Skip to comments.
TWA Flight 800 - "CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS IS A LIE? I CAN'T"
Accuracy In Media ^
| Reed Irvine
Posted on 02/28/2002 9:31:30 AM PST by Asmodeus
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 301-308 next last
To: SubMareener
If my memory serves correctly, upon separation from military (or civilian federal) service where the member had access to classified info, the member must sign a document promising not to discuss (or write a book!)about said classified information. If this is violated, former military personnel can be called up for Active Duty for their Court Martial. Even old retired guys. I assume everything a submariner does while underway is classified. Regardless of whether or not the plane went down right over Chief Beer's head, by revealing the location of his sub on a particular night may have violated DoD security policy.
21
posted on
02/28/2002 2:22:15 PM PST
by
buzzcat
To: buzzcat
I assume everything a submariner does while underway is classified. One of the first things they teach you at Navy Boot Camp is that when you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME ;-)
It is obvious that the Xlintoon administration did not want Flight 800 to be any kind of missile attack, friendly or terrorist, and that they went to great lengths to cover up the reports of those who saw the missile(s). I don't blame the guy for being scared.
To: SubMareener
I was speaking more of operational security matters having to do with US Navy submarine activity. When you went on a cruise, did you tell your family "I'll call you from Guam in two months!!" I assume not. "Assume" is not a bad word under these circumstances. I reviewed the facts and arrived at what I thought was the likely outcome. I "assume" that the level of OPSEC governing the opearational activities of USAF U-2s is similar to that of USN subs. Former operators of either should not discuss operational matters with internet reporters.
23
posted on
02/28/2002 2:41:32 PM PST
by
buzzcat
To: Uncle Bill
Where's Rivero when ya need him?
bttt
To: ThreeOfSeven
It's hard to believe in big conspiracies requiring many conspirators There were many witnesses who saw a missile but the government and the press called them mistaken or liars when they referred to them at all. Many of the witnesses were told in an intimidating manner that they were mistaken and that was crazy to talk about it at all. It does not need great numbers of people keeping their lips sealed, only the cooperation of the press and the relentless repetition of the official story.
To: Magician
"IMHO, we are being scammed about AA 587. By the same government people who scammed us about TWA 800. Reid is the SECOND SHOE BOMBER."
I've never believed the "official" TWA 800 story, but the official AA 587 explanation is much more plausible. There are a lot of questions regarding the mass of the composite rudder the French use on this model of Airbus. Boeing doesn't use composites in this area due to the tendency to flutter under certain conditions, such as what might have happened with AA 587.
I've heard that there might not have been enough separation between it and a 747(?) in front of it and maybe AA 587 encountered some vortices that contributed to the tail flutter. Tail flutter can be incredibly violent and quick and certainly could have caused AA587 to crash.
27
posted on
02/28/2002 3:20:08 PM PST
by
GBA
To: droberts
A war that has not been declared which could go on indefinitely. So when will we get to criticize the current administration? Oh, don't worry. Tiny Tom Puff Dasshole and Little Poco Loco Dickie Gephardt are doing the job for you.
Dumbs!
28
posted on
02/28/2002 3:37:10 PM PST
by
Ole Okie
To: SubMareener
Interesting article. I'm suspicious of the guy who calls Irvine one day, and then the next day happens to run into Beers and his story. I'm also curious as to why Irvine wasn't taping Beers at the start of the interview.
On the other hand, the article has a few details that tend to confirm the story. I hope Beers doesn't get depressed and shoot himself five or six times while holding the gun in an oven mitt.
29
posted on
02/28/2002 3:40:01 PM PST
by
Tymesup
To: droberts
A war that has not been declared which could go on indefinitely. So when will we get to criticize the current administration? I don't know. But the Senator from So. Dakota seems to think the time has come. After all, there are elections to be won. To hell with the security of the United States and it's people. With people like little Tommy Dash Hole, God and country come far behind party and power.
30
posted on
02/28/2002 3:53:32 PM PST
by
mc5cents
To: buzzcat
I "assume" that the level of OPSEC governing the opearational activities of USAF U-2s is similar to that of USN subs. There you go, again! ;-)
To: Tymesup
I hope Beers stays well, also.
However, you forgot the part about not needing his car keys to drive his car to the park. And the part about how his car changes colors while it is parked in the lot. ;-)
To: SubMareener
Thanks for the info. It's good to have an actual submariner around to verify some of the theories around here. So if we are to believe Beers, we need to accept that the USS Trepang was operating covertly, in a classified exercise,
on the surface, a couple miles off the shore of Long Island in broad daylight. That in the time it took for TWA 800 to begin its self-destruction to the time it hit the water (approx 1 minute) the Pepsi sipping OOD was able to absorb the situation and order a crash dive in water he wouldn't normally operate submerged in. And finally, that a submarine that takes a couple minutes to crash dive, did so in time to film pieces of the wreckage hitting the water.
And if we are to believe Irvine, his witness offers conclusive evidence the Navy was involved in a shootdown of TWA 800, although he offers no evidence to support the claim and not even his new witness would state such a thing. In fact, he didn't even claim to see a missile. Irvine manipulates his relatively uninformative interview to try and prove his other unfounded theories. His assumption that the unidentified surface radar tracks are Navy submarines that subsequently dive when TWA 800 blows up, falls apart when you consider the only contact that could match Beer's description of his boat is the "30 knot track". Do you ever recall making 30 knots while surfaced? And if you did, would the OOD be on the bridge accompanied by a bored corpsman sharing his Pepsi's. And then imagine converting that 30 knots into a crash dive. Bow planes or not, that would be a heck of a ride. If the 30 knot track isn't the Trepang, than either the Trepang doesn't show up on radar, or it isn't within 5 miles of the accident site. Either possiblity sinks Irvine's brilliant analysis.
Bottomline, Irvine is a fraud. His witness created a story that is almost impossible to believe, and Irvine bit off on it, hook line and sinker. So much for accuracy in the media.
33
posted on
02/28/2002 5:23:53 PM PST
by
Rokke
To: Asmodeus
Saved for my grandchidren to look at. Perhaps they will get the answers.
To: Rokke
Almost every sentence you wrote is completely contrary to the facts before you. Beers said their activity was not classified. The submariner here said the Trepang can dive in even shallower water. The TWA crash was not "in broad daylight." The Trepang could have filmed falling debris regardless of the time it took it to dive. There are radar tracks other than the 30-knot track.
Bottomline, you don't know what you're talking about.
But I agree with you on one thing..... Reed does overstate the sailor's statements. The sailor was not saying the Navy did it, and he didn't even say a missile did it. But the sailor did say there were other Navy vessels in the area and he said "Im uncomfortable with saying what we was actually doing." Why would that be if their activities were not classified?
Comment #36 Removed by Moderator
To: VectoRama
Reed does overstate the sailor's statements. The sailor was not saying the Navy did it, and he didn't even say a missile did it. But the sailor did say there were other Navy vessels in the area and he said "Im uncomfortable with saying what we was actually doing." Why would that be if their activities were not classified? From Reed Irvines partial transcript:
I: He said they were Navy vessels on a classified maneuver. Thats interesting because he never said-- Oh, he said, Ive said that in public, but I had no record of him...
B: Oh shit. I dont think anything we did off Long Island was classified.
USS TREPANG (SSN-674)
dp. 4229 tons (surf.), 4762 tons (subm.); l. 292'; b. 31.8';
s. 15k (surf.), 25k (subm.); td. 1300'; a. 4-21" tt. amidships aft of bow;
cpl. 12 officers - 95 enlisted men; cl. "STURGEON"
Keel laid down by Electric Boat Div., General Dynamics Corp., Groton, CT, 28OCT67;
Launched: 27SEP69; Sponsored by Mrs. Melvin R. Laird;
Commissioned: 14AUG70 with Cdr Dean R. Sackett, Jr., in command;
Deactivated: 4JAN99.
37
posted on
02/28/2002 8:17:08 PM PST
by
Asmodeus
To: japaneseghost
Sorry, it was not friendly fire. And the data that confirms this?
38
posted on
02/28/2002 8:30:36 PM PST
by
jedi
To: SubMareener
The TWA flight exploded due to an anamoly in the electrical system which somehow blew up the gas tanks. If not, then why have our troops not discovered a videotape of the event and celebration of same at some terrorist camp in Afgahnistan? Our intel guys (or legitimate media) would know by now. I assume all of this, of course (ha ha).
39
posted on
02/28/2002 10:58:14 PM PST
by
buzzcat
To: japaneseghost
a) I cannot answer that at this time; b) sometimes the truth is really nasty and the populace has the right NOT to know; c) the current administration is busy getting down to business; and d) W has no interest in causing any more scandals. It's called "CLASS." Total BS.
And by the way, we are not at war.
40
posted on
02/28/2002 11:23:49 PM PST
by
thepitts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 301-308 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson