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

Skip to comments.

TWA 800: Pilots speak out
2003 WorldNetDaily.com ^ | May 17, 2003 | Jack Cashill

Posted on 05/17/2003 7:23:43 AM PDT by joesnuffy

TWA 800: Pilots speak out

Posted: May 17, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

After my most recent trip to Washington last weekend, I have come to one sorry conclusion: The only people who believe that a fuel-tank problem destroyed TWA Flight 800 sit in America's major media newsrooms.

They certainly don't sit in the cockpits of America's airliners. After some 200 radio and TV interviews and a score of live appearances, I have talked to at least 100 airline pilots. Of those, exactly one supported the government thesis.

What follows are some of the unsolicited e-mails I have recently received from pilots and my comments on the same. I have edited them only for length and for spelling. Not all of the pilots agree with James Sanders and me on every point in our book, "First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America," but they uniformly reject the government thesis.

Each of these individuals identified themselves to me. I have chosen, however, to shield their identities lest there be repercussions.

Ex-Air Force combat pilot

I loved the book. I am an ex-Air Force combat pilot, functional check flight pilot and standardization and evaluation pilot. I flew 145 combat missions. From the first announcement of TWA 800 I believed the plane was brought down by a missile. To me the strongest evidence of the government cover-up is the lack of satellite photo releases to back up the claim that there was no missile. No part of the earth is probably more under satellite surveillance than the mid-Atlantic from New York City to Washington, D.C. If the satellite photos backed up the "no missile" theory, the photos would be everywhere.

There are other interesting questions: Why, if it was mechanical failure, was the entire 747 fleet not grounded? While there were corrective mechanical changes, anything this catastrophic would have deserved far more severe reaction. Why has Boeing never protested this conclusion? Anyway, great book.

Retired airline pilot

As a pilot for 33 years, I have flown many of the different Boeing A/C, all with a center tank, many times empty, with the pumps running, and guess what? Nothing happened. Even after the TWA incident when the FAA required checks of the wiring in all Boeing A/C, even when insulation was found missing from wires, even with empty tanks … nothing happened.

None of the pilots or maintenance persons I ever talked with believed that tank explosion was caused by faulty wiring shorting out because the pumps were on with an empty tank.

Retired TWA Pilot and Accident Investigator

The item "Probe's conclusion built on faked interview" is flawed, as is the NTSB conclusions it tries to refute.

First of all, there were not 736 witnesses who saw the missile. There were 736 witness's to the explosion, but only a small fraction, something like 80 or so, saw a streak of some sort. The majority saw no such streak.

Of those who saw the streak, some said it went straight up, a few said it went down from the aircraft, others saw more than one streak, streaks were from several directions. Wire's missile was climbing at a 40 degree angle, etc.

Assuming this "missile" was a heat seeker such as the Stinger which we gave to bin Laden, it would have homed in on the hottest part of the target, the nearest tailpipe, not the fuselage. The aircraft was under climb thrust and putting out a lot of heat.

I don't know what to make of the 3,000 degree climb of the wreckage. The "video" shown alongside this article shows all four engines leaving contrails. At 13,000 degree? Ridiculous.

I don't believe the NTSB conclusions. Of 1,108 B-747s built, only one experienced this problem? Hardly. I think it was a bomb.

When the wreckage of TWA 800 was raised from the bottom and placed on a barge, I noticed the nose section was blown cleanly off. I went around and searched for the wreckage of PAA 103 at Lockerbie. The nose was blown off at the same frame!

PAA was brought down by a bomb. I think that's what happened to TWA 800. BTW, the aircraft was the same one I flew for my ATP rating in September 1972. I knew many of the crew who perished.

Note: Of the 700-plus eyewitnesses that the FBI interviewed, some 270 (FBI's figure) saw streaks of lights ascending or arcing over before the crash. Roughly one-third of those followed the streaks from the horizon. There were many more eyewitnesses who did not share their accounts with the FBI. We too believe it was a bomb, a flying bomb that was exploded somewhere under the plane.

Retired TWA pilot, senior Air Line Pilots Association investigator

Sometime in the late '80s, I was on a flight between JFK and Tel Aviv (TLV). The airplane was a 747-200. During the initial climb out from JFK, a strange rattling and metal-to-metal noise began to emanate from the throttle quadrant.

We ignored the noises as a nuisance and since everything else was normal continued on our way. At about 23,000 feet airplane altitude, the FE announced that he cannot control the cabin.

[Later] the FE announces, "I have a Differential Fault" on generator number 3. ... Not more than 30 seconds elapsed from the GenDiff announcement by the FE when he announces that he now has a GenDiff on generator number 4! We not only have the Virgin Mary in first class but Jesus Christ and the 12 Apostles just showed up.

That did it; we declared an emergency, made a 180 degree turn and headed back to JFK. We were just past Nantucket Island heading for Yarmouth in the Canadian Maritimes when we made the turn and dumped about 160,000 pounds of fuel (the natives of Nantucket can thank our crew for having never sighted a mosquito since that day).

... So we had two 85KVA capable generators, running at about half load, dead short against the wing spar. 170KA is equivalent to 1,700 100-watt bulbs; with four generators online, each was running at about one-half load when the first GenDiff occurred and three-quarters when the second went off. The spar also serves as the front portion of the wing fuel tanks which had much fuel and air.

So after F800, I always asked the question – if a dead short electrical arc of considerable power on a fuel tank did not cause us to blow up, how did static electricity cause the [center wing tank] to go off in F800?

All of the above can be quantified with crew names, airplane number and log book write-ups if necessary. I truly don't know the consequence of a dead short on an airframe. All I know is that I have five crew members who witnessed it.

PS: After the shoddy investigation by the NTSB on TWA F840 in 1979, I never had much respect for the outfit.

PPS: I just finished the book – great job. Thanks on behalf of those friends I lost.

Note: This has been shortened considerably. The pilot's point, however, is clear.

TWA pilot scheduled to fly Flight 800 on July 17

I commend you for the excellent series of articles . … I do hope the prosecutions proceed. There is nothing worse than corruption in our government.

My interest in this is that I should have been the captain of 800 that day. Management used its prerogatives and took the flight for training purposes. I lost many friends and associates on that flight. I had flown that aircraft No. 119 only several days prior to the shoot down. Justice over due. Let the trials begin!

Retired airline pilot

I am totally convinced that an outside source blew up TWA 800. In fact I went live on Fox TV on their 10 p.m. newscast that night and stated that fact. (I am their in-house spokesperson for aviation matters.) We can muster up a number of pilots with thousands of hours and years and years of experience to augment and support your theory. Please contact me if you are interested in us pursuing this any further.

Note: Yes, we are. Our best bet for genuine exposure at this time is for America's pilots to force the issue. If some pilot or pilot's organization is willing to take the lead, we are more than willing to help.

Related offers:

Price slashed on "First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America"! New book by Jack Cashill and James Sanders says government lies upped drama ante for terrorists. From WND Books, available in ShopNetDaily.

Purchase Jack Cashill's stunning documentary video, "Silenced: Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice" from WorldNetDaily's online store.

"Altered Evidence" from Flight 800 How the Justice Department framed a journalist and his wife. Also available from WorldNetDaily's online store!


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 747salwaysblowup; 767sflyintobuildings; cashill; conspiracy; conspiracylogic; firststrike; ntsbisalwaysright; stuffhappens; terrorism; terrorundereveryrock; thiswasalqaeda; tinfoil; tinfoilhat; tinfoilmyass; trustthefaaclowns; twa800; twa800list
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-190 next last

1 posted on 05/17/2003 7:23:43 AM PDT by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
The questions I have are:

What altitude was the plane at and what was its airspeed?

The American Stinger missile and the Soviet equivalent, the SA-7. The Stinger has a maximum range of 8000 meters and a ceiling of 10,000 feet. The SA-7 has a maximum range of 4500 meters and a 3000 meter ceiling. The Stinger's warhead is 6.6 pounds. These missiles are designed to take out low flying helicopters, not really high flying jumbo jets.

I would think that something like a jumbo jet would need to be a Standard SM-2 or SM-3 missile from a US Navy ship. Perhaps any former US Army Freepers who know more about the Stinger would be able to post as to whether or not a Stinger could have taken down a jumbo jet at altitude.

2 posted on 05/17/2003 7:32:14 AM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
If this was a cover-up by the Clinton administration, even the liberals will tar and feather the bum!
3 posted on 05/17/2003 7:34:36 AM PDT by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Now that Bush is in the White House, I'm sure the truth will all come out.
4 posted on 05/17/2003 7:35:07 AM PDT by Mulder (Live Free or die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
My father is a retired pilot. 30+ years civilian and 8 years as a Naval Aviator flying jets off carriers.

I asked him about this once.

He stated that if fuel was in the center tank and making the aircraft unbalanced, thus requiring it to be pumped to the wing tanks, the warning buzzer and light would have gone off within 100 feet of take off if not when the front landing gear left the runway.

If the warning buzzer and light did come one when they were supposed to have, why would the pilot wait several minutes and several thousand feet to start the pumps to remove the fuel.

As my father said, the damn buzzers are annoying and you would want to correct the problem ASAP, not wait.

5 posted on 05/17/2003 7:35:47 AM PDT by Marine Inspector (DHS BCBP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xrp
I think WND's assertion is that this was a Navy missile that was fired at a small plane reportedly laden with explosives. TWA 800 was caught in the explosion of the terrorist plane.
6 posted on 05/17/2003 7:38:09 AM PDT by gitmo ("The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain." GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xrp
I can't answer your question in detail, but I read somewhere a few years ago that the Chinese have built a modified Stinger or SAM with longer range than the original. I don't know if this is true, but it's possible. And it's possible that the Arabs could have gotten their hands on one.
7 posted on 05/17/2003 7:39:08 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
If this was a cover-up by the Clinton administration, even the liberals will tar and feather the bum!

Nope. They will not - they would have to be sane & rational, which then precludes them from being liberal.

8 posted on 05/17/2003 7:53:39 AM PDT by Thommas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
TWA 800 had to be at least at 20,000 feet. Do small planes (cropdusters and personal type planes) go that high? Plus, the small plane would have to be in front of TWA 800 and moving at the same speed or slightly faster. Smaller planes typically fly at 300mph or less. Jumbo Jets fly at upwards of 600mph. I don't really see this as plausible, no matter how many pounds of explosives are packed into the small plane -- and you can't pack that many.
9 posted on 05/17/2003 7:53:56 AM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
I don't know a thing about this, except that if it was the fuel tank, I'm putting my life on the line every time I fly in a 20 year old 747 in the Philippines. Of course, I remember the early 1990's when an interisland airliner "disappeared" without explanation and two weeks later, a bomb went off inside a plane that was late in taking off and was still taxing. SO either way I take my life into my hands when I visit my relatives. (considering how they drive, I'm more frightened in a car than an airliner).

However, One day on Fox, the "green beret" Bevalaqua talking about a different subject (I think it was the missle attempt on an ElAl airline in Kenya last year) mentioned that it had happened before with twa 800. Now, missles have take out airliners before (accidentally and deliberatly, mostly overseas). Later that night, he was discussing the same subject and although they did not ask about what he had said earlier, he pooh poohed the twa 800 missle theory in passing. It makes one wonder if it was a "freudian slip" that he later got the story right.

10 posted on 05/17/2003 8:03:03 AM PDT by LadyDoc (liberals only love politically correct poor people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
During an administration of ‘head-in-the-sand' politics when it came to anything like terrorism, it is no wonder that on Bill Clinton’s watch, TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996, was covered up with all the investigation gobbly-gook, time and money wasting efforts. Terrorism was running amuck but we were much too busy watching Janet Reno and her terrorist handling of Waco, Ruby Ridge and probably other endeavors from that sick person.

Bill Clinton refused to recognize terrorism while smoozing with Arafat, watching golf or dallying with interns in the Oval Office, OBL was gathering steam and getting ready to do what eventually happened on 9/11. Bill Clinton was an utter failure as a president and as an American. He governed by polls and appeasement, never by decision of what was best for America unless he was wagging the dog over one of his many scandals. And that flag burning, womanizing, lying SOB is still at it today – trying to drub out the most decent, respectable leader, President Bush, with more of his childish out and out lies. Democrats, beware, you are being led by one who by his actions, is determined to bring you down along with your country. Bill Clinton doesn’t like America or anything she stands for. He wants to be Secretary General of the United Nations, a rogue organization that, like Clinton, lives and thrives on other peoples money and woes. IMHO flight 800 was due to terrorism.

11 posted on 05/17/2003 8:06:54 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xrp
TWA 800 had to be at least at 20,000 feet.

It was at 13,000 ft, doing about 300 knots in a shallow climb, when it came apart.

12 posted on 05/17/2003 8:20:51 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Don't count on it pal. Bush has not been forthcoming with what the intellegence community knew before 9/11 and he has hushed up any further inquiries into the Clinton nonsense, including sales of missle technology by Hughes and Lorel to the Chinese. Bush is a breath of fresh air after the stink of Clinton, but he still is a firmly intrenched memeber of the "establishment". I doubt he would want to open up the can of worms that any further pursuit of TWA800, in any official capacity. I think that the government just hope that this will fade out of the Americian conciousness. And, by the way, most people I know are buying the gov. bullsh%t. Most people don't want to believe that the gov. can really be involved in such massive coverups. The think it's all conspiracy silliness.
13 posted on 05/17/2003 8:23:16 AM PDT by NYDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc
...f it was a "freudian slip" that he later got the story right.

I believe George Stephanoplous also had a similar unfortunate freudian slip some time back, saying "when TWA flight 800 was bombed".

But what would he know anyway? It's not like he was in the WH or anything. ;o)
14 posted on 05/17/2003 8:28:52 AM PDT by mr.pink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: *TWA800_list
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
15 posted on 05/17/2003 8:30:01 AM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Sorry, Pal. A repost to clean up the typos. My fingers are not obeying my brain, today.

Don't count on it pal. Bush has not been forthcoming with what the intelligence community knew before 9/11 and he has hushed up any further inquiries into the Clinton nonsense, including sales of missle technology by Hughes and Lorel to the Chinese. Bush is a breath of fresh air after the stink of Clinton, but he still is a firmly entrenched member of the "establishment". I doubt he would want to open up the can of worms that any further pursuit of TWA800, in any official capacity, would cause. I think that the government just hopes that this will all fade out of the American consciousness. And, by the way, most people I know are buying the gov. bullsh%t. Most people don't want to believe that the gov. can really be involved in such massive cover-ups. The think it's all conspiracy silliness.

16 posted on 05/17/2003 8:30:51 AM PDT by NYDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xrp
As Flight 800 climbed toward 13,000 feet, controllers had conversations with seven other planes at about the same time: Virgin Flight 009, Mesa Airlines Flight 5523, Eastwind Flight 507, TWA Flight 900, Alitalia Flight 609, Boston Jet Express Flight 18 and Air France Flight 008.

At 8:30:19, the Boston center had its last communication with the doomed jetliner - instructions to rapidly climb to 15,000 feet to leave a 3,000-foot separation between it and the Jet Express flight. A minute and a half later, the Eastwind flight reported an explosion.


http://www.newsday.com/news/nytwa98-crash115.htmlstory
17 posted on 05/17/2003 8:33:10 AM PDT by gitmo ("The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain." GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mr.pink
I was just about to mention George Stephanoplous' comment. It was interesting.
18 posted on 05/17/2003 8:39:45 AM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace ((the original))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Thommas
hee hee.. perfect oxymoron alert.
19 posted on 05/17/2003 8:40:38 AM PDT by LaraCroft ('Bout time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
If this was a cover-up by the Clinton administration, even the liberals will tar and feather the bum!

Nope. After all, the femi-nazis love the bum even though they know he has committed numerous rapes and sundry sexual assaults.

20 posted on 05/17/2003 8:42:21 AM PDT by buccaneer81 (Plus de fromage, s'il vous plait...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
Can you elaborate anymore on it, I was prarphrasing and don't know if my comments were accurate enough ?

Didn't he also say that they (him and Bubba and others were in the "situation room"?

Thanks.
21 posted on 05/17/2003 8:44:20 AM PDT by mr.pink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
My personal theory was a meteorite strike : not a big one, but moving at hypersonic speeds, and white hot in the bargain.

Seen from below, it would resemble a missile strike - mostly because the eyes would record the incoming trail, without being able to fully analyze the trajectory.

I know from experience meteorites occasionally hit the earth with substantial mass still intact. The results can be mind-boggling !

In 1950, I was riding in the back of a truck near Kingston, New York ( Catskill region ), when I saw a brief "plunging flash", followed by a greenish "fireball" that lit up the northern sky, and that looked like a nuclear blast. ( Months later,when the US conducted the hydrogen bomb tests at Eniwietok , published photos showed the same greenish glow.)

The explanation was given out as a meteorite fall, in the northernmost bays of Canada - (though most of the thousands who called police and emergency services that night were convinced it was some sort of huge bomb. )

I raise this story only as one of the possibilities-even though the comments by experienced airline pilots suggest strongly there might have been an on-board bomb. ( How about a miniaturized thermobaric bomb ? )

22 posted on 05/17/2003 8:55:09 AM PDT by genefromjersey (NO QUARTER - NO PRISONERS !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
^^Bravissimo^^
23 posted on 05/17/2003 8:58:45 AM PDT by EggsAckley ( Midnight at the Oasis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mr.pink
Don't know about that. Just remember that he said it was bombed.
24 posted on 05/17/2003 8:58:59 AM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace ((the original))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NYDave; Mulder
I believe Mulder was being sarcastic.
25 posted on 05/17/2003 9:03:05 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
"I was just about to mention George Stephanoplous' comment. It was interesting."

Senator Kerry made the same comment right after 911. It "slipped" out only once.

26 posted on 05/17/2003 9:06:05 AM PDT by cibco (Xin Loi... Saddam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Now that Bush is in the White House, I'm sure the truth will all come out.

(/sarcasm) ???

27 posted on 05/17/2003 9:08:15 AM PDT by iconoclast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
The biggest red flag was that Klintoon stood in the Rose Garden app. 12 hours after the crash and said that the military had no information to share about the crash. 12 hours. I was an expert in several of the systems used by the military that could share information about the crash. I know damned well that 12 hours isn't enough to perform an analysis, report to higher headquarters, and get such a message to the President.

The Challenger tragedy took several days and an additional three months for detailed analysis. The first 12 hours were simply chaos. Missile tracking, space and land based, was a specialty of mine. 12 hours isn't even close enough time to understand radar tracks and what they mean. Most people involved in such systems probably weren't even call out that night to do any analysis.


28 posted on 05/17/2003 9:10:35 AM PDT by PatrioticAmerican (If the 2nd is for hunting, is the 1st only for writing about hunting?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
You forgot the /sarcasm tag.
29 posted on 05/17/2003 9:11:18 AM PDT by PatrioticAmerican (If the 2nd is for hunting, is the 1st only for writing about hunting?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
The report says that there ws no more than 50 gallons in the tank, and that isn't enough to be pumped out. After pumping, 50 gallons would most likely still remain.
30 posted on 05/17/2003 9:12:50 AM PDT by PatrioticAmerican (If the 2nd is for hunting, is the 1st only for writing about hunting?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xrp
"TWA 800 had to be at least at 20,000 feet."

Wasn't it 13,000?
31 posted on 05/17/2003 9:13:17 AM PDT by PatrioticAmerican (If the 2nd is for hunting, is the 1st only for writing about hunting?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xrp
A hypothesis I have never seen explored:

Would it be possible to rig up a Stinger so it could be fired from a small private plane, flying at, say, 10,000 feet?

I am sure there would be problems in this: how to set it up so the missile could be fired without damaging the aircraft or setting it on fire, how to aim the stinger, etc. I'm not sure those are insurmountable problems, if a group of terrorists have enought time and money and expertise to work them out in advance.

I could see several advantages to such a scheme:

1) The big one, obviously, is increasing the effective range of the Stinger. This is the only scenario I can think of that could get a Stinger up to TWA 800s height.

2) Being up in the air and out over the ocean, the risk of detection is obviously considerably reduced.

3) Perhaps a system could even have been worked out to jettison the Stinger gear and dump it in the ocean -- well away from the TWA crash site -- prior for coming in for a landing.

There are probably problems with this hypothesis. But no more than is the case with many other hypotheses that have been advanced -- including the "official" center tank explosion hypothesis.

32 posted on 05/17/2003 9:21:18 AM PDT by Stefan Stackhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
Don't bet on it! The left is all about excuses, blaming someone else for their and their heroes failures.
33 posted on 05/17/2003 9:24:24 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
Apparently the authors of the book conclude that this was a terrorist attack, not something fired from our Navy. The coverup was to avoid panic from the public. I am sure the airline industry didn't want this known either. Clinton wouldn't want it known as it might reflect badly on him and security?
I haven't read the book yet, but I saw an article about it on FR the other night.
34 posted on 05/17/2003 9:31:04 AM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
No different that Flight #587 - 11/11/01 - during Bush's watch. Both were terrorist incidents, and the airline industry would've been utterly annihilated had the truth been let out about either.
35 posted on 05/17/2003 9:34:28 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
In my opinion, there is still one possibility I haven't heard discussed: the possibility of a nearby electronic device battery explosion igniting the supposedly empty fuel tank full of JP4 fumes.

Here's how I describe this scenario:

1. An LD3 container (the main type of cargo container used on passenger 747's) is holding a number of passenger luggage bags and is placed very close to the suspect fuel tank.

2. Inside one of the luggage bags in that container is a consumer electronic device (likely stereo boombox or laptop computer) with a shorting battery.

3. The battery in suspect consumer device explodes spectacularly from the short (which can happen due to the explosive and toxic nature of modern battery materials) and sends sparks and shockwaves away from the container towards the suspect fuel tank.

4. As the sparks and shockwave puncture the fuel tank, it ignites the fumes inside the tank like a fuel-air explosive bomb with great force.

5. The force of the explosion is strong enough to rip the fuselage in two as described by the official FAA/NTSB report.

The reason why I mentioned this scenario is that a few days ago a United Airlines airliner that was supposed to fly from San Francisco to Hawaii suffered an unusual explosion inside the cargo hold during passenger loading and injured a ground worker. It was later determined that the explosion was caused by a battery in an electronic device exploding, mostly likely due to it shorting out.

36 posted on 05/17/2003 9:36:26 AM PDT by RayChuang88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: genefromjersey
>>My personal theory was a meteorite strike : not a big one, but moving at hypersonic speeds, and white hot in the bargain.<<

An intriguing theory, genefromjersey.

Seconds before TWA Flight 800 was brought down, my boyfriend heard an air-traffic controller in New Hampshire exclaim to a controller in Bangor, Maine that he had just seen a missle strike a plane over Long Island Sound. The controller was very clear about observing the missle rising from the ground.

We always found it curious that the controller's observations were never reported in the media. If his observation was accurate, it would seem that many other air controllers observed it, too, yet no one spoke up.

regards,
risa

37 posted on 05/17/2003 9:44:19 AM PDT by Risa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88
"3. The battery in suspect consumer device explodes spectacularly from the short (which can happen due to the explosive and toxic nature of modern battery materials) and sends sparks and shockwaves away from the container towards the suspect fuel tank."


No small battery explosion could penerate the tank walls.
38 posted on 05/17/2003 9:58:48 AM PDT by PatrioticAmerican (If the 2nd is for hunting, is the 1st only for writing about hunting?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Does anyone know if any groups have ever claimed responsibility for shooting down the plane?
39 posted on 05/17/2003 10:02:35 AM PDT by weef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Now that Bush is in the White House, I'm sure the truth will all come out.

You gotta be kidding!

40 posted on 05/17/2003 10:02:42 AM PDT by The Other Harry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
That was a sure sign that Clinton was warning his administration to cover it up. He did the same thing after Vince Foster's death when he immediately told the White House staff that they'd never know...I believe the other poster on this thread is correct. The Clinton's are and have always been nothing but master propagandists. Terrorism was bad for their image since they wouldn't fight the terrorists the way Bush has done. Therefore, a la Saul Alinsky, massage the truth and spare the reputation. Ends justify the means.
41 posted on 05/17/2003 10:18:35 AM PDT by The Westerner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
Didn't Clintoon also say that we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it was the work of terrorist?
42 posted on 05/17/2003 11:09:10 AM PDT by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
bump
43 posted on 05/17/2003 11:34:43 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
Even the liberals will never admit of the possibility even if faced with incontrovertible evidence and confessions. They will cry frameup and smear.
44 posted on 05/17/2003 11:36:27 AM PDT by ThanhPhero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xrp
I think, and I may be remembering wrongly, that the scenario was that the missile was fired at the light AC but fastened on the big plane's much larger heat source. The explosion of 800 took out the small planet, too.
45 posted on 05/17/2003 11:40:14 AM PDT by ThanhPhero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

.
46 posted on 05/17/2003 11:41:24 AM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
I decided it might ell be a missile when authorities announced almost immediately after the incident that it could not have been a missile. That was the first I had heard about a missile possibility.
47 posted on 05/17/2003 11:42:51 AM PDT by ThanhPhero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Risa
There are very interesting radar "graphics" at www.twa800.com
48 posted on 05/17/2003 12:08:27 PM PDT by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: genefromjersey
My personal theory was a meteorite strike : not a big one, but moving at hypersonic speeds, and white hot in the bargain.

Hundreds on witnesses on LI saw a missile rise from the horizon to strike the plane. Triangulation of their reports consistently leads to a spot or two a few miles south of Long Island. These reports are totally inconsistent with a meteor strike.

ML/NJ

49 posted on 05/17/2003 1:07:41 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: genefromjersey
My personal theory was a meteorite strike : not a big one, but moving at hypersonic speeds, and white hot in the bargain.

That was actually one of the theories the investigators looked at. The problem with it was that the breakup sequence and damage clearly shows the breakup started in the CWFT. But there is absolutely no path that a meteorite could have followed to penetrate the tank. To clarify: Imagine the tank as a box, inside a larger box that is the skin of the plane. Both boxes are in pieces, but investigators put them together. When they do, there is no straight path for a projectile such as a meteorite to follow into the tank. Anti-aircraft missiles kill by fragmentation, so if the tank blew up it must have been compromised from outside, if a missile OR a meteorite did it. But it didn't (it's trivial to tell whether a piece of metal was damaged by a projectile going in or a fuel/air blast going out). You can't get here from there. I guarantee Cashill doesn't mention that little fact in his book -- none of the conspiracy nutballs do. When confronted with physical evidence, which is still in existence, that renders their theory impossible, they start raving that the evidence was faked, or that the guy pointing out the evidence is an agent of ZOG, or something.

An SA-7 or Chinese HN-5 could not have overtaken the plane from the ground, and has to be locked on and fired from the rear aspect. The more sensitive stinger can be fired from ahead, but would still be at the very limit of its range (or beyond). FYI the Afghan mujahideen always trained to fire stingers in volleys, because one isn't that reliable. As another poster pointed out, it's a means for infantry to defend against low-flying ground attack aircraft. Missiles that hit planes at 13,000 feet are BIG.

45 Psi differential would be all it would take for the tank to fail, and a spark and residual Jet A fumes would do that. There have been two other Boeings go bang (one before 800, one after) on the ground. If the tank failed, it would fail up into the cabin, rather than down (the skin below is stronger than the floor above, to oversimplify).

Like all these guys, Cashill starts with a conclusion and then marshals only the "evidence" that supports it. If you are going to read his book, also read the official NTSB file and see how selective he has been in picking stuff that supports his idea and discarding facts that don't fit. "If the results don't match you theory, the scientist changes the theory. The hack changes the results".

I've read all this stuff, which you can also get on a CD-ROM: it's a mountain of .pdf files. It includes, for instance, the witness reports, and a lot of investigation into the missile possibility. Conclusion: it can't be possible. Missile fragments don't hyperspace through a/c structure without leaving evidence. Bombs don't go off without evidence, either.

  1. Main Docket. (You gotta read the appendices too).
  2. Supporting Evidence (the witness statements are here, but read the Structures Group's report and the Reconstruction report).
  3. Pan Am 103 for comparison of what the evidence looks like when a plane really IS destroyed by a bomb. (It's under "1988". This report is from Britian's AAIB, so it's structured a little differently than NTSB's and the graphics are more legible. The site is the Jack Hunt library at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University).
Finally, when these guys try to sell this theory with testimonials, remember that's how the guys selling various dietary supplements that are supposed to make your hair grow back, your Johnson get bigger, or whatever. So far none of the missile or bomb guys has a theory that fits the physical evidence.

By the way, NTSB does review its work, recently they changed the probable cause of a Colorado Springs 737 accident as they discovered a flaw in 737 rudder actuators that was very, very rare. See, we have designed out most of the things that cause planes to crash... so when a crash is caused by something mechanical these days, it's naturally a rare event caused by a bizarre chain of coincidences. (AA 587 is looking even weirder than TWA 800).

Finally, who would benefit from downing TWA 800, how, and how does this fit their usual MO? And, if it was the "Navy Mistake" that the gummint-haters on the extremist right and military-haters on the extremist left imagine it to be, how does a whole ship, or task force, maintain a cover-up? Also... the Navy has laid some pretty big eggs in the past (sinking the Japanese ship... shooting down the Iranian Airbus...) and what happened in those cases? The Navy came clean, and hammered the individuals responsible.

As you can see, I'm very skeptical of Cashill and the other agenda-driven conspiracy merchants. He has a handful of "my cousin's neighbor's a pilot and says you rule, dood" testimonials but the credentials of the people who participated in the investigation -- including the engineers that designed and built the plane and its motors and equipment -- are unimpeachable. To believe that they are participating in a coverup (a metallurgist? Who doesn't even know what the significance of his report to the overall investigation is? Come on!) requires a zealot's commitment to believe an a priori conclusion.

Oh, yeah, if it's a big conspiracy all those people in theinvestigation (most of the folks involved are not NTSB or government employees, too) are in on it, too.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

50 posted on 05/17/2003 1:17:08 PM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-190 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