Posted on 11/16/2007 10:04:18 PM PST by Sioux-san
On the Sunday morning of July 3, 1988, at the tail end of the Iran-Iraq War, an Aegis cruiser, the USS Vincennes, fired two Standard Missiles at a commercial Iranian Airbus, IR655.
The first missile struck the tail and right wing and broke the aircraft in half. All 290 people aboard were killed. Misunderstanding America, the Iranians claimed that our Navy had intentionally destroyed the plane.
The Navy did no such thing.
(Excerpt) Read more at cashill.com ...
As much as I dispise the Horsefaced Wonder, I think he simply mistook TWA800 for Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.
You look at the list he rattled off:
Achille Lauro: 1985
Munich Olympics: 1972
pipe bomb at the Olympics in Atlanta: 1996
TWA800: 1996
(PanAm 103: 1988, trials 2000)
the bombing of embassies: 2001
Horseface is all over the map.
And the NTSB had the CIA make this really neat animation showing how a 747 can lose the entire fuselage from the wingbox forward, yet continue to fly for over 10 seconds and climb over 3,200 feet.
If you have followed this case rather well, you have heard of some evidence disappearing. There have been issues raised conserning this. On this very thread early on I linked reports of metal pellets being taken from the bodies. The forensics of those (what were called) shrapnel (in the article) were not reported out and some of the studies seem to have been ‘lost’ by the FBI.
If we were talking about ten to twenty wing nuts out there who claimed to have seen a missile, I would tend to agree that the sightings might be problematic. When you have over 600 such sightings, you’d have to go way out of your way to dismiss them.
I think you ingore a lot to come to the conclusion you have.
I’m not immune to the perception he misspoke. He did this twice though. And during an interview with ‘Dan Rather’ (I forget the talking head’s name, it may or may not be Rather) James Khalstrom failed to corret them when they listed TWA 800 as an act of terrorism.
I could glom on to these and claim they were proof positive. Instead I simply point them out and let folks gleen from them what they will. I don’t really think they’re proof positive of anything. They are interesting.
I noted below you mentioned the CIA’s cartoon. That was such a major embarassment. I don’t think they have any idea how much damage that did the the credibility of the FBI. Between them, James Kahlstrom and the idiots at Waco and those who fronted for them, it’s a wonder the agency still exsists. I haven’t been able to look at an FBI agent since these events without thinking what a corrupt orgainization it appears to have become.
When I saw that cartoon, I just shook my head. The flights of fantasy involved were so outlandish I doubt a child would have bought into it.
The NTSB also came up with a similar simulation.
Neither Boeing nor the NTSB could explain why, if the center wing tank exploded (which is also the center wing box,) the wings didn’t immediately depart the aircraft instead of hanging on for 10 seconds as the aircraft pitched up 3,200 feet, and all four engines continued to provide thrust. Boeing builds them good, but not that good.
If they got such a basic and fundamental aerodynamic fact wrong, how can anyone believe the remainder of the NTSB’s conclusions?
Well it seems to me that the TWA 800 investigation fell into the same category as a few other government investigations in the same relative time frame.
Bits and pieces of those determinations were also shown to have been very problematic. There were facets of four additional investigations that made it quite clear we weren’t getting the straight scoop.
Ridicule the animation all you want. You still can’t answer any of the questions I posed. It’s easy to laugh at recreations of what might have happened. A little tougher to provide ONE SCINTILLA of forensic evidence of either a) a missile, b) a bomb, or c) anything other than what they said it was.
I repeat-—account for ANY of those positions/questions I posted above. You dodge the issue. No missile frags. No bomb frags. No evidence whatsoever on radar of a missile flying for many seconds. No evidence whatsoever from ANY Navy source-—not even a leak-—that someone fired a missile. This is the serious forensic evidence, not “eyewitnesses.” BTW, there were many eyewitnesses who DIDN’T see a “missile.” How about them?
Why did they HAVE to explain that? It wasn’t relevant to the crash. Once the explosion occurred, it was a done deal.
how could anyone in a row boat fire a tech-support heavy “standard,” which they didn’t have?
It wasn’t a row boat.
BTW, there were many eyewitnesses who DIDN’T see a “missile.” How about them?
Seriously, are you posing this question as a joke?
Are you a plant from the FBI?
We’re not ridiculing it. We’re laughing our asses off at it. And I might add we can’t help but laugh at anyone who would swallow that B.S. cartoon.
Ahhh ha ha ha, ahhh ha ha ha ha...
Oh my gosh, we are playing punch yourself in the fact this evening aren’t we.
It doesn’t matter? Whew...
If I claim to be lying, and I am ,therefore,a liar, then what I said is ‘the truth’.
I appeciate your response, but to be honest I’m not sure where you’re coming from now.
The big ‘joke’ on you and most of the public is that you accept the idea that ELECTRICAL WIRING in the CWT caused the tank to explode.
Well. Your car has an electrical gauge which tells you how much gas you have. It works like a rheostat(is a rheostat) or a potentiometer. Most modern cars also have an ELECTRICAL fuel pump INSIDE the tank.
GASOLINE is much, much more highly flammable than kerosene.
SO, why doesn’t your CAR blow up???
Because engineers designed the wiring and the voltage used, so that would NEVER BE POSSIBLE.
Do you think the engineers for BOEING were not as smart???
Do you really think they would run wiring through the tank if they could not GUARANTEE it would not ignite the fuel???
Do you think the wiring had no insulation? Wasn’t totally isolated from the kerosene???
Have you even seen the wiring on a commercial aircraft???
What wiring changes did BOEING make to the CWT on that particular model of aircraft, after TWA800 crashed???
Do you think it is hotter on the runway, or at FL12 ???
(sorry, 12,000 feet altitude)
“I appeciate your response, but to be honest I’m not sure where you’re coming from now.”
.... me either, now.
False allegations such as that serve no constructive purpose.
Here are two witnesses who prepared their own report and clearly indicate the massive fireball explosion was below 8500 feet, NOT at 13,800 feet as the conspiracy theorists have been alleging for over 11 years. http://208.65.234.212/flight_800.shtml.
The usual "shootdown" allegations obviously are incompatible with that documented evidence.
False allegations? Would you care to expand on that?
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.