Posted on 06/07/2016 5:18:37 PM PDT by Kaslin
On the pleasant summer evening of July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800 left JFK Airport in New York bound for Paris. Twelve minutes after takeoff, about ten miles south of the popular south shore of Long Island, at least two surface-to-air missiles blew the 747 out of the sky, killing all 230 people on board.
I write the above with 100 percent confidence. I owe that confidence to the efforts of a small corps of committed individuals -- eyewitnesses, independent researchers, whistleblowers from within the investigation, and family members who have turned their grief into action. In attempting to get at the truth, at least three of these people were arrested, several others were thrown off the TWA 800 investigation, and every one of them was ridiculed.
In TWA 800: The Crash, The Cover-Up, The Conspiracy (Regnery: July 5), I get to tell their story, an epic one. What makes the story so compelling is that these everyday citizens have struggled against a Goliath that could not have been more powerful. The opposition includes, among other powers, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the FBI, and the CIA.
In a totalitarian country, authorities can suppress information at will. In America, the media have to collaborate in that suppression, and this they did, closing their eyes to the obvious and accepting without evidence the government’s unproven theory of a spontaneous fuel tank explosion.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
No problem if you are in a small boat off of JFK. STATEMENTS BY EYEWITNESSES
"We saw what appeared to be a flare going straight up. As a matter of fact, we thought it was from a boat. It was a bright reddish-orange color. Once it went into flames I knew that it wasn't a flare." - Lou Desyron, Flight 800 eye-witness; ABC World News Sunday; 07/21/96.
"I looked up because it sounded like thunder. I kept looking trying to figure out what it was. And that's when I saw a flare come off the water. The flare, trailing orange flame, shot up roughly at a 45 degree angle, then rapidly increased its angle of ascent. Then it appeared to strike something. This was the strangest thing I ever saw. Everyone calls it a 'missile theory,' but when you see something, you know what you see, and I didn't see a 'theory'." - Tom Dougherty, Flight 800 eye-witness; interviewed on Hard Copy, 1996''
"It was what we would best describe as a boat flare, a reddish object going up. It went up and a few seconds later we saw an explosion in the sky. I can't say if it came off shore or on shore. At first, we thought it was a boat flare. It zigzagged a little. We thought it was strange. Then, several seconds later, we saw an eruption of fire. We never heard anything. We saw a fireball, and at that point we identified what was an aircraft. We could see it fluttering down. We were the third boat on Long Island to report the incident to the Coast Guard. It was something going up to it beforehand. Yes, I saw flaming debris go down. Something attracted us to the area before it exploded. And even my wife and my oldest daughter, we all were witnesses to it. There definitely was something there first before the aircraft went down." - Donald Eick, Flight 800 eye-witness; October 20, 1997; The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, CA.
"I picked it up three seconds before it turned into a bright white ball, which split. I thought it was fireworks. And then I didn't know what to think because from the white ball, I saw two wide orange bands of light fall down, obviously the fuel igniting. I'll lay my ass on the table and tell the president or the FBI, and someone can hypnotize me: There was no way that red light was descending. It was ascending. It made contact with what turned out to be that airplane and made a white bright light and then split in two. If I were in a courtroom and the prosecutor says I've got an eyewitness, then I become a trump card. We're not just one witness but 135 or more strong. I saw something hit the right side of the plane. My opinion was it blew the wing off on impact. I assumed something went through the airplane, like behind first class and into the wing. My honest opinion, my gut feeling, is that we have the most brilliant people in the world and the best technology, [and] if they've been on scene for a year and they've not come up with something, as a critical thinker I have to ask, could they be covering up something?" - William Gallagher, fisherman from N.J. who witnessed Flight 800 crash; October 20, 1997, The Press-Enterprise
"More than 150 credible witnesses - including several scientists and business executives - have told the FBI and military experts they saw a missile destroy TWA 800. 'Some of these people are extremely, extremely credible,' a top federal official said. 'When we asked what they saw and where they saw it, the witnesses out east pointed to the west, and the people to the west pointed to the east'." - The New York Post, September 22, 1996.
"My God! Somebody's shooting at that airplane!" - Crew of a British Airways jet flying behind Flight 800 whom radioed to air traffic control; July 17, 1996.
Read at the link for plenty of others.
“You can’t keep an entire crew silent, not about something like this.”
They didn’t. A lot of eye witnesses on the news right after said they saw a rising streak before the explosion.
As for a ship, it could have been a smallish boat with only a few crew. It was not all that far off the coast.
Why would you need a whole ship? It was only a few miles off the coast. Many mid size boats could carry a decent size missile.
“I could not say anything at the time because I had an active clearance.”
If you ever had an active clearance then you would know you still can’t say anything, even after you go inactive.
PFL
...And allow Clinton to lose the re-election to Mr. Dole.
Stinger range at the time was 16,000 feet. I recall the TWA was about at the altitude.
Being shot at by one.
Ranges are ballistic ranges, not an accurate reflection of tactical engagement range. Classified 3-1 manuals have nice graphics showing this.
The jet was a receding target and if MANPAD was shot, it would have been a tail chase and that significantly reduces the range. Meaning the jet would be outside the range of the missile by the time it got to altitude.
Again, small missile, non reflective, no plume, motor burned out, no way it can be seen at the ranges discussed—unless you are superman.
What do I base my comments on? 3-1 study and see Post 139.
Yeah, I know, but this is vitally important for our country.
BTW, the new sensor did NOT use IR or RF..or anything else that easily comes to mind.
Like I said, it was designed to kill the largest solid object in the sky.
At the time I was briefed it seemed like a cool innovation.
However, I did have a fleeting thought about how an autonomous missile could distinguish friend from foe.
My point is and was: The media covered up for the US guvmint. The Russians and Chicoms were not fooled. The cover up was only designed to keep the sheeple in the dark.
I can understand the panic in the Black World when this happened. What if the media started asking a lot of uncomfortable questions?
If you worked in R&D, you know that compartments are as small as possible. I have seen programs where only the scientist or engineer, one guy, really knew what was being developed.
“Didn’t happen before or since.”
Not exactly.
Center-line fuel tanks have a history of explosions. There is a history of aircraft loss due to wire chaffing, electrical arching and such. While the short-list of examples provided below are 707-type, it is a threat that all jets have because electrical wires and hydraulic lines are routed through fuel tanks for cooling. 707, fighter aircraft, 747, it is almost universal that all jets are designed that way.
KC-135: History of Destroyed Aircraft (USAF version of the B-707 is the KC-135: https://airrefuelingarchive.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/kc-135-history-of-destroyed-aircraft/
“22-Jun-59 57-1446 A Walker AFB Main fuel tank explosion on ramp (maintenance)”
“3-Jun-71 58-0039 Q Torrejon AFB Crashed following in-flight explosion of the nr. 1 main fuel tank. Chafing of boost pump wires in conduits was determined to be as a possible ignition source.”
“13-FEB-87 60-0330 A Altus AFB Landed on the runway at altus afb on fire, cause was an arc in the fuel vapor area due to a compromised coax from the HF radio, aircraft subsequently burned to the ground in the infield after it rolled off the runway”
“4-Oct-89 56-3592 A Loring AFB In-flight explosion (aft body tank) during approach”
FAA: “ Since 1959 there have been 18 fuel tank explosions on transport category airplanes” http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%20120-98A.pdf
The cost of complying with regulations that remove the center line tank explosion threat is tens upon tens of millions of dollars, and the airlines absorbed that cost. . .and the airlines and OEM know the systems and if they knew the tank was not the cause then there would have been lawsuits and public hearings challenging the regulation. And with the threat of another center line tank explosion, the airlines and OEM have to fix the problem otherwise they would be sued out of existence. . .the fact the airlines and OEMs did not challenge the regulation and made the changes means they knew it was the cause.
Mitigation study: https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/systems/AIAAFDC32143b.pdf
Center fuel tanks do tend to explode when hit by missiles.
“But it’s been years since we went over all these things. All I remember is the one key piece of evidence, namely there was no explosive residue anywhere, only a minute trace of what could have been “pass through” residue, as if a missile “got away” from the Navy and went right through 800 without exploding.”
It is just an amazing coincidence that the US Navy was performing pyrotechnic maneuvers along the NY/NJ coast that day...
You betcha they do, and the plane was hit by a missile
No, it’s not. There was a major Air Force wargame on . . . 9/11, which is the only reason a couple of fighters were even scrambled as early as they were!
BTW, there were only 16 planes total protecting all of US air space on 9/11.
But these maneuvers and wargames go on constantly.
I like this theory, but why would anyone test in such busy air space?
Was there someone on that plane Clinton didn’t like?
Were they?
Your answers make a lot of sense, but I still don’t think every single person that would be involved with an accident of this magnitude would have kept their mouth shut, whether they were military or private contractor.
Even if there aren’t any moral people left in the world, somebody, somewhere in whatever entity they work for, is disgruntled and would spill the beans.
That was one of my questions too. And I am a submarine vet.
And I spent most of my 30 years in the Air Force hunting you.
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.