Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Really Happened to TWA Flight 800?
WorldNetDaily ^ | Jack Cashill & James Sanders

Posted on 07/17/2002 9:10:52 AM PDT by VectoRama

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28302

Wednesday, July 17, 2002



THE DOWNING OF TWA FLIGHT 800
'Hey, look at the fireworks'
Excerpt from 'First Strike' quotes witnesses of speeding 'silver bullet'


Posted: July 17, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: With the sixth anniversary of the downing of TWA Flight 800 upon us, Jack Cashill and James Sanders finally have unraveled the mystery of what really happened on the night of July 17, 1996 – thanks to new information that has come to light only after Sept. 11. Their book, "First Strike – TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America," also answers the crucial question of why America still doesn't know what really happened. This excerpt from Chapter 1 of the book gives readers a glimpse of what Cashill and Sanders have discovered. Published by WND Books, "First Strike" will be available in January.

The authors' video, "Silenced, Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice," is available through ShopNetDaily.

By Jack Cashill and James Sanders


© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

It arrived shortly before noon, Washington time, on July 17 – a fax sent to Al-Hayah in London, the most prestigious Arabic language newspaper. Sent by the Islamic Change Movement – the jihad wing in the Arabian Peninsula – the warning came one day after the group had taken responsibility for the destruction of Khobar Towers. It was as serious as a truck bomb:

The mujahedin will deliver the ultimate response to the threats of the foolish American president. Everyone will be amazed at the size of that response. Determining the time and the place is the hand of Al-Mujahedin, and the invaders should be prepared to leave ... dead or alive. Their time is at the morning-dawn. Is not the morning-dawn near?

As the sun was about to rise on the Arabian Peninsula, it was about to set on Long Island. At 8:31 Dwight Brumley, whose long Navy career included special expertise in electronic warfare, put down the book he was reading and glanced out the window of US Air 217. Night had already fallen to the east, the direction in which he looked.

"I noticed off the right side what appeared to be a small private airplane that was flying pretty much at a course right at the US Air flight," Brumley recounts. "I followed it until the fuselage and the inboard wing cut off my field of view. My first thought – that was awfully close!" Brumley estimates that the plane passed a mere 300 or 400 feet beneath him.

About 15 seconds after the small plane had passed, Brumley noticed "what appeared to be some kind of a flare," but he realized quickly that this bright, burning object ascending off the ocean was no flare. "It was definitely moving pretty much parallel to the US Air Flight and it was moving at least as fast, perhaps even faster."

As the flare-like object raced north, and Flight 800 ascended slowly and innocently east along the Long Island coast, Mike Wire, a millwright from Philadelphia working on a Westhampton bridge, saw a streak of light rise up from behind a Westhampton house and zigzag south, southeast away from shore at about a 40 degree angle, leaving a white smoke trail behind it.

Richard Goss, upon seeing the same object, turned to his friends at the yacht club and said, "Hey, look at the fireworks." Everybody turned to look, and they all watched it climb. "It was bright, very bright," says Goss, "and, you know, that almost bright pink … and orange glow around it, and it traveled up."

Vacationer Lisa Perry, on her Fire Island deck, watched an object shoot up over the dunes of Fire Island.

"It was shiny, like a new dime," says Perry. "It looked like a plane without wings. It had no windows. It was as if there was a flame at the back of it, like a Bunsen burner. It was like a silver bullet." The object was heading east, southeast toward the Hamptons.

As Paul Angelides walked out onto his Westhampton deck, he picked up what was likely the same object now high in the sky. From his angle, it appeared to be a "red phosphorescent object ... leaving a white smoke trail." At first he thought the object a distress flare, but he soon realized it was too large and moving too fast. Spellbound, he followed the object as it moved out over the ocean in the direction of the horizon.

Goss followed it, too. "It seemed to go away in the distance toward the south, and that's when I saw it veer left, which would bring it out east. It was a sharp left."

From a Westhampton school parking lot, Joseph Delgado saw Brumley's streak, the one heading north toward shore and slightly west. As he told the FBI, he saw an object like "a firework" ascend almost vertically. The object had a "bright white light with a reddish pink aura surrounding it." The tail, gray in color, "moved in a squiggly pattern." From Delgado's perspective, the object "arced off to the right in a south westerly direction."

At 8:31, FAA radar operators out of Islip saw an unknown object appear on screen and head toward Flight 800. At the same moment, FAA radar picked up something else unusual – a ship of good size nearly right under Flight 800's airborne position.

The two National Guard pilots in their nearby helicopter now picked up the streaks high in the sky. Capt. Chris Baur saw the streak Brumley had first observed: "Almost due south, there was a hard white light, like burning pyrotechnics, in level flight. I was trying to figure out what it was. It was the wrong color for flares. It struck an object coming from the right and made it explode."

Maj. Fritz Meyer, a winner of the Distinguished Flying Cross for his service over Vietnam, saw the southbound projectile clearest. "It was definitely a rocket motor," says Meyer.

Delgado saw a second object "glitter" in the sky and the first object move up toward it. He thought at first it was "going to slightly miss" the glittering object, TWA 800, but it appeared to make "a dramatic correction at the last second." Then Delgado saw a "white puff."

"From my vantage point," says Goss, "there was a direct explosion that followed, and then after that there was a second explosion that was off to the east a little farther that was much larger."

Meyer saw a bright white light also. "What I saw explode was definitely ordnance," he said. "The initiating event was a high velocity explosion, not fuel. It was ordnance."

"I then saw a series of flashes, one in the sky and another closer to the horizon. I remember straining to see what was happening," says Angelides. "There was a dot on the horizon near the action, which I perceived as a boat."

"About two seconds later," claimed Meyer, "lower, I saw one or two yellow explosions, from that the fireball, third. The first two high-velocity, the last low-velocity petrochemical explosion."

"Then a moment later there was another explosion, and the plane broke jaggedly in the sky," says Perry. "The nose is continuing to go forward; the left wing is gliding off in its own direction, drifting in an arc gracefully down; the right wing and passenger window are doing the same in their direction out to the right; and the tail with its fireball leaps up and then promptly into the water below. The sounds were a huge BOOM! – then another BOOM!"

"You could feel the concussion like a shock wave," reports Mike Wire of the initial blast. Indeed, it shook the bridge on which he was standing in Westhampton even at ten miles distance.

"The sounds shook the house," remembers Angelides. "My wife, who was on the bathroom floor drying our son from his bath, felt the floor shaking as she heard the noise and I heard her cry out, 'What is going on?'"

And then confusion, a hellish, horrific confusion. "There seemed to be a lot of chaos out there," says Angelides. Now he, Wire, Perry, Meyer, Baur, Goss, Delgado and Brumley watched as the plane's fuel tanks exploded, and Flight 800 morphed into what Delgado described as a "firebox" and others as a "fireball."

"It got much larger, maybe four or five times as large," says Brumley, who was watching the explosion from overhead. "It was the same explosion. It just got bigger. My first thought was, 'Boy, what was that?'"

"When that airplane blew up it immediately began falling," adds Meyer. "It came right out of the sky. From the first moment, it was going down."

Brumley saw the burning debris hit the water and turned to summon a flight attendant. As he did, a passenger in the seat behind him, James Nugent, cried out, "Did you see that too?" Brumley and the others were hardly alone in what they had seen. On that soft summer eve, thousands were watching the sea and the sky. More than 700 of them would share their stories with the FBI.


Related special offers:

"Silenced, Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice"

"Altered Evidence: How the Justice Department Framed a Journalist and His Wife"




TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: twa800list
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

1 posted on 07/17/2002 9:10:52 AM PDT by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Art Bell? Is that you?

I won't go back to Roswell.

2 posted on 07/17/2002 9:12:42 AM PDT by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Nothing to see here. Move along...™
3 posted on 07/17/2002 9:17:28 AM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zarf
Info bump. Truly scary.
4 posted on 07/17/2002 9:20:50 AM PDT by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
The streak was a meteorite that skipped off the ocean and back into the clouds... Please, move along!
5 posted on 07/17/2002 9:21:29 AM PDT by Nexus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
I used to work at Boeing and had the good fortune to work with the Director of Engineering sent to investigate the causes of the TWA800 crash.

He said it was obvious that an object had penetrated the fuselage and exploded from the inside, out. He concluded that a "missile" was definitely the most likely of culprits. His comments were of course off the record and never made it into the official report Boeing was forced to submit to the government.

The real question isn't "what" happened, but "why"?

6 posted on 07/17/2002 9:24:56 AM PDT by AmericanCompatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Insight magazine July 29, 2002 cites a Brookhaven National Lab report classified "Secret" by the FBI and never made part of the NTSB public docket:

Wreckage items of "unknown origin" which were analyzed show twenty 0.2" diameter round pellets imbedded in victims bodies. Pellets were comprised of aluminum titanium matrix and other elements including zirconum, barium and cesium.

The latter are consistent with pyrotechnics and the matrix is consistent with the fragmentation elements of antiaircraft missile warheads.

FIRO ( Flight 800 Investigators Organization ) is petitioning NTSB to re-open the investigation on the basis of this evidence which was not considered in the earlier findings.

7 posted on 07/17/2002 9:27:56 AM PDT by Dukie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dukie
Yes it was a missle that downed Flight 800 but I doubt that the powers that be in the Us Government who are responsible for the coverup of that simple fact will ever let the full truth be known. You are correct in the question of "why?" There are two why's why was that particular aircraft shot down and whywas it covered up. Of course for an answer to the first question it must be ascertained who specifically fired the SAM. All of these questions are of course moot until the Government decides to level with the citizens.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

8 posted on 07/17/2002 9:38:41 AM PDT by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AmericanCompatriot
You'll take my guns away when you pry it from my cold, dead body. I'm not giving my rights away to anyone. That's how I was raised and that's how I'll go to my grave. Who wants to live in tyranny, anyway? Our Founding Father's certainly didn't.

If it comes to that, I just hope us "true" patriots have enough time and sense to organize. Otherwise, it will be a futile fight against the beast.

9 posted on 07/17/2002 9:45:09 AM PDT by AmericanCompatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Terrorist shootdown? US Navy shootdown. Don't matter. The re-election of Bilk Xlinton was the over-riding aspect of this incident. He gets his intern. We get screwed. Snufalopogus gets "This Week" and we get more liberal propoganda. Wowser!
10 posted on 07/17/2002 9:48:40 AM PDT by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Of course for an answer to the first question it must be ascertained who specifically fired the SAM.

What SAM has an altitude range of 13,500 feet?

11 posted on 07/17/2002 9:51:04 AM PDT by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Maj. Fritz Meyer, a winner of the Distinguished Flying Cross for his service over Vietnam, saw the southbound projectile clearest. "It was definitely a rocket motor,"... Meyer saw a bright white light also. "What I saw explode was definitely ordnance," he said. "The initiating event was a high velocity explosion, not fuel. It was ordnance."

I'd like to know how the FBI could ignore such an eyewitness.

Whoah! My bad. I forgot. That was Janet Reno's FBI.

12 posted on 07/17/2002 9:59:51 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Good to exchange thoughts with you again, harpseal.

Tom Stallcup of the FIRO has received letters from NTSB Chairwoman Carol Carmody ( James Hall's successor ) saying that FIRO "would not be getting answers to the questions raised and that it was not in anyone's interest ( at NTSB ? ) even to correspond with us"

Stallcup concludes that "NTSB does not have the guts to honestly search for and report the truth."

An agency of govenment which breaches trust in such manner is derelict. Those who abide such dereliction have violated their oaths of office under the constitution. Or has the leviathan grown beyond the constitutional shackles provided by the framers?

Best to you and always remember to check 6 too, harpseal.




13 posted on 07/17/2002 10:02:39 AM PDT by Dukie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 1L
"What SAM has an altitude range of 13,500 feet"

It was probably not a shoulder fired MANPAD. Those are equipped with small warheads and their infrared guidance would have targeted a heat source like the engine exhaust plume. IMHO, a MANPAD would more likely claimed an engine rather than the entire aircraft.
14 posted on 07/17/2002 10:09:29 AM PDT by Dukie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AmericanCompatriot; rdavis84; Fred Mertz; rubbertramp; mancini; honway
....the Director of Engineering sent to investigate the causes of the TWA800 crash.

He said it was obvious that an object had penetrated the fuselage and exploded from the inside, out. He concluded that a "missile" was definitely the most likely of culprits.

thanx for your insight. I wonder what the threat/payoff was to get boeing to misrepresent the facts in their own report?

was it the fear of having gummit contracts stopped or cancelled?
were they "rewarded" with new gummit contracts?

p.s. I'll toast one up for the truth & hank "hocker" gray today.

15 posted on 07/17/2002 10:25:22 AM PDT by thinden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: thinden
I wonder what the threat/payoff was to get boeing to misrepresent the facts in their own report?

How about "military" contracts and "favored" status for domestic and international business? I'd say without the government on its side, Boeing would have a much greater time providing profits to its stockholders.

16 posted on 07/17/2002 10:34:15 AM PDT by AmericanCompatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dukie
Yes, here's some details from Insight on the pellets embedded in some Flight 800 victims...

According to Stalcup, "More than that, we have information that shows that 20 unusual .2-inch-diameter round pellets that were found in bodies were withheld from the NTSB but analyzed by the FBI and found to have been made of aluminum titanium matrix and other elements like zirconium, barium and cerium. These are pyrotechnics or incendiary devices, and the matrix structure of these objects is consistent with pellets used in antiaircraft missiles."

The FIRO chairman continues: "In fact, I found a quote in National Defense magazine that was referring to warheads that said 'pellets imbedded in titanium matrix' are used in antiaircraft warheads. The 'secret' [Brookhaven] report analysis concluded that the origin of the pellets is 'unknown' and that one of the pellets was submitted for identification because of its dissimilarity in appearance with TWA 800 debris. ...'"

The Brookhaven report on the pellets and a review of it was just posted http://www.twa800.com/pdf/brookhaven-report.pdf

17 posted on 07/17/2002 10:50:03 AM PDT by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: *TWA800_list
Index Bump
18 posted on 07/17/2002 10:56:41 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AmericanCompatriot
"The real question isn't "what" happened, but "why"?"

And the follow up question......why the coverup??

19 posted on 07/17/2002 11:03:53 AM PDT by hove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AmericanCompatriot; rdavis84; Donald Stone; independentmind; Fred Mertz; Wallaby; honway
I'd say without the government on its side, Boeing would have a much greater time providing profits to its stockholders.

interesting point you make!

in '95 BA was trading in the low 20's.
by '96 the stock was trading around high $20's to low $30's.

in what may be considered on of the most contrarian moves of all time, after the "center fuel tank" explosion of TWA flight 800 (which, ironically never grounded the fleet - including AF1), Boeing stock basically doubled to nearly $60 per share over the next two years!

20 posted on 07/17/2002 11:07:03 AM PDT by thinden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: thinden
bold off
21 posted on 07/17/2002 11:09:27 AM PDT by thinden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: hove
And the follow up question......why the coverup??

Unfortunately we'll never be allowed that info---Fortunately,the answer to this question is among the myriad of reasons #42 has such a hard time sleeping some nights.

22 posted on 07/17/2002 11:14:52 AM PDT by Pagey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Pagey
Make that " MOST " nights
23 posted on 07/17/2002 11:15:54 AM PDT by Pagey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Actual title: THE DOWNING OF TWA FLIGHT 800: 'Hey, Look at the fireworks'
24 posted on 07/17/2002 11:18:41 AM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1L
Some surface to air missles that can reach 14,000 feet incluse the Standard, sea sparrow, Hawk, Talos, Soviet manufactured SA-1, SA-2 and many many others. The 13,000 foot altitude is a possible shot for a Stinger even though it is beyond listed altitude range. it is routine for such weapons to have performance characteristics in excess of what is published and that is not far outside the envelope. I would suggest that modifications to a boat would make some other type of surface to air missle superior to a stinger for taking down an airliner.

I did not specify MANPADS I stated surface to aire missle. I believe the specs on the soviet SA-18 would make this shot well within the altitude range of that specific MANPADS but why do a shoulder launch when the mods to a boat would not be noticed?

25 posted on 07/17/2002 11:19:46 AM PDT by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
*Sigh*

You know, there are over 50 active "Flight 800" threads.

Do we REALLY need another one?

26 posted on 07/17/2002 11:20:24 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny; rdavis84; Fred Mertz; Uncle Bill
Do we REALLY need another one?

sure, why not? prolly especially appropriate today.

most of the really substantial TWA 800 threads are in locked up in the archives anyway and not acessible to add new information/ replies.

p.s. I never thought james kallestrom would come up with such a cute handle.

27 posted on 07/17/2002 11:34:40 AM PDT by thinden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: thinden
was it the fear of having gummit contracts stopped or cancelled?
were they "rewarded" with new gummit contracts?

I recall at least one time when Boeing publicly embraced the missile explanation, the FAA shortly thereafter announced an air directive requiring inspections/warranty work on the 767 fleet on an unrelated system. I wondered at the time if it was motivated by an attempt to intimidate Boeing.

The purchase of the bankrupt carrier TWA by American resulted in all the employees at TWA getting pay raises and increased job security to the detriment of American Airlines. American announced today a $450,000,000 plus loss in the last quarter. I believe a substantial part of American's financial difficulty is a result of the extremely unwise merger. A merger with no business justification during a weakening economy,IMHO.

I have often wondered if the employees at TWA that know much about the truth about TWA 800 would have walked away quietly had the bankruptcy of their airline resulted in their unemployment. Fortunately for the TWA employees, we will never know.

28 posted on 07/17/2002 12:59:17 PM PDT by honway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: thinden
DALLAS (AP) -- American Airlines, the nation's largest airline, said Wednesday that it lost $495 million in the second quarter and blamed the result on low fares, which it has used to stimulate demand
29 posted on 07/17/2002 1:05:58 PM PDT by honway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: thinden
http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000063.html

Link

In a bizarre new twist in the TWA 800 tragedy, the Boeing Corporation, maker of the 747 aircraft that exploded in mid-air off Long Island, New York on July 17, 1996, may be preparing to argue in court that a missile could have brought the plane down

30 posted on 07/17/2002 1:24:36 PM PDT by honway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Curious of your opinion of my contention that a MANPAD like a Stinger or similar IR homing missile would have been enough to take out an engine - homing on the exhaust plume - but unlikely to result in the kind of breakup which claimed flt 800.
31 posted on 07/17/2002 2:38:22 PM PDT by Dukie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dukie
I think a MANPADS like the Stinger or an SA-18 might just have been able to do it. The altitude was at the extreem range of a stinger but the target aircraft would not have been trying to evade. The most modern versions of the stinger do not have to close from behind the exhaus but would detonate the warhead close to the engine from the front. A red hot fragment through the center fuek tank would cause the destruction as seen on flight 800. In short it is plausible but in many ways a lucky shot. That would be understndable if it was a terrorist plot and they had a hard time converting meters to feet. Now if it was professionals that were launching I would rule out the Stinger although the SA-18 has an 8,000 meter range/ceiling which is more than sufficient. An analysis of fragments from Brookhaven would give us those warheads that matched the composition of the fragments found. We can eventually reconstruct everthing from that.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

32 posted on 07/17/2002 10:32:17 PM PDT by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: honway
a few choice defence contracts here, a quiet little contrived merger there......
33 posted on 07/18/2002 5:42:22 AM PDT by thinden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: thinden
... so the theory is ... it was kept quiet ... for reasons of not instilling fear and trepeditation in the american public? In order to prevent having adverse effects on the economy????????????

poor sentence structure this ..... sorry

34 posted on 07/18/2002 12:14:56 PM PDT by Countyline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Countyline
In order to prevent having adverse effects on the economy????????????

more likely: In order to prevent having adverse effects on the election.

35 posted on 07/18/2002 12:29:35 PM PDT by thinden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: thinden
The Montauk conspiracy...

In a three part Series Ground Zero theorized that perhaps the downing of several aircraft in the Atlantic was the accidental result of electromagnetic technologies being tested in an area now known as the Block Island triangle. In the "Synchroncpiracy" series Ground Zero theorized that the air disaster corridor in the Atlantic where TWA flight 800, Swiss Air flight 111 John F. Kennedy Jr.'s Piper Saratoga light aircraft and the ill fated Egypt Air 990 crashed could be a place where magnetic interference occurs during tests of Brookhaven National Labs collider and possibly at Montauk. The Military says the Camp hero facility at Montauk is not being used but conspiracy watchdogs say that it continues to operate. While the press neatly reported simple explanations as to what happened to these aircraft we speculated the most outrageous theories that later were also theorized by another Scientist. Professor Elaine Scarry of Harvard developed a theory that is similar to the theory Ground Zero proposed in it’s Synchroncpiracy series. She believes that electromagnetic interference (EMI) and its associated High Intensity Radiated Field (HIRF) from military operations is what brought down TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996, and Swissair Flight 111 on Sept. 2, 1998. Her findings were published before Egypt Air 990 went down in the same area. Many theorists claim that a Missile downed TWA flight 800 and that terrorists were responsible. Brookhaven Labs coincidentally was mentioned in the London times after the initial reports of a ball of light raced up towards the jet before it went down. A CIA Data System II satellite positioned over the Brookhaven National Laboratory allegedly showed that a glowing object raced up to the TWA jet, passing it, then changing course and smashing into it. On the day of the Downing of the JFK Jr. Plane Ground Zero Reported that the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven had been test fired and ever since strange reports have come from that area. There have been reports of green flashes of light and pilots have been reporting seeing bright flashes that they have to look away from because of the intensity of the arc.

36 posted on 07/19/2002 3:40:43 AM PDT by rubbertramp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; honway; thinden

The big circle is the RHioncollider. What are they up to?

37 posted on 07/21/2002 6:03:42 AM PDT by rubbertramp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Keep these people's story alive VR. Someday they will be vindicated and the masses will know just how corrupt a government can become - even if they still don't care. BTW, the seat residue scam alone was enough to convince me.
38 posted on 07/21/2002 6:12:39 AM PDT by patriot_wes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
OK Boys & Goils, time to put on your thinking caps. I had this fight with a liberal "clinton is my fuhrer" a hole and he said "why would clinton cover it up? wouldn't he use this to get elected?" (See told you he was an ahole)
SO What is the answer?
39 posted on 07/21/2002 6:38:41 AM PDT by longfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
I favor of the 'little green gremlins' hypothesis.
40 posted on 07/21/2002 6:43:17 AM PDT by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: verity
I favor of the 'little green gremlins' hypothesis.
41 posted on 07/21/2002 6:44:50 AM PDT by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: longfellow; thinden
"why would clinton cover it up?

The information I have is that the U.S. Navy was testing a new technology, classified surface to air missle. The test missile went astray after it was launched and a second missle was fired to destroy the first. The end result of the failed test was the downing of TWA 800.(similar to the Russian airliner shot down by a surface to air missle launched by Ukraine last year).

Had Clinton as commander in chief announced that the U.S Navy had shot down TWA 800 it is very likely the voters would have held him accountable in the November election.

42 posted on 07/22/2002 8:42:53 AM PDT by honway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: longfellow; thinden
http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/13/twa/

Link

Salinger was right from the start. My infornation is from a different source, however.

PARIS (CNN) -- Former newsman Pierre Salinger insisted again Thursday that a Navy missile downed TWA Flight 800, this time offering a 69-page document and a set of radar images to bolster his case.

"We have now reached the point where we are totally sure what we are saying is true," Salinger, a former ABC News correspondent and press secretary to President Kennedy, told a Paris news conference

43 posted on 07/22/2002 8:50:49 AM PDT by honway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: honway
Exactly how fast would that second missile have to fly to intercept the first errent missile? And if the second missile was so good it could down the "new technology classified surface to air missle", what new technology was represented by the new missile?
US voters didn't hold clinton accountable for anything before TWA800 went down...why do you think he'd worry about their reaction to a supposed military accident?
44 posted on 07/22/2002 10:03:54 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
My understanding is that the new technology being tested was in the guidance system. Conventional high altitude SAMs approach the target from above. The new technology being tested was a missile that would travel close to the surface, acquire and approach the target from below. This would make the SAM more difficult to defend against.

I believe the second missile was fired from a different platform than the first, since you can not fire a missile from a ship and then fire a second missile from the same location and hit the first missile fired. Regardless, the attempt to shoot down the missile failed.

You are probably right that the truth would not have prevented Clinton from being elected;however, Clinton had a track record of covering up information that could potentially reflect poorly on his Administration,i.e. Waco, technology transfers to China, Communist Chinese political donations,etc.

45 posted on 07/23/2002 6:51:54 AM PDT by honway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: honway
SAMs need to have as much energy as possible when they close with their target. That is why they are programed to approach the target from above. This is done to ensure they still have significant kenetic energy after their motors have burned out. There are several reasons why it is not desirable to have your SAM travel close to the surface after launch, and there are almost none that make it desirable. It is no more difficult to defend against a SAM guiding from below you, as it is above you. I think the sources for your information are poorly informed.

In your scenerio it would make more sense for a second missile to come from a different platform, but there is a much easier solution. There are no long or medium range SAMs that can guide themselves to their target. They must have continual radar guidance to impact their target. Therefore, simply turning off the guidance radar is enough to prevent the missile from guiding to any target.

Your theory is interesting, but is neither logical or supportable when one has more than a very basic understanding of SAMs, guidance systems, and tactical considerations.

46 posted on 07/23/2002 12:51:47 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
There are no long or medium range SAMs that can guide themselves to their target. They must have continual radar guidance to impact their target.

Your explanation works for conventional SAM's. The information I have is that a new technology SAM was being tested.

As someone who has witnessed first hand a Soviet long range SAM inflight in my immediate vicinity, I disagree that an approach from below provides no advantages. My experience is the only thing that supports my conclusion that an approach from below would be harder to defend against. I guess you had to be there.

47 posted on 07/23/2002 1:35:41 PM PDT by honway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
They must have continual radar guidance to impact their target. Therefore, simply turning off the guidance radar is enough to prevent the missile from guiding to any target.

I think your "very basic understanding" is a little out of date.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/sm-2.htm

Link

Block IIIB is the next step in the continuing evolution of the Standard Missile family, incorporating an infrared (IR) guidance mode capability developed in Missile Homing Improvement Program (MHIP) with the radio frequency (RF) semi-active guidance system of the proven SM-2 Block IIIA. The MHIP dual-mode RF/IR guidance capability is being incorporated to counter a specific fielded and proliferating electronic warfare systems in existing aircraft and ASCM threats. OPEVAL of SM-2 Block IIIB was conducted during April 1996, with missile firings by an Aegis cruiser that was completing workup training for deployment. Based on OPEVAL results, SM-2 Block IIIB is operationally effective and suitable.

48 posted on 07/23/2002 2:33:28 PM PDT by honway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: thinden
http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/03/bmd970314e.htm

Link

Slip of the tongue?

During the course of the on-the-record briefing by Gen. Howell M. Estes, Commander in Chief, U.S. Space Command, at the Pentagon, conducted Thursday, Mar. 13, 1997, Gen. Estes responded to a question regarding TWA Flight 800. Gen. Estes at one point said: “I looked at it when I was the J-3 here when TWA 800 was shot down.” Gen. Estes did not mean to say TWA 800 was “shot down.”

49 posted on 07/23/2002 5:48:42 PM PDT by honway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: thinden
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b4f1fa423f4.htm

July 13,2001

The families of 19 people who died when TWA Flight 800 exploded five years ago will each receive $2.5 million from Boeing and TWA under a settlement, The Patriot-News of Harrisburg reported Friday

50 posted on 07/23/2002 6:02:23 PM PDT by honway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson