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

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 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-308 next last
To: SubMareener
Well you are correct that I am ignorant about many things concerning submarine operations. I think I made that clear when I asked you several questions earlier in this thread. Your expertise would have been incredibly useful in an earlier thread when several folks were arguing that TWA 800 was shot down by a submarine that subsequently left the area on the surface at 30 knots. Obviously, that theory is impossible, but I was labelled "a government shill" for saying so.

But your picture proves my point. The only track in the vicinity of the crash site is the 30 knot track directly below the crash area moving in a southwest direction. Beer's story places the Sub directly under TWA 800. Unless a surfaced submarine doesn't show up on radar, the only track that matches Beer's story is the 30 knot track. Therefore, either the Trepang is a lot faster than you remember, or Beer's story isn't accurate.

51 posted on 03/01/2002 2:39:20 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Magician
What you have posted is of great interest to me. I hadn't followed it as much as I did with TWA 800. (The official TWA 800 explanation was stupidly BS and the CIA video underscores that point.) The rudder flutter as the cause makes sense, not knowing the about the video you mentioned, especially that from the bridge camera. I've not yet seen any of these videos. Have they been released or are they on the web somewhere?

I'm not surprised at a Clinton coverup. After Vince Foster's "suicide", I guess the sky was the limit for what they could get away with. But I expect better from Bush and hope we hear the real truth about both crashes, sooner the better.

52 posted on 03/01/2002 4:15:17 PM PST by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Rokke; Lawdog; SBeck; _Jim; Magician
Reed Irvine: ”His acquaintance, whose name I won’t disclose because it adds nothing to the story, had called me the night before on a line in my office that had been used to take calls for the TWA 800 Eyewitness Alliance generated by an ad placed in The Washington Times on August 15, 2000.”

The last 3 words of the of the referred to full page ad body stated as follows:

Confidentiality is guaranteed.

Click here for the newspaper ad and evidence of Reed Irvine’s interesting support of the Donaldson brothers “shootdown” website. Both of his articles about Randy Beers are also included for future ready reference because of the many questions raised in them about Reed Irvine’s own conduct.

Such as who organized the "TWA 800 Eyewitness Alliance" and who paid for the full page newspaper ad?

That's just for starters.

53 posted on 03/01/2002 4:33:51 PM PST by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

Comment #54 Removed by Moderator

To: n9te; Rokke
"Logic dictates that all aspects of the 'official' Flight 800 investigation have been 'tweaked' or 'doctored' to an intended outcome."

That's what the Grassley Hearing was all about. Click here for the transcript.

55 posted on 03/01/2002 8:30:47 PM PST by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Beer's story places the Sub directly under TWA 800.

That part is hearsay. Look at the article again. Reed's "friend", not Beers, told him that the sub was directly under the debris.

Face it folks! The Government is hiding something.

56 posted on 03/02/2002 2:14:12 AM PST by SubMareener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: n9te
"Logic dictates that all aspects of the "official" Flight 800 investigation have been "tweaked" or "doctored" to an intended outcome."

It does?? What logic is that? Does that mean all investigations are tweaked, or just TWA 800. And since it is the official investigation that is under dispute, what data should I be using? Theories from questionable web forums?

57 posted on 03/02/2002 2:17:35 AM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener
Beer's says they were 1 mile away. My question stands...find a radar track other than the 30 knot track that matches that data.

Beer's story does not check out and the fact that Irvine chooses to publicize it throws his whole goal of "Accuracy in Media" into the crapper. If you're going to insist the government is covering something up, find a new source.

58 posted on 03/02/2002 2:21:07 AM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Any investigation that denies the testimony of 100 witnesses who say they saw a missile go up and hit the TWA 800 is a coverup. There is NOTHING you can post that gets around the witnesses' observations or the obvious coverup.

Another matter that PROVES that a missile took down TWA 800 is the data on the flight data recorder. The instantaneous large changes in the altitude, speed, rate of climb, etc. readings during the last second of the flight perfectly recorded the over-pressure created by the explosion of the missile in the vicinity of the forward part of the airplane.

59 posted on 03/02/2002 5:56:23 AM PST by Magician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Magician
We've been round and round this one. There weren't hundreds of witnesses who said they saw a missile. In fact there were less than 100 who said they saw "a streak of light" rising from the surface and only 40 said it originated from the sea. Almost nobody described it as a missile. That's out of 755 official witnesses. In addition, most of those witnesses were interviewed at least a week after the tragedy. That's after seven days worth of rampant press speculation about bombs and missiles. Finally, almost none of the witnesses reported seeing an accompanying smoke trail which is probably the most obvious indicator of a missile in flight. The much repeated claim that "hundreds of witnesses say they saw a missile hit TWA 800" comes from the Washington Times ad that lists seven witness statements, none of whom say they saw a missile hit TWA 800. So please don't tell me that proves a cover up. As an interesting side note, the Flight 587 eyewitness you referenced earlier who stated he saw the wing come of almost at the same time as the tail is just more clear evidence that the human memory isn't the most reliable source of evidence in an accident investigation. Since the only 587 debris recovered from the water was pieces of the tail, the wing would have had to have "flown" to land, despite his account that it actually appeared to hit the tail.

Whose analysis are you relying on for your second paragraph concerning missile impacts and overpressure? According to many missile theory folks, the missile didn't even explode. That wouldn't cause much of an overpressure. None of the parties involved in the investigation support your analysis, and that includes Boeing, TWA, ALPA, and even the IAM.

60 posted on 03/02/2002 6:42:01 AM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Rokke; Magician
"None of the parties involved in the investigation support your analysis, and that includes Boeing, TWA, ALPA, and even the IAM."

Nor has even one member of Congress, past or present, ever found any of the differing "shootdown" allegations to be palatable. Not even o-n-e. That's because the "shootdown" people are big on wildly reckless allegations and accusatory rhetoric but have routinely fallen on their faces when publicly pressed for meaningful evidence and facts.

Click here for the transcript of the testimony of Bill Donaldson before the Congressional Subcommittee On Aviation.

61 posted on 03/02/2002 10:45:24 AM PST by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

Comment #62 Removed by Moderator

Comment #63 Removed by Moderator

To: Rokke
Your first point "Beers said their activity was not classified." I didn't say he did.

It sure looks like you did. You said:

So if we are to believe Beers, we need to accept that the USS Trepang was operating covertly, in a classified exercise..."

Since Beers said the activity was not classified, I don't see why believing him requires that we believe the activity was classified. Back to your reply.

Your next point "The submariner here said the Trepang can dive in even shallower water." Actually, what he said is it could submerge in shallower water. According to Beers' buddy, Beer's said the sub crash dived. Big difference.

Not a significant difference according to the submariner, who told you..... "The 637 Class boats had very small vents, and no bow planes. A "Crash Dive" would be ordering the vents opened before you left the bridge (see #3)."

Your next point "The TWA crash was not "in broad daylight."" Really? Several eyewitnesses reported observing TWA 800 before it exploded.

If "broad daylight" means "any time in which visibility is not zero," even when the sun is below the horizon, you're right.

Final point: "There are radar tracks other than the 30-knot track." Sure, but find me one that matches Beer's description other than the 30 knot track. There isn't one.

There are some tracks about 4 or 5 miles from the crash. I'm not sure the chart on the other page is as clear as others I've seen. Beers was pretty clear that he's making estimates, he even notes that he doesn't not have navigational charts before him.

64 posted on 03/02/2002 5:37:26 PM PST by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Comment #65 Removed by Moderator

To: Rokke
In fact there were less than 100 who said they saw "a streak of light" rising from the surface..."

What matters is the percentage of those who said where the streak came from surface or sky and who had a clear view. An analysis by Dr. Stalcup and Mr. Shoemaker gives the breakdown based on the NTSB's own data.....


Flight 800 Witnesses on "Streak" Origin

almost none of the witnesses reported seeing an accompanying smoke trail which is probably the most obvious indicator of a missile in flight.

You obviously have not read too many of the witness accounts.

66 posted on 03/02/2002 5:57:58 PM PST by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: n9te
As someone with an interest in physics, I'm sure you'd find the NASA report on the audibility of the CFT explosion interesting:

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/TWA800/exhibits/Ex_4B_appC.pdf

In it, they make it very clear that the explosion would be audible to the witnesses who said they heard it. Your assumption that the noise of the explosion would have to drown out the noise of the four engines assumes that the human ear is not capable of descerning noise of one nature from other noise. In this case, both the engines were audible (I'm assuming) and the explosion. The explosion (as explained in the NASA report) would propogate in a much different manner than the steady roar of the engines. By way of analogy, in an orchestra I can still hear the kettle drums despite the noise of the orchestra even though they are all playing at relatively the same volume. Now imagine the orchestra playing one steady single tone, with a sudden addition of two or three beats on the drum. I think those drum beats would catch my attention. The explosion was powerful enough to blow apart an aircraft frame. I think it was probably louder than a "burp".

67 posted on 03/02/2002 6:03:58 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
"It sure looks like you did."

Then I apologize. My point in the sentence you quote was to highlight the fact that Beer's said he was on the surface in the daylight a couple miles from shore, which is obviously not very covert. I believe the assumption that the exercises were classified is clear in the article as a whole and Irvine states that in his original article concerning Beers. If you believe Beers, then Irvine's theory is wrong.

"Not a significant difference...."

Perhaps SubMareener could clarify this point. Do Sturgeon class subs "crash dive" and would they do so in 20 fathoms of water. And would they do so while making significant headway?

"There are some tracks about 4 or 5 miles from the crash."

The closest track moving at a speed realistic for a surfaced sub (other than the 30knot track) is roughly 8 miles away. That is about the same distance as TWA 800 was from the shore of Long Island. Since none of the witnesses on shore (there were several within 8-10 miles) felt the urge to dive for cover, why would the OOD if the sub was that far away? Assuming TWA 800 was at 13000ft when it exploded, it would be very clear to someone 8 miles away, that they were not threatened by falling debris.

68 posted on 03/02/2002 6:33:46 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

Comment #69 Removed by Moderator

To: VectoRama
"What matters is the percentage of those who said where the streak came from surface or sky and who had a clear view."

If that were true, then the whole streak of light issue has no credence at all, since the percentage of witnesses who reported a streak of light is roughly 25% of the total witnesses. And actually, I read most of the 755 witness accounts. It takes a long time, and doesn't really provide a clear picture of anything.

70 posted on 03/02/2002 6:42:25 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

Comment #71 Removed by Moderator

To: n9te
I think a turbofan drowning out the noise of an approaching storm has something to do with how close each noise source is to you. Move the storm closer to you than the turbo fan and you may notice the storm drowning out the jet noise. The noises from TWA 800 were equidistant from anyone who heard them. Like the noise from each instrument of your son's orchestra.

On a side note, I'm sure if I could play tapes of my junior high band concerts I could prove that the sound of large, burping explosions are clearly audible above the "music" around them. I played the trumpet but had nothing in common with Chuck Mangioni.

72 posted on 03/02/2002 6:59:09 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: n9te
After rereading the first part of your post #65, try reading the sequencing study from the NTSB report. You'll find all your answers there. If you don't believe the NTSB, then perhaps the engineers at Boeing who fully concur with the results of the sequencing study will convince you.
73 posted on 03/02/2002 7:02:51 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

Comment #74 Removed by Moderator

To: Rokke
The closest track moving at a speed realistic for a surfaced sub (other than the 30knot track) is roughly 8 miles away.

Wrong. The very tracks that Irvine refers to are about 2 miles from the crash and travel 14-17 knots. This is from the NTSB's report, and the text on the chart is in the NTSB's report. The tracks are marked by the arrows toward the top, center of the graphic. The crash/debris zone is in the circled area, upper right corner.

So in fact Beers first story passes your truth test.

75 posted on 03/02/2002 7:24:37 PM PST by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
If that were true, then the whole streak of light issue has no credence at all, since the percentage of witnesses who reported a streak of light is roughly 25% of the total witnesses.

It should be clear that the numbers above refer not to the total number of witnesses reporting the "streak" in question but the number who reported the streak and who reported its origin and who had a clear view of that origin. Obviously such a group will be a small portion of all people who heard or saw anything related to the crash.

And actually, I read most of the 755 witness accounts.

Then you should know that most of the accounts are of people who heard multiple bangs or who turned to look after things were already falling. You make it sound like all 755 people were looking in the same area all the time but only 25% saw the mysterious streak. That's as misleading as someone on the other extreme saying almost all 755 witnesses saw a missile.

76 posted on 03/02/2002 7:40:16 PM PST by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

Comment #77 Removed by Moderator

To: Rokke
Whose analysis are you relying on for your second paragraph concerning missile impacts and overpressure? ... None of the parties involved in the investigation support your analysis, and that includes Boeing, TWA, ALPA, and even the IAM.

The official IAM report states on page 7...

"Approximately nineteen (19) holes in the fuselage below the L3 door that appear to originate from the exterior of the aircraft."

Then on page 9 of the official IAM report we find....

"A definite cause cannot be determined at this time. The center wing fuel tank did explode! We find that its explosion was as the result of the aircraft breakup. The initial event caused a structural failure in the area of Flight Station 854 to 860, lower left side of the aircraft. A high-pressure event breached the fuselage and the fuselage unzipped due to the event. The explosion was a result of this event!"

78 posted on 03/02/2002 8:14:24 PM PST by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
If this witness is a fraud, why did X-42 issue an Executive Order that suspended the Whistle Blower protection for all those navy personnel in and around the TWA 800 accident scene.

TWA 800 was brought down by a missile. Whether it was friendly fire or a terrorist act was covered up by the Clinton Administration. The corruption of the FBI and indeed the entire "Justice" Department can be laid at the feet of the felon, rapist, deviant who lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave for 8 long years.

TWA 800

79 posted on 03/02/2002 8:17:53 PM PST by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Comment #80 Removed by Moderator

Comment #81 Removed by Moderator

To: Young Werther
TWA 800 was brought down by a missile.

... to the exclusion of ALL OTHER FACTORS that served to bring down several other Boeing 747 aircraft I presume?

Just how many 'hull rupture events' have been experienced on B747 aircraft?

Did any of these 747's survive their hull ruptures?

How old was the 747 aircraft that was TWA800?

82 posted on 03/02/2002 9:43:14 PM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
... try fitting a ruptured/torn outward-opening forward cargo bay door as the causitive source for all this ... as occurred on *another* Boeing 747 (which, incidently, made it back to an airport with MAJOR damage) ...
83 posted on 03/02/2002 9:47:22 PM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: n9te
”The Grassely Hearings were merely a white wash of the Baltimore Show.”

Huh?

[excerpt from the transcript][emphasis added]
Senator Grassley: I call the hearing to order. I am Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of this subcommittee, and I welcome everybody to the hearing and particularly welcome our witnesses, many who had to go out of their way to be here. We appreciate it very much.

Today's hearing is the result of a 2-year review by the subcommittee into how Federal agencies handled the investigation of what caused the crash of TWA Flight 800. The subcommittee conducted dozens of interviews of professionals from various agencies who were either on the crash scene or were at high levels within the various headquarters of the various agencies.

A consensus emerged from the interviews, supported by documentary evidence, about the conduct of the investigation. The collective testimony from today's witnesses will leave a very clear picture of that conduct, and, of course, it is a troubling picture.

This investigation was run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. There is much doubt about whether the FBI had statutory authority as the lead agency. There will be more on that point later.

What the public knows about the crash and its cause is what they know through countless press conferences and leaks to the press. The public also has heard numerous conspiracy theories and myths or disinformation.

The purpose of this hearing is to provide a much more real picture of what happened and, hopefully, why it happened. The motivation for the subcommittee's efforts is to continue to help restore public confidence in Federal law enforcement. It is my intention to examine some very basic and systemic problems uncovered in this investigation.

The goal is to have a constructive dialogue with the FBI to ensure similar problems are not repeated in the future. No one will be fingered as a scapegoat. However, if the FBI says today that its problems are of the past and it is now fixed, I will not buy that, and I warn the public not to buy it, either. There is a whole lot more to be done before the root causes of the problem are fixed. It is a systemic cultural problem that transcends any simplistic fix.

I would like to give a word about today's witnesses, because it is not easy for them to be critical of questionable actions that they saw by FBI personnel. These witnesses will likely have to work with the FBI again, and the FBI is bigger and more powerful than their agencies. So there is an intimidation factor here.

But that is not why these witnesses are coming forward. They are coming forward because of what they saw and what they saw offended them, both from a law enforcement standpoint and from the standpoint of public safety. They are coming forward because they truly believe it will serve the public interest and will improve the way that we investigate future incidents. This is an honorable thing for these people to do. The subcommittee appreciates their testimony and I am confident that the public will, as well.

This is a story about how the world's preeminent law enforcement agency, at least in terms of image and expectation, sometimes acted like it did not even have a clue. I believe that each and every FBI agent and employee who showed up on the scene of that tragic crash did the best job they could and had the best motives. The same goes for the employees of the other agencies and groups that worked so hard. Many volunteered to do that, and they sacrificed their time and their commitment to a greater and humanitarian good.

There was a basic problem, however. In my view, it was one of leadership. FBI leadership in the case of the TWA Flight 800 was a disaster. The FBI says that its investigation in this case is a model for the future. The FBI believes that even now. I say that because of their testimony they submitted for this hearing.

If the FBI still believes that after this hearing, then I think the American people should be very alarmed about whether or not the FBI gets the message, because this investigation, which by statute was supposed to be run by the NTSB but which was commandeered by the FBI, is a model of failure, not success. And anyone who doubts that is not confronting reality.

The testimony that we will hear today will describe three things. First, it will show how the FBI lacked the proper training to handle an investigation of this type and violated the most basic standards of forensic science in terms of collecting evidence, handling that evidence, and preserving the evidence. It is the kind of thing that would make even rookie cops wince.

Second, we will try to understand the culture within the FBI that allows this sort of thing to happen. Why does the world's preeminent law enforcement agency make the kinds of mistakes that even rookies do not make?

And third, why is it that the FBI would try to prevent critical public safety information from getting to the proper authorities?

A January 1997 ATF report, which will be discussed today, showed that the cause of the crash of the TWA Flight 800 was a mechanical failure. The FBI did not want that report out. It tried to suppress it. The FBI feared that if the case became a criminal case and went to court, the ATF report would be discoverable through Brady doctrine and might help exculpate the potential suspects. But the FBI had the cart before the horse. You cannot start suppressing information when there is no crime. The vast majority of explosions like TWA are due to accidents, not to sabotage. For the FBI to assume first that an explosion is sabotage reveals its lack of experience in dealing with explosion incidents. Indeed, the FBI rarely investigates explosions and fires. Other law enforcement agencies, most notably the ATF, investigate many explosions and have lots of experience.

The proof is in the pudding. The ATF called the cause of the crash correctly, 10 months before the FBI did. In fact, it is fair to say that the FBI hindered the investigation and the public's and the families' right to know, and in the process, in my view, the FBI risked public safety.

84 posted on 03/02/2002 9:55:00 PM PST by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
Can y'all just stop wasting your energy with this one? As I recall, the aircraft was delayed, on the ground with engines going, for something like an hour (this might have heated up the wiring on a warm runway). They were way under passenger capacity and weight that night for a 747. The pilots might have been hauling a** to regain some time. Just pushing it. The aircraft was an old 747 (right?). An Iranian 747 blew up in similar fashion years ago. And, most telling, no Osama or other crazy Arab Terrorist faction has claimed victory in this case (I mean, no videos or testimonials from the perps - and they just love videos and last-will, fixin' to git my 71 Virgins testimony). This was an accident that happened to take place directly over routine military exercises.
85 posted on 03/02/2002 10:09:32 PM PST by buzzcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #86 Removed by Moderator

To: japaneseghost
a) I cannot answer that at this time;

Then you are a coward.

b) sometimes the truth is really nasty and the populace has the right NOT to know;

Bull$hit. Other than military operational readiness data, the public has every right to know what the federal government does with the money it confiscates from the populace.

c) the current administration is busy getting down to business; and

Sure, they get down to business, we get shafted, funny how that works.

d) W has no interest in causing any more scandals. It's called "CLASS."

Yet more bull$hit, it's called covering his a$$. W is no more interested in presenting the truth than were his 2 predecessors. Theonly thing that this President, like those before him are interested in is expanding the power and budget of the federal government. Too bad these idiots haven't learned the lesson that the Soviets learned.

If you aren't for the airing of the truth, then you are a liar.

---max

87 posted on 03/03/2002 4:29:52 AM PST by max61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #88 Removed by Moderator

Comment #89 Removed by Moderator

To: Magician
Reid is the SECOND SHOE BOMBER.

yep.

90 posted on 03/03/2002 7:58:10 AM PST by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
It's that time again, please help keep this site running, click on the picture to donate by secure credit card.

Click here to contribute to Free Repubic!

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794



Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com

80,000 Freepers and Growing - Freepathon

91 posted on 03/03/2002 8:01:21 AM PST by WIMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Black Jade;ratcat;OKCSubmariner;Asmodeus;SubMareener;GBA;Magician;Uncle Bill;Rokke;VectoRama
terminator3armageddon
92 posted on 03/03/2002 8:11:34 AM PST by It'salmosttolate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

Comment #93 Removed by Moderator

Comment #94 Removed by Moderator

To: japaneseghost
We are at WAR and it is not appropriate to start flaming the current administration which has to mop up all the effing stinking excrement that Clinton left behind.

I couldn't have worded this better myself japaneseghost...nice to see ya...regards to Standwatie...

KLT aka Karen

95 posted on 03/03/2002 8:28:17 AM PST by KLT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Magician
"Another piece of information making the rounds among Medical Corps types"

More unsubstantiated rumor, religiously believed by tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists...

96 posted on 03/03/2002 8:29:12 AM PST by Dr. Luv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: aristeides; Nita Nupress; Michael Rivero; mancini; thinden; rdavis84
Have you read this article? ping!
97 posted on 03/03/2002 8:31:08 AM PST by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

Comment #98 Removed by Moderator

Comment #99 Removed by Moderator

To: _Jim
Look at the photos of the center fuel tank. It was compressed inward by some event which most likely was a warhead explosion under the port wing between the inboard engine and the fuselage.

As yourself this question. Why are the autopsies of the victims classified? It is reported that one of the X-Ray technicians exclaimed that the autopsy X-Rays showed that the victims were full of shrapnel. That technician was taken off the case and the autopsies were CLASSIFIED!

The top surface of the horizontal stabilizer had jet turbine blades imbedded which suggests that one or more engines were "spittin'" blades. Since the center fuel tank did not explode per the "story" then what caused the jet malfunction? Missile warhead anyone?

The westernmost victim was identified as a gentleman seated at the rear of the aircraft. This and the imbedded turbine blades show that the aircraft broke apart and the tail separated before that mythical climb that the NTSB/CIA contrived to explain away the missile trails observed by over 500 witnesses!

Finally. there were the post 911 interviews with Senator Kerry, George Stephanopolous, and FBI Agent-in-Charge Kallstrom that TWA-800 was brought down by a bomb and was a terrorist act.

I've read Aviation Week for 40 years and never have I witnessed such bull-cr*p from an aviation accident. Boeing and the machinist unions have disavowed the fuel tank explosion.

A missile did it and Xlinton covered it up. After all what's more important, the safety of US citizens or the re-election of the rapist?

100 posted on 03/03/2002 9:18:55 AM PST by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 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.

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