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 ...
“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.
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.