What Really Happened to TWA Flight 800?

WorldNetDaily ^ | Jack Cashill & James Sanders

[verity]

I favor of the 'little green gremlins' hypothesis.

[honway]

"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.

[honway]

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

[Rokke]

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?

[honway]

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.

[Rokke]

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.

[honway]

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.

[honway]

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.

[honway]

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.”

[honway]

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

[honway]

Washington, March 18, 2001: The Justice Department announced Friday that it won't challenge the proposed acquisition of Trans World Airlines by AMR Corp.'s American Airlines.

[Rokke]

Since your argument assumes there must be advantages for a SAM to approach from below, then maybe you can explain what they are. Since you've actually witnessed a long range SAM launch, you must also be familiar with the techniques used to defend against that launch. Exactly which one of those techniques would be made less effective by a SAM flying a low altitude trajectory?
Sorry, but there isn't a SAM system in use or in development that would, by design, require its missile to fly a low altitude profile against a target flying anywhere other than low altitude. It makes no sense tactically or physically.
And yes, I've been there done that as well. In fact, I still am.

[Red Jones]

Insight, WorldNetDaily and others are doing a great job, thanks for reporting that;

but our journalists and our people simply cannot comprehend the lies and the corruption from our own government. Even with evidence right in front of their faces they cower. I can understand if it will cost you your life to publicize information and therefore you decide not to. But I can't tolerate those american sheeples who look it in the eye and cower from it even though it costs them nothing to simply see the truth.

[Red Jones]

the only explanation we've heard that makes sense is as follows: There was an algerian businessman who was an associate of Ron Brown's. He was scheduled to be on the Ron Brown plane. He cancelled at last minute, so he was not among the people killed in Ron Brown's plane crash. This fellow was killed in TWA800.

Chris Ruddy investigated Ron Brown crash pretty well. If you read what he uncovered it will convince you that that plane was sabotaged by our own government.

FASCISM RULES AMERICA - a nation of sheeples!!!

[JZoback]

What Really Happened to TWA Flight 800?

Was the first terrorist attack.

Nice cover up.

Can't cover up two building falling down.

[Rokke]

Um hmmm. And if your understanding were anything more than basic, you would realize my statements in post 46 are both current, and correct. The MHIP for the Standard missile uses a side mounted IR seeker to aid in terminal guidance for the RF guided Standard missile. It is used to increase missile accuracy at the endgame against targets using certain jamming techniques. It is not used to acquire and guide Standard missiles to their target.

The reason IR guidance can't be used in long or medium range missiles is because there are limits to what an IR missile seeker can "see" at long range. Even the newest IR missiles have a relatively short range and are mostly within visual range weapons.

[rubbertramp]

What part of Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider don't you understand?

[rubbertramp]

Mohammed Samir Ferrat. There were also two scientists from the Brookhaven Labs on that flight, strange to relate.

[honway]

And yes, I've been there done that as well. In fact, I still am

I thank you for your service and yield to your expertise on the subject. It is very possible due to my limited understanding that I misunderstood the specific new technology that was being tested. I realize the credibility of an anonymous poster from an anonymous source is as about as low as you can get, but since the information supports the conclusion of Pierre Salinger, I thought I would add it to this thread.

you must also be familiar with the techniques used to defend against that launch

In a heavy with no active or passive defense, the only technique involved was pretty basic.

[Dukie]

I've thought the same things, Red. Major media for the most part have become nothing but the agents of propagnda for those who feed them the stories. And most of our countrymen, indoctrinated in the government schools, accept it without giving it critical examination.