TWA 800: Pilots speak out

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com ^ | May 17, 2003 | Jack Cashill

[mr.pink]

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.

[genefromjersey]

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 ? )

[EggsAckley]

^^Bravissimo^^

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Don't know about that. Just remember that he said it was bombed.

[Mr. Mojo]

I believe Mulder was being sarcastic.

[cibco]

"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.

[iconoclast]

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

(/sarcasm) ???

[PatrioticAmerican]

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.

[PatrioticAmerican]

You forgot the /sarcasm tag.

[PatrioticAmerican]

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.

[PatrioticAmerican]

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

Wasn't it 13,000?

[Stefan Stackhouse]

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.

[MHGinTN]

Don't bet on it! The left is all about excuses, blaming someone else for their and their heroes failures.

[ladyinred]

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.

[Mr. Mojo]

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.

[RayChuang88]

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.

[Risa]

>>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

[PatrioticAmerican]

"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.

[weef]

Does anyone know if any groups have ever claimed responsibility for shooting down the plane?

[The Other Harry]

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

You gotta be kidding!