Posted on 07/03/2013 4:13:24 AM PDT by Carriage Hill
Then I guess it's lucky for them that when the missile warhead went off it sprayed all it's shrapnel in one direction, huh? I mean, what are the odds?
Accidentally shot down by an accidental missile that was accidentally launched and subsequently, accidentally covered up.
oops.
If there was an issue, the 747s would have been grounded just from a liability / insurance perspective.
So there were 4 missiles?
A shoe bomb...I’d bet my life on it.
I’ll make sure to put a copy of the report next to my ‘magic bullet’, OKC and WACO tomes.
LOL. Exactly.
Could have been, but from what I read, admittedly on the TWA800 website, some key structural pieces were bent *inward*, indicating the blast(s) came from outside the cabin. Just saying.
However, based upon this testimony by Major Fred Meyer (Ret), clearly there were two separate missles ... directed at two different planes?
I remember a discourse with such a person on the television, but NOT the actual interview. I cannot contribute to discussion on that as I don’t remember the testimony of the fishing boat rental operator.
I would believe the discussion would have contributed to my standing on the event as I don’t recall anything stated that night that did otherwise.
Eyewitnesses saw the streak of a missile heading up to, and then the explosion. What else could it have been?
Too many were told to not believe their lyin’ eyes.
He was pretty specific in the interview. He said 'ordinance explosions' and not 'fuel explosions'. I think that a warhead detonation looks different than a fuel tank explosion and that with his experience he'd be able to tell the difference.
However, based upon this testimony by Major Fred Meyer (Ret), clearly there were two separate missles ... directed at two different planes?
Two to four. But none of the other eyewitnesses that I'm aware of has said they've seen anything other than one.
Shaped charges.
Armor-piercing ,for instance ,direct the blast in a narrow stream.
I still haven’t seen enough to decide if Navy error or terrorist act was the cause ,but I have seen enough to decide the government is lying.
And lying is something socialists do really often because to be a socialist you have to deny reality.
"None were grounded." Grounding of a fleet is quite rare. Normal proceedure, if a maintenance problem is suspected (and aging/frayed wiring would be an example) then an AD is issued requiring inspection/repair within a specified number of flight hours.
"No history of it happening previous." There most certainly was.
"Never happened since." While I am not aware of any, there may have been. However, there has been increased inspection, changed tanking proceedures, and in the case of new build, different design criteria.
"Although there have been wiring/electronic upgrades, none related to that incident."
Tank protection most certainly has been, and continues to be an issue, both on in-service and developmental aircraft. In fact Lockheed Martin is struggling with tank issues on the F-35, needing nitrogen purging as an interim measure until a fix is found. And this is acknowledged to be the most sophisticated aircraft ever built.
So, tanks can, have, and will blow up.
Please see my post # 73.
What SAM, either man portable or ship based, uses an armor piercing warhead or a shaped charge?
Haven’t the faintest.
But a terrorist would use whatever type missile he could acquire.I thought the TWA was relatively low in altitude .
Regardless,everything about how this investigation was handled stinks.
IF TWA Flight 800 was brought down by a surface-to-air missile, it is highly unlikely that it was an act of terrorism.
There are two facts that weigh very heavily against a terrorist attack with a missile:
1. A terrorist who wanted to shoot down a passenger jet flying out of JFK Airport in New York City would not have positioned himself so far east of the airport, where an eastbound trans-Atlantic flight would have been at a very high altitude.
2. Flight 800 was actually flying through the area that evening at a somewhat lower altitude than normal. It had been instructed to reduce its altitude by several thousand feet in order to clear a flight path for a northbound flight to Providence, Rhode Island that was running behind schedule that night. A terrorist looking to shoot down a passenger jet could not have foreseen this when positioning himself to carry out the attack.
Interestingly, Item #2 is one of the things that lends some credence to the theory of an accidental shoot-down during a military exercise.
The “multiple missile” scenario supports a theory that the incident involved a surface-to-air missile that had been fired during a naval exercise to shoot down a drone of some kind. The contrails of the drone and the missile would probably be indistinguishable from a great distance.
See #79 for a possible explanation.
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.