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

Skip to comments.

TWA Flight 800 - Someone Has Finally Talked!
WorldNetDaily ^ | January 31, 2002 | Reed Irvine

Posted on 01/31/2002 5:49:54 PM PST by VectoRama

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-165 next last
To: jlogajan
Hey, I just saw your comment about Elvis. Reed Irvine is a good man. I've never known him to lie. You may differ with his conclusions, but you can take his word as the gospel truth.
51 posted on 01/31/2002 10:31:23 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Consider also that the missile that went up did not have to come from a surfaced sub. There may have been one that wasn't surfaced, while the others observed.
52 posted on 01/31/2002 10:35:06 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ragin1; _Jim
No, not _Jim. Ol _Jim seems to stick to these threads like flies on rice. No need to page him. It's his duty to shoot these down. He'll be along.
53 posted on 01/31/2002 10:40:04 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: yazd
I never knew that. Good find.
54 posted on 01/31/2002 10:41:17 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: yazd
Nice post. You are exactly right.
55 posted on 01/31/2002 10:50:14 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Long ago I realized that this case had changed.

Those who wear the tin foil are the ones that still believe the government line on this. How many times did the White House mount a situation room scenario due to an airline crash prior to 09/11?

My guess would be zippety doo da outside of the TWA-800 missile downing. It just isn't a White House duty to scramble for an airliner crash. The NTSB takes over and does an investigation.

That one glaring fact seems to be lost on the real tin foilers.

56 posted on 01/31/2002 11:02:46 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Again, I'll ask what is the wisdom of such a system? Submarines evade aircraft and helicopters, the don't take them on. For such a missile to work there would have to be some way of targeting it. A simple heat seaking warhead won't work because it has to be aimed in the general direction of the target so it can pick up the heat source. One way or another a sub would have to stick something above the water to acquire the target. If it is a radar mast then the radar radiations automatically give the sub away. If it is something else it still advertises the subs presence and gives it's location away. Launching such a missile gives the subs position away, too, and would be suicide if there are more than one aircraft involved in the hunt.
57 posted on 02/01/2002 2:47:51 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I would suggest that this thread took an unfortunate left turn at the mention of submarines.  The observer didn't state that he saw a missile fired by one of the submarines.  The fact that three submarines did show up on radar, then disappear is mentioned.  But the significance of this is not that the submarines were shooters, but that they were there at all.  Let's remember that at first we were assured that no military activity was taking place in the area.

First reports stated that the closest Navy ships were 130 miles away.  This was used to discredit the idea that one of them could have fired a missile.  Contrast that with what we have just been told.  The first statement was a flagrant bald faced lie!  There was clearly a significant operation going on that evening, directly under the flight path of TWA-800.  We know there was a P3 Orion flying over.  It was reportedly discharging flares.  Now we know there were three submarines in the area as well.

We haven't heard the last of this.  What will become accepted over time, is that our government lied.  People will assume that it had a good reason to lie.  And over time it will just become accepted that TWA-800 was downed by a missile, perps unknown.  Perhaps at some point we'll know that it was our missile, perhaps not.

The facts are that our Commander in Chief, the FBI, the NTSB, the CIA, the Navy and other concerns knew what happened all along.  The aircraft was hit by at least one and possibly two missiles.  The shooter could very well have been one of ours.  I do not believe that a massive coverup would have been launched to avoid us knowing of an act of terrorism.

Due to this incident and several others, our government has severely damaged it's ability to be trusted.  Couple the security type problems we are facing with the legislative problems we are facing.  Our leaders are passing some incredibly devistating legislation, the full aspects of which will not be realized until years have passed.  There isn't any level of government that can be fully trusted.  From our farms, to our airports, to our skys, to our borders and to the halls of our givernment buildings, there's a growing odor of doom wafting through our national concience.

I don't like what I'm seeing one bit.

58 posted on 02/01/2002 3:09:55 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
The reason I have such scepticism about these kinds of theories is that they go against everything I know about submarines and missiles. I spent almost 9 years on active duty in the Navy all of it with the Atlantic Fleet. I was stationed on guided missile destroyers and frigates for almost all of it. My ships have operated against U.S. and Allied boats time and again in exercises, and conducted a number of missile firings, including several fired at night. And I can sat without a doubt that none of the descriptions I have seen remotely resembles any of the missile firings I have participated in. A missile fired at night lights up the sky like nothing you have ever seen. It rides a plume of smoke and flame the length of a telephone pole. There is no way that a Navy ship could have fired a missile anywhere near TWA800 without someone seeing something like that. Second, of all the live fire exercises I have participated in, none of them took place north of the Virginia capes. All of the missile firings took place off Puerto Rico. Missiles aren't fired near Long Island precisely because it is the most heavily travelled air corridore in the world. None of these theories make the slightest bit of sense to me and I speak as someone who knows what he is talking about.
59 posted on 02/01/2002 3:32:57 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
---the militry doesn't have a way to control a missile from another asset overhead? Like, couldn't a missile be launched, then it's targeting be accomplished from a very high flying drone aircraft, or satellite or awacs or surface ship elsewhere's?
60 posted on 02/01/2002 3:56:01 AM PST by zog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Comment #61 Removed by Moderator

To: Non-Sequitur
I don't discount your personal observations.  I have no reason to doubt anything that you are stating, so just because I debate this issue shouldn't be taken as disputing your personal experience or expertise.

Let's remember that this aircraft was 13 miles off the coast of Long Island.  That's over the horizon to those on land.  What they would see is a small missile type object heading up to the plane.  They would have seen a missile trail at that distance, but they wouldn't see as much as you might think.  What would a telephone pole look like at 13 miles?  Even the flame wouldn't be that big.  The military people who saw this, recognized it for what it was.  You're looking at 8:00 p.m. on a summer night.  They would not see the ship.  And this occured while the sky was still somewhat light.  Let's face it, the private boating that might have been out that far in the daytime was likey headed for or at shore by the time this happened.  13 miles is quite a distance to sea for most people.

As for missile exercises taking place out there, I've seen the picture that everyone else has of that missile near the beach.  I have also seen reports from other captains seeing a missile in their vacinity about a month after TWA-800.  Some testing does seem to have been taking place out there.  If I'm not remembering incorrectly, it was acknowledged that south of Long Island, not that much, but a ways beyond TWA-800's flight path was an area acknowledged to be used for certain testing including missiles.

I realize you know what you are talking about.  Let's accept that this was not a normal operation.  I doubt you've seen three submarines surfaced near Long Island very often.  Perhaps that's not true.  But something unusual was going on.  The fact that lies were told to avoid having to admit those subs were there is significant to me.

62 posted on 02/01/2002 4:04:47 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: BoPepper
James Kahlstrom from the FBI stated that there were no navy vessles with 130 miles of Long Island.

Please tell me which of the above individuals or agencies that refuted that lie.

63 posted on 02/01/2002 4:08:14 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: zog
--the militry doesn't have a way to control a missile from another asset overhead? Like, couldn't a missile be launched, then it's targeting be accomplished from a very high flying drone aircraft, or satellite or awacs or surface ship elsewhere's?

The problem is that the submarine would have to come up on Link 16 to both receive a basic tactical picture (the problem is that the SUBMARINE wouldn't have sufficient siutational awareness without external cueing) AND report their overall tactical situation. People tend to get a wee bit suspicious when they detect datalink signals coming from an otherwise empty patch of ocean. Once again, this idea compromises the sub's stealth.

Most proposals I have seen for SUBSAMs involve a mast-mounted box launcher, loaded with Stinger. There was a SIAM (Self-Initiating Antiaircraft Missile) project in the late 1970s; this would have used acoustic sensors to detect overhead patrol aircraft or helicopters and could be left as a sort of "SAM Mine" to help a submarine escape.

ALL of the SUBSAM proposals have had one thing in common: the submarine community has said, in unison, "We are NOT toting those things on our boats." They have too many negatives (a submarine's only defense is stealth; these weapons tend to compromise same) and not enough positives to get Fleet "buy-in."

64 posted on 02/01/2002 4:10:50 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Line of sight can be pretty far, especially at altitude. The smoke and flame of a Standard or similar missile is visible and unmistakable. Nobody mentions smoke trail or flame plume. Nobody mentions flash of light out at sea, not even witnesses in aircraft who would be able to see for miles.

I'll admit that I've never seen three submarines surfaced together. Neither have any of the people posting on this theory. They look at radar pictures on the web and claim that it indicates surfaced subs, but I have yet to see any confirmation.

I've seen that picture of the missile near the beach. I've also seen the picture of the guy on the World Trade Center observation deck with the airplane heading for him. Enough said.

65 posted on 02/01/2002 4:20:06 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
--if what you say is accurate at that date, the twa 800 "incident", then what terminology do you want to use to describe a grouping of military assets conducting *something*.? Is this called an "exercise"? What else would you call what as going on off of long island then, if not an exercise? this is getting into what "is" is here.......... Semantics aside, it "looks" like an exercise off of long island to this admitedly untrained internet discusser.

Point 2, I'm a long time computer user. I've seen computers do some goofy stuff before. The military at any one time during one of these non-exercise exercises has to be running dozens if not hundreds of computers, all trying to work together. Hmm, wonder why the computer industry needs zillions of trained sysadmins, could it be because computers have to be tweaked and repaired and fixed all the time because they messup, they don't "do" exactly what you intended them to do? Just maybe? Or our are military computers all 100% reliable all the time, everyplace, never break, never ned adjusting, always so perfect that nothing weird ever happens between the old human actions and the hard and software actions? This is the stance I seem to be reading from all the military guys here, as in "no way, it could never happen.

I would like to purchase one of these 100% reliable, never mess up and won't let ya mess up computers, if one of the military guys would point out the exact brand of said miracle computer.

. To me, it's possible that a computer malfunction occurred, leading to a launch. Besides that, I couldn't tell ya which computer system or whatnot, I'm sure they have a lot of failsafes, but I really couldn't ever claim computers always do what you think they are going to do. Software conflicts with a hardware glitch perhaps. I'll let someone else claim that is reality, ie, the "never break or fail" brand peecee.

Now this isn't my personal pet theory, just throwing it out. My pet theory- at this point- is "it"- a missile- was launched from a small boat in the immediate area, by so far "unknown and not identified" people, either middle eastern terrorists, or by rogue mercenary units under the direction of the shadow government types "just following orders". As to "who's' government, that's up in the air as well. Anyone and their cuizzin leroy could have had a boat in that area at that time. No need for a massive conventional forces coverup then, only a tiny small number of people who needed to keep their mouths shut, quite do-able and possible.

The navy perhaps wouldn't have had anything to do with it, but they were used as a collective "patsy" as obviously attention would have been directed to them, and initially they would have denied everything from precisely the fact it was 100% plausibly deniable from their point of view, because they honestly didn't do it, they just happened to be in the area at the same time. whoopise in other words. maybe it was even one of those cosmic joke dealies, the shooters didn't know they were going to be inside this non exercise exercise, it was just a legit coincidence, surprising the heck out of everyone concerned. Iranian airbus deal was such a happenstance. Think richard jewell scenario on a different scale. someone does something, so publically they glom onto the first things that come to attention, eventually get bogged down into a whodunit. It's called leaving a false trail, quite common in crime that is premeditated. The navy honestly had nothing to do with it, but being all around the area when it went down would have gone into emergency WHATTHEFUGJUSTHAPPENED? mode, and understandably so.

That's my theory so far, as to who did it or why, then the possibilites can get complex and extreme. There are even a variety of motives I can see here. So far, the el al plane that was 'supposed" to be in that area and wasn't is most intriguing, as they delayed their flight , and twa 800 took off ahead of them. perhaps the el al flight was the real target? I don't know, ansd that really is just one of many possibilities. In this day, an el al flight would certainly be considered a target by "someone". Perhaps it was just a random flight targeted. perhaps.

As to the exact species of missile used, no idea, nor do I think *every* possible missile that exists is available for public review or discussion. Again, I'd really like to meet the government military employee or ex employee who has had access to EVERYTHING. Personally, I doubt such a job description exists, I doubt seriously US Presidents ever get to look at everything. I doubt even cia directors get to see everything. Maybe someone does have this experience, and has a habit of posting on internet forums, but I doubt it. Like, does the military admit to brilliant buzzard or aurora yet? Anyone reading this want to admit to any high performance aircraft that exists at this time but isn't officially recognized? Or does anyone here on the forum admit to being a total insider in ALL foreign nations development labs, so they can 'rule out" a russian or chinese or french or italian or israeli or whatnot missile? Prototypes can exist in small numbers of "working models", yes? And the world market in weaponry certainly appears to be if you got the cash yopu can buy whatever you want, either legitimately, or via cutouts, from theft, or whatever. Maybe someone has come up with a missile that doesn't leave as nasty a smoke trail. maybe there's something out there that can out perform the what-30 year old stinger technology, whatever it is? I dunno, but can't state with certainty no one *hasn't* yet, as I lost my bilderburger card and they quit sending me updated intel emails.

%^)

Last point, if center fuel tanks explode, why don't they ground and repair jumbo jets for this 'problem"? If doors blow off in midflight, which causes planes to explode in midair and then climb thousands of feet UP, why no grounding and repair efforts? We see it with other verifiable airframe problems, when they find a serious design flaw, they usually fix the other ones, eventually anyway, so why in twa800 case, no "fixes" apparent on other jumbo jets of similar design? Any exactly why again was the fbi and cia involved in a "normal" plane accident? Do they usually do this, was this past SOP for the industry and government?

66 posted on 02/01/2002 5:03:28 AM PST by zog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

Comment #67 Removed by Moderator

To: Poohbah
--I tend to agree with you, just pointing out it's not completely impossible. I realise subs basic defense is to *not* be there all the time, we'll accept that as a common sense given. Personally, I don't think any of the regular naval units were involved, I think they were just in the vicinity. So far anyway. I know that's a popular theory, but I don't put it at the top of the list. With that said, I know people personally who have related stories of things they have seen go down who were "ordered" such and such never happened, they didn't see it, 'or else". I think both these observations are correct and *true*. Here's an example, my girlfriend and her crew, she's retired skygoddess-were deadheading one day, for 20 minutes they had a ...hmmm...an "aircraft" sitting right off their wings at around 200 yards. When they landed, offical but un-identified dudes walked the cockpit crew into a room, ten minutes later, they come out with these other unidentified guys, the captain tell the rest of the cabin crew they "didn't" see what they saw, "or else". This was an 'advisory" that was designed to basically coerce them into shutting up about it right then. shes' still scared of these guys, BTW..... I've met the captain, he's retired now as well, and he's still steamed about it, but wasn't in any rush to mess up his check, if ya get my drift. None of the crew was in any rush to mess up their checks, although anecdotally a few sentences get spoken. Quite the story really...... I'd bet a nickle that's not the only time this sort of thing has happened with the airline industry, or the military either.

Total aside, what's the ID of the aerial asset reported at the time at around 80,000 feet? Do you know? No, don't have that discussion link handy, but I read it here on this site, someone else might have it. I'm just interested in anything that can maintain that sort of altitude, that would have been used in a non-exercise exercise.

68 posted on 02/01/2002 5:21:30 AM PST by zog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: BoPepper
"This theory simply defies logic."

Not at all.

When was TWA800 shot down? July 17, 1996.

What else was happening in 1996?

Re-election campaign of one Bubba Clinton.

A terrorist shoot down of an American airliner MIGHT have been cause enough to mount the coverup effort which was enhanced, no doubt, by Clinton bonuses being paid to the people who helped put the coverup through. Threats of everything from loss of military retirement to imprisonment of any military people who saw what happened and/or knew from the reaction of their ships racing AWAY from the shootdown sight, instead of to it, would account for the silence of those in the military who might have witnessed it. (Reed Irvine, by the way, is an honorable man and could not possibly lie about this. I have no problem believing this person whoever he is is terrified. Wouldn't you be if you KNEW what really happened to TWA800 and the most powerful people in the world had put through the massive coverup of it????)

If, however, Clinton's defunded military had somehow mistakenly shot down an American Airliner by mistake - do you think Clinton would have had a hope in hell of being re-elected just 4 months later?????

I don't think so. Obviously, the Clinton "team" did not think so. And they made the decision that the Clinton "team" had made down through the years......(I am sure, dictated by one Hitlery Clinton) - we will take control of this "incident" and we will come up with something and we will spin it. We will use intimidation, threats, and bribery to enforce our will.

That is their M.O. that was used- and has been documented -over and over and over through their heinous years in power both in Arkansas and in the US.

The ONLY other explanation would be a Communist Chinese sub shoot down of the American Airliner. Since the Chinese ran the Clinton administration - publicizing a Chicom shootdown of an American airliner - while the Chinese communists were funneling money to re-elect their agent - would NOT have been a good thing for either party to the Clinton crimes.

But the Chinese are NOT terrorists......they are Communists who use terrorism as a matter of policy. Just like the Clintonoids do.

69 posted on 02/01/2002 5:51:19 AM PST by Freedom'sWorthIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
What kind of weapon was he 'locking on' with? Do you know the name?
70 posted on 02/01/2002 6:16:18 AM PST by John Jorsett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Nope, no idea. He may have said it, but it was a few years ago, and I am not naval-terminology savvy.
71 posted on 02/01/2002 6:24:29 AM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: wheezer
Myself, I've always believed what Senator A; D'Amato said the night of the crash, and that was that it was brought down by a missile....Big Al never did know when to shut up. But who's missile?... well at first I agreed with those who suspected a navy misfire...but post 9-11, and considering the WH occupant at the time, I'm open to the terrorist got lucky position.

You are so correct. The Navy vessels were there because the gov. had a source that said there would be a missile shoot down of a plane in the area before the Olympics. Our anti-missile stuff tried to kill the first missile, but failed.

Anybody want to bet there won't be another plane shot down out of JFK in the next couple of weeks?

72 posted on 02/01/2002 6:24:40 AM PST by japaneseghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Guess you must have missed this thread...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/619151/posts

73 posted on 02/01/2002 6:41:52 AM PST by a6intruder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: japaneseghost
One item that has always stuck in my mind....

As an ex-Long Island surfer, I still make a habit of checking ocean wave hieght during surfing season. In the days leading up to TWA 800 (actually for about 12 days), the waves were unsually big (8-12 ft).

The day before the downing, the ocean began to calm, and the night of the downing, the ocean was about as calm as possible (wave ht. 1-2ft).

Also, my brother said Georgie Stephie let slip that there were only two occassions when the Bubba crew was in the situation room...wanna' take a guess? ;O)....wanna' wonder why?
74 posted on 02/01/2002 7:42:53 AM PST by wheezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: wheezer
Has Jim "Kalstrom" posted to this thread yet? Do your duty Jim.
75 posted on 02/01/2002 8:06:57 AM PST by The Bolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: BoPepper
To: DoughtyOne

Please tell me which of the above individuals or agencies that refuted that lie.

I do not know the specifics of that lie. However, I do know that in order to believe your conspiracy theory you have to believe that hundreds or even thousands of
honorable men and women have to coverup a mass murder. For example, why would an entire investigative team from the NTSB coverup an accidental shoot down
of a civilian airliner by the military? They have everything to lose and nothing to gain by participating in the coverup.

At first you attempted to take a pass on the lie.  That's fine if you wanted to investigate the facts of it.  But then to dismiss the lie because it defied logic is disengenous.  Then to attempt to bring up the honor of men and women to dispute it, well that's simply dishonorable.

Yes why would an entire investigative team cover up?  The answer is that the whole investigative team may not have been privey to the lie.  I did not say every member of these agencies knew the full story.  Certain elements of them, and the leadership of each most certainly did.

Okay you didn't want to address the lie directly.  So be it.

This theory simply defies logic.

Perhaps you can tell me how many times you've seen the FBI hijack an investigation?  And further, how many times have you seen a CIA agent standing behind an FBI agent who's hijacked an NTSP investigation?

You really are willing to sign on to a lot if these types of questions and the lack of reasonable answers don't at some point begin to be more than you can dismiss.

67 posted on 2/1/02 6:18 AM Pacific by BoPepper

76 posted on 02/01/2002 8:11:01 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Confederate Keyester
He said he saw "something come up." "I don't know what in the hell it was," he said! Now how many service people could not identify a missle from a mile away. :)

The watch officer on the Starke saw a "blue dot" drop from an incoming airplane. He failed to identify it as an incoming Exocette. They darn near lost the ship as a result.

This in a high threat/hostile waters environment...

77 posted on 02/01/2002 8:18:25 AM PST by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
To: DoughtyOne

Line of sight can be pretty far, especially at altitude. The smoke and flame of a Standard or similar missile is visible and unmistakable. Nobody mentions smoke trail
or flame plume. Nobody mentions flash of light out at sea, not even witnesses in aircraft who would be able to see for miles.

The only people at altitude do describe what they believe to be a missile.  One of the most notable was a former/possibly current member of the military which was familiar with this type of ordinance.  Many people described a trail of smoke behind the object.  That's why the FBI/NTSB created a sharade stating that the 747 actually climbed for 2000 feeet and that leaking fuel ignighted to create a false ploom.  That wouldn't have been necessary if it hadn't been for eye witness reports.

I'll admit that I've never seen three submarines surfaced together. Neither have any of the people posting on this theory. They look at radar pictures on the web and
claim that it indicates surfaced subs, but I have yet to see any confirmation.

The article specificly states: "Kallstrom, who headed the FBI's TWA 800 investigation, told me – and I have this on tape – that three radar targets close to the crash site were Navy vessels on a classified maneuver. We know they were submarines because the radar tracks disappeared when TWA 800 crashed."  Anothewords, we're not talking about blips exclusively.  We have the lead agent of the FBI in charge of the TWA-800 investigation admitting there were subs.  That's the refutation of the lie that I addressed.  He is also the person who stated early on that there were no Navy assets within 130 miles.

I've seen that picture of the missile near the beach. I've also seen the picture of the guy on the World Trade Center observation deck with the airplane heading for
him. Enough said.

That picture has been investigated.  It has been judged to be real.  What it means isn't exactly clear.

If you wish to dismiss any concerns over this incident so be it. I have long ago accepted that for some, it will take an insurmountable amount evidence to convince them that the TWA-800 was shot down. I can live with that.

65 posted on 2/1/02 5:20 AM Pacific by Non-Sequitur

78 posted on 02/01/2002 8:27:28 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: wheezer
Also, my brother said Georgie Stephie let slip that there were only two occassions when the Bubba crew was in the situation room...wanna' take a guess? ;O)....wanna' wonder why?

To me, that alone is proof it was not friendly fire.
It also means they were expecting an event of terror.

79 posted on 02/01/2002 8:29:57 AM PST by japaneseghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
One of the radars on long island showed a number of ships in the area of the crash. They had to be more than about 60 feet high to show up over the horizon at that distance. They moved in formation at 30 knots.

The only large ships that move in formation at thirty knots belong to navies.

The radar traces were published on a number of websites after the crash. Some my still be there. You will have to look for them.

80 posted on 02/01/2002 8:41:33 AM PST by Magician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: The Bolt
Hey, let's show some respect around here. That's _Jim to us. Grin...
81 posted on 02/01/2002 8:49:54 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Not an insurmountable amount of evidence. Just some reasonable evidence.
82 posted on 02/01/2002 8:51:57 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Hah! Grin... Talk to you later.
83 posted on 02/01/2002 9:15:06 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

Comment #84 Removed by Moderator

Comment #85 Removed by Moderator

To: A CA Guy
Sorry, I must have deleted the second 2 in 2002 and accidently replaced it with 0 during copy/paste of the source code. That's all I can figure. The date of publication as I posted was Jan 31, 2002..... i.e., it's new!
86 posted on 02/01/2002 11:02:29 AM PST by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Magician
One of the radars on long island showed a number of ships in the area of the crash. They had to be more than about 60 feet high to show up over the horizon at that distance. They moved in formation at 30 knots.

Was a radar duct present? They are often called "summer ducts" because they tend to occur in...well, the summer. A duct significantly extends the radar horizon. They are so common that some navies deliberately modify their radars' signal characteristics to exploit them. I have yet to see any discussion of whether ducting was going on or not. That's something we need to nail down.

The only large ships that move in formation at thirty knots belong to navies.

If a duct was present, then significantly smaller targets could be detected--like cabin cruisers, for example.

Also, this tends to militate against these targets being submarines: submarines are designed for submerged speed, and travel well below 30 knots while surfaced.

87 posted on 02/01/2002 2:21:03 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: zog
I tend to agree with you, just pointing out it's not completely impossible.

I am merely pointing out the evidence against a SUBSAM.

My personal opinion is that the shootdown was with an RBS-70 missile, fired by non-governmental actors of unknown identity. This weapon is laser-guided (which explains the near center mass hit--the shooter keeps the crosshairs centered on the target, and the missile follows the death dot), and it has both a higher altitude limit and a much heavier warhead than a MANPADS system (the RBS-70 is designed to be moved and set up by a four-man team instead of a single person).

88 posted on 02/01/2002 2:26:28 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: wheezer
I think it could be either one, but not a fuel tank. FBI agent Kallstrom looked extremely uncomfortable when he peddled his fuel tank theory. This story omits the high speed exit of a radar track. That was more likely a small boat. That is, if that radar track is a true story.
89 posted on 02/01/2002 2:29:25 PM PST by Chemnitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
who makes these whizzbangs?
90 posted on 02/01/2002 2:30:04 PM PST by zog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: BoPepper
"Why would any member of the NTSB or the military cover up for the Clinton administration?"

Some reasons might be that the klintonistas are masters of bribery, blackmail and murder. They also had years of getting their own "made" people into positions of power, throughout the military and civilian bureaucracy. Pretty nifty reasons to keep your trap shut and not wind up on the "friends of bill" list...

aside--ever stop to wonder what exactly happened to make the "republican revolution" fizzle out, when they elected all those new reps during the off year election? And then wonder exactly *why* klintoon and gang are still walking around and not in jail?

Same reasons I bet.....

91 posted on 02/01/2002 2:37:32 PM PST by zog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
missile silos ???????

Seems like someone from a sub would use the correct terminology for the VLS. The only missile silos around are for land based ICBMs.

92 posted on 02/01/2002 2:40:14 PM PST by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zog
Saab Bofors of Sweden.

Find your own road.

Or, if you're a terra firma kinda guy:


93 posted on 02/01/2002 2:41:51 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: BoPepper
A conspiracy of silence involving all of these agencies and departments?

Perhaps just a conspiracy of silence involving KEY PEOPLE in all of those agencies and departments. The rest just do as they are told, see what they are allowed to see, say nothing out of fear of retribution, and otherwise have no voice.

If you don't believe this, then explain another case ... what happened in the crash of Ron Brown. In that case we know that the White House and Air Force leadership tampered with the normal investigation process. They skipped the Safety Board phase, which EVERY OTHER crash before or since has had. The Safety Board is the phase of the normal investigation process which is explicitly charged with "finding the cause". The final report from the Accident Investigation Board does not mention many facts that are highly suspicious ... such as the statements of the pathologists at the examination and what the x-ray of Brown's head showed. The final report also does not explain the loss of transponder and radio contact when the plane was 8 miles from the crash site, nor the coincidental "suicide" of the maintenance chief that was in charge of the beacon which disappeared just before the crash. It doesn't mention the fact that the Department of State was told there were two survivors ... not just one as was reported (a survivor who COINCIDENTALLY managed to die on the way to the hospital under a doctor's care after surviving for 10 hours on the ground). It also doesn't mention the apparent fact that the first rescuers to "officially" arrive at the crash site were met by 3 Americans on the ground (according to Associated Press). And the families (and lawyers) of the victims were also not told about any of the suspicious facts surrounding the crash. Instead the government paid out an average of about 14 million dollars per family to keep them from pursuing lawsuits (and thereby asking uncomfortable questions).

Further evidence that a few key people can control the flow of an investigation in the Brown case is that the White House and JCS ordered that there be no autopsy of Brown's body even though forensic pathologists at the examination called for one and every single pathologist to see the body or look at the x-rays since has said there should have been one. BY LAW, the FBI should have been called in once suspicions of gunshot were mentioned ... but they were not. The key department heads also have not investigated the disappearance of all photos and x-rays of Brown's head from a LOCKED safe at AFIP. Instead, they destroyed the careers of the military officers who did speak out, rather than simply show them that they were mistaken. They even threatened them with JAIL! That, of course, had a chilling effect on any other potential whistleblowers.

Since then, neither the FBI or military justice system has investigated even though there is clear proof that the management at AFIP lied to the public about the nature of Brown's injuries and the opinions of their pathologists regarding the need for an autopsy. They haven't investigated even though a military officer stated under oath that another officer told her that AFIP management tampered with a second set of x-rays to hide evidence of gunshot. They haven't investigated even though sworn testimony from one of Brown's close associates suggests a urgent motive for killing Brown at that time.

And that is just SOME of the evidence that exists pointing to the murder of Brown. There is additional testimony pointing to motive, opportunity and means ... all of which the key players in government have IGNORED or LIED ABOUT. And it doesn't hurt that the mainstream media is complicit. NOT ONE of the major media players EVER reported the facts of the Brown case to the public. Instead they just regurgitated the LIES spouted by the Air Force spokesperson and the Clinton administration officials about weather and blunt force trauma. Instead they just tried to associate those who question the Brown death with UFO-ologists.

So yes ... here is an example where a few key people have managed to keep the public from knowing the truth and controlled the investigation to the extent that suspicious evidence was buried or ignored. And if they could do it in this case, why think they couldn't do it in another?

94 posted on 02/01/2002 3:09:36 PM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
--ya man! I guess one of those babies would work! bofors rang a bell, they been in the biz of knocking down aeryplanes for a long time now. And being sweden, they sell to anyone with cash most likely. Is that plane one of theirs as well? I remember quite a few years ago reading about their sonett (sp?) that could fly sideways.

For a small country they got rearranging steel into interesting parts way down pat.

funny story. many moons ago I was working a tradeshow. Small show only a coupla booths, military jazz. Our booth was this whizzbanger like in the picture sorta. It was fairly hefty, a domestic made missile, forgotten the name now (AIM?-dunno, had small fins on it), but it was pretty big, like around 12 feet long. The show was in a private ballrom in a hotel in atlanta. Myself and one other guy get the nod to go do the booth install. We meet the truck on the sidewalk, sidestreet of the hotel, get the crates out. The crates for the booth fit, but the missile is like too dang long! It just AIN'T getting in that freight elevator to go upstairs. So here's me and this other guy with our tools out on the sidewalk in atlanta, all kinza folks walking by and driving by, disaasembling this whizzbang atlas rocket action to get it into pieces so it would fit into the elevator! HILARIOUS! Getting some serious stares and commentary from the townfolk and all. heheheheheheheheh Got it in chunks, up it went, re assembled, no one knows nothing,. just doing our jobs!

95 posted on 02/01/2002 3:56:40 PM PST by zog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: zog
The plane is a Saab JAS-39 Gripen.

Makes a Saab 900 Turbo look kinda tame, huh?

96 posted on 02/01/2002 4:16:04 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Chemnitz
I think it could be either one, but not a fuel tank.

Well, IMHO the fuel tank certainly did blow...but one would expect that to happen when pierced by a missile. It was an CYA explanatory manuever by a team who were lucky enough to have all the media oulets onboard.

The difficult thing about this is that a person like myself just really wants to know the truth about the circumstances. I don't think Kalstrom is an bad man...he did what he had to do, most likely knowing anyone with half a brain knew his new math didn't quite add up.

My question is, if TWA 800 was militant Islam's first aviative-take down success, and the powers that be (in this case Bubba's fuck `til you drop and run the nation between Monicas crew of halfwits) covered it up, how on earth were are pants around our ankles on 9-11?

IMHO, instead of utilizing our national treasure bombing the If U See Kaye out of Iraq, why aren't we focusing that amount of effort on finding out who are insiders are? They are obviously here, and I'm ready to bet dollars to donuts that they ain't Arabs!
97 posted on 02/01/2002 5:41:50 PM PST by wheezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
If you don't believe this, then explain another case ... what happened in the crash of Ron Brown.

Explaining the Ron Brown case is pretty easy. All one would have to do is get the passenger manifests from all of the Ron Brown as SEC (make money `til you puke) flights, and note the difference in quality of people between those who were on the money makers and those who were on the widow makers.
98 posted on 02/01/2002 5:54:19 PM PST by wheezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

Comment #99 Removed by Moderator

Comment #100 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-165 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