, he had the FBI stand aside and let the Park Police do the investigation into the death of his BEST FRIEND and POWERFUL MEMBER OF WHITE HOUSE STAFF, ole boy Vince.
Hmmmmmmmm........
The day after Vince died, Clinton appeared at the side of the White House acknowledging the death. The guy looked at once scared to death, and yet actually smiling. It was very wierd to say the least.
He wasn’t sure at the time whether he was going to get away with it.
What makes it really really weird is that Vince’s clothes had semen stains on them. Whose were they?
Beats me. I don’t remember hearing that before though. Perhaps I’ve forgotten.
This is very rarely brought up, but nine months after the Iranian Airbus shootdown, the Wife of the Captain of the USS Vincennes was nearly killed in a bombing attack. She had been driving the family minivan to work when a bomb that had been attached to it went off. The FBI (as usual) immediately denied any link to terrorism and instead worked on the theory that an unknown non-terrorist with unknown motives had blown up the captain’s van. The case has never been solved.
Honestly, Kerry is not very sharp. It could well be that this was a botched reference to the PAN AM flight 103 that blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland. I would not hang my hat on anything Mr. Heinz says.
The one thing that bothers this pilot is that the "official" explaination of what brought TWA800 down is that jet fuel vapors exploded in the center fuel tank. Jet fuel is essentially kerosene and the vapors are not at all explosive unless they are compressed. That's what a jet engine is, a big compressor. It's hard enough to get jet fuel to burn at sea level, much less get the vapors to burn explosively at somewhere between 12,000-17,000' agl. That one has never been explained satisfactorily, regardless of what anyone thinks was the cause of the crash. They always tapdance around that little ditty......
There are about 350 men aboard the Normandy. If it was there conducting training exercises with a complement of other ships and subs, that number goes up dramatically. No one out of that entire group put 2 and 2 together and noticed that within seconds of firing a missile of any kind an airliner was reported crashed with some claiming it was hit by a missile? Or all of them were threatened and remain sufficiently frightened that not a one has stepped forward?
Directly involved? Depends on the size of the ship. There are those in the missile magazine, those in the Combat Information Center, those on the bridge. But if you're wondering how many people on a ship would be aware of a missile being fired then the answer is all of them. It's not a quiet procedure.
I saw John Kerry in an inteview calling every one of the Swift Boat charges false. Do believe him in that as well?
It was quite common to have training exercises in the area. None of them ever involved shooting anything.
Well, we did. It irritated the Hell out of me at the time, the way the Navy kept referring to this as "an accident," like somebody'd tripped over his shoelaces and fallen on the 'launch' button, when it was clearly a 'mistake', a deliberate act done in error.
Good at responsibility, those admirals.
When you’re at sea, you train 24/7, even off the east coast.
There’s no way in hell the Navy would be firing missiles off Long Island. If you saw the amount of “COM AIR” in that area on a radar display, you’d understand why.
I don’t know what happened to 800 but it was not the Navy.
The Vincennes was in a hostile area. EW’s were picking up AWG-9 emissions on the same bearing as the Airbus. They thought the Airbus was an Iranian F-14.
More pointless rantings by clueless kook Cashill.
I still get a chuckle about his big expose that a "source" told him a Tomahawk missile (a low altitude ground attack missile) accidentally hit TWA 800 going for its "center of mass" (the Tomahawk does not have a radar seeker head designed to target moving targets).
We don't shoot "inert" missiles. The "bluebirds" are on the rails when you go in and out of port and to conduct training but cannot launch. White missiles are the warshots, and those are fully functional. It may have been a missile, which I agree, but it was not a Navy missile.
The Navy did not shoot down TWA 800. Go blame someone else.
No "inert" missile is used in excercises, and if it was, then a TARGET missile would have been present too (not). Sometimes, as in the JFK assassination, the most obvious, simple facts are the correct ones.
And it's amazing to me how many military-loving Freepers will assume that HUNDREDS of sailors and officers would keep their mouths shut about such an incident had it occurred. Yet not one single "leak" in eight years? come on.
Submarines don’t fire “standard” type missiles.
“Mythbusters” recreated this incident exactly. In fact, they got a MORE powerful explosion using a wire spark and fuel tank vapors heated to the levels present in TWA 800.
The explanation of TWA 800's explosion has been validated by "Mythbusters," who are really good at recreating these things. In fact, they got a tremendous explosion that surprised even them.
People don't want to let this go because it happened on Clinton's watch, like the anti-FDR people still cling to the "FDR knew about Pearl Harbor" crap. Stuff happens sometimes. Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. The Japanese did achieve suprise on Dec. 7. Sacco and Vanzetti DID kill that guard. The Rosenbergs were guilty. Just because something fits, or doesn't fit, one's political desires doesn't make it less true.
I saw him say it ...also George Stepinclintoncrap
said it was a terrorist act just like TWA 800
At 17,000' pressure altitude? Got a link?
Nope. Watched the show. Yes, they recreated the same conditions. They always do.
Mythbusters also “proved” that sugar in a cars gas wont hurt it. They “prove” a lot of things that are not true.
Well, in order for them to create a pressure altitude of 17,000' for such a test, it would have to involve some sort of decompression chamber. They would also have to match the exact mixture of atmospheric gasses as are found at that altitude. These two things are crutial and ones that I doubt they employed due to the cost.
You can get kerosene to burn explosively at sea level if you heat it to the flash point and add a spark. A big kaboom will result. However, if you didn't see the pressure altitude or mixture conditions met, then they were comparing apples to oranges. I've camped at over 12,000' in the Rockies and a Bic lighter barely works. Forget building a campfire. The fuel tanks are vented to the outside ambient pressure. Otherwise, they would fail as you go up in altitude due to the pressure differential. There simply isn't enough O2 at the altitude TWA800 is supposed to have come apart to allow for explosive combustion of kerosene without it first being compressed to several atmospheres. That's what the jet engine does and why it works so well at altitude.
I remember that.
There were weapon caches reported buried in the beach too. The confiscated weapons were in the ATF vault. That vault was in the basement of the World Trade Center.
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.