Posted on 06/07/2009 12:31:42 AM PDT by neverdem
We were talking about the other doomed flight.
We were talking about the elevation of flight 447, not 800.
TWA Flt 800 bump.
Good point. I’m certainly no expert, but people here tell me that 800 was at the absolute maximum range of any shoulder-fired missile if-—and only if-—the shooter was directly under the plane. Off by a mile in any direction would have detracted fuel from the altitude. Or so I’m told.
Oklahoma City is another such incident...
We’ve been attacked a few more times by terrorists than the government wants to really let us know about...
Amen! That is because Clinton was afraid to face the issue, for a variety of reasons. I don't think W hid any but I am sure Barrack Hussien will.
Wikipedia now thats funny
That’s what I found. There are can be accurate stuff on there and inaccurate stuff as well. The missile analysis on there seems credible to me.
Sometimes they like to call themselves the religion of peace. Did Qaddafi try to take credit for Lockerbee? No!
I was thinking more on the lines of targets of opportunity and as far as explosive residue. You’re right, none found.
So, according to your logic, President Bush purposely sabotaged his own presidency by not revealing this information?
Have you considered the possibility that the warhead was a dud ?
Pres. Bush was pretty much a go along to get along kind of guy. It’s not hard to imagine him wanting bygones to be bygones.
Don't know if you've worked on APU's, but the aircraft I have worked with can start and run APU's while the engines are running, to take the electrical load before the engines shut down, or in some cases as emergency electrical back up in flight... Just a flip of the switch to transfer Elect/Hyd control from normal to APU
>>..... TWA800 would have been a relatively easy target for a Soviet SA16/18, which even then was 15 year old technology.
No it wouldn’t have been.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-16.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-18.htm
I understand the point, and I know a shoulder fired manpad didn’t have the slant range to take down TWA800 unless it was perfectly in flight path, yet if there was a genuine fuel tank error with a shorted pump, why weren’t all 747’s GROUNDED to repair the prblem ??
Then there would have been unexploded explosive residue. You can’t get around the forensics that no one found any indicator of a missile anywhere-—warhead (exploded or otherwise), fragments, motor.
That’s a good question. In fact I have heard that while they weren’t grounded, the wiring in ALL Boeings was hastily re-routed, and it was a pretty big issue at the time.
Yes, there's a ground APU, too, used start the engines on the ground, keep the interior A/C running and to provide interior lighting while sitting at the gate. What I'm talking about is built into the tail of the airplane. It's an on board APU, a small gas turbine engine used to drive a generator which powers the aircraft's systems in flight. Take a look at the tail of a 747, 737, 757, 767 and other similar aircraft and you will see a "stove pipe" below the rudder. The intake is usually at the leading edge of the vertical fin or sometimes is fed through NACA ducting on the rear side of the fuselage. That's the APU. Do a Google search on "Boeing 747 APU" and you'll get a few hundred hits which describe what I'm talking about.
I based my comment on the following:
[1] The specs given for the original SA-18 omit mention of any system upgrades over the period of 13 years that intervened between the introduction of the SA-18 in 1983 and the loss of TWA800 in 1996. In any case, “official” performance data for new and active service weaponry of any nation is notoriously unreliable.
[2] Even at the officially specified 3500m max altitude capability, TWA800 was within engagement parameters.
[3] TWA800 was an absolutely ideal target: a large non-maneuvering a/c climbing at relatively slow airspeed, a huge IR signature with its multiple engines at high throttle for the climb, zero counter-measures in play, and an optimal dark sky background offering no distractions to a missile seeker.
[4] As I learned over the weekend, the SA-18 also possessed targeting logic that would terminally guide it to strike the airframe rather than to an IR hotspot.
I recognize that others may disagree with my assessment, but I stand by it.
You said — So, according to your logic, President Bush purposely sabotaged his own presidency by not revealing this information?
—
Well, I never said he sabotaged his own presidency, you did.
What I said is that he didn’t tell what he knew, as it was classified, and he agreed that we didn’t find any WMD (which we didn’t, did we... LOL..., at least President Bush said we didn’t).
Now, he knows, our government knows, and others know that they’re in Syria, and others have given out this information already, but the public doesn’t “believe” them.
We wouldn’t go into Syria and actually pick them up and “show the world”, so to reveal it would require revealing our assets. The U.S. isn’t going to do that, because those assets are still “in play” in the region and the U.S. wants to keep it that way.
It’s just like the nuclear facility that was destroyed in Syria that no one is talking about, although we all know that it happened and it was destroyed. :-)
Israel and the U.S. isn’t going to talk about it, and “show the world” and reveal all that they know just to reveal their assets to the world.
That’s the way it works...
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.