Posted on 06/20/2016 11:33:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
When I see former FBI New York honcho Jim Kallstrom appear on Fox News, I see a tortured soul. As boldly honest as he has been on the subject of Islamic terrorism, this once honorable man has lived a lie for the last twenty years on the subject of TWA Flight 800. Others have lived the lie as well, but none so personally.
It was Kallstrom who spoke to the press, Kallstrom who testified at congressional hearings, Kallstrom who consoled the families of the 230 dead with the assurance he would leave “no stone unturned” in his pursuit of the truth.
When Kallstrom arrived on the scene in Long Island the day after the crash in July 1996, the truth was indeed what he was seeking. By July 30, 1996 -- less than two weeks after the 747 blew up -- FBI agents had interviewed 144 “excellent” witnesses to a missile strike. As revealed in a recently unearthed CIA memo, the evidence was “overwhelming” and the witness testimony “too consistent” for the cause of the plane’s destruction to be anything other than a missile.
1996 being an election year, however a missile strike on an American airliner involved far too much political risk for the Clinton White House. Working through the CIA, its operatives took effective control of the investigation. For reasons only he knows, Kallstrom knuckled under.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Well, let’s say you’re right. What would your graph of altitude vs. time look like? At what time did the nose separate? Would your graph show the wreckage landing where it was found?
I don't think that what we saw in that VIDEO was a plane FLYING.
I don’t think that what we saw in that VIDEO was a plane FLYING.
...
So it was on the ground the whole time?
In that video, the aircraft has engines running and the nose of the plane is still attached to the rest of the fuselage.
...
That wasn’t my point. My point was that a plane can gain altitude even after a rear shift in the center of gravity.
Gee, what did the other side of the plane look like ? You know, the side they normally don't show .
Back to the other side.
it stalled immediately and the result was catastrophic. This lends evidence to your scenario.
...
According to the NTSB the cargo shift occurred at rotation. The aircraft did fly and gain altitude until it stalled. Swordmaker claimed an unbalanced aircraft with a rearward shift in the center of gravity can’t fly or gain altitude. I offered the video as a counterexample.
The NTSB report is here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1501.pdf
What would cause the middle of the fuselage to be ripped out (ahead of the CWT, plus the debris moved sideways from the flight path at OVER THE SPEED OF SOUND) and THEN the NOSE to crash to the ocean past where the middle section was found ?
Well.... there were NAVY SHIPS all over the place RECOVERING the parts, so they couldn't claim they didn't find them. They were seen by the public when offloaded onto shore.
The public outcry (of a possible missile) forced Clinton to allow the 'investigation' to proceed, but he had the FBI takeover the investigation from the NTSB.
You are trying to make your point based on a simplistic statement which everyone else understands, but you refuse to acknowledge because it will hurt your case.
Sure it still 'flew'. Like a rock flies when you throw it up in the air.
20:31:48:94 — ~2,800 ft. - 36.94 sec Eighth post IE radar return. - Shortly after the Flight TWA800 falls below the radar horizon and no further radar returns are received.
...
It looks like the last radar return from JFK was at 20:32:10. Are you sure you aren’t using the radar returns from ISP? It looks like your timeline could be in serious trouble.
You are missing the point. Actually, several points. The 'middle' section came out first. (The section in RED). It came out sideways at over the speed of sound. (maybe it had side mounted retro rockets, huh?)
Then the Nose continued forward and down. So there was a lot more than the nose that was 'separated' from the rest of the fuselage and wings.
How did that affect lift and stall speed?
Once the wings got to enough of an upward angle (having lost two major sections of the plane just ahead of the wings), there is no such thing as 'lift' or 'stall speed'. The plane, in that circumstance, is just a piece of metal falling out of the air in a simple ballistic arc.
Why did the middle section come out sideways AHEAD of the alleged CWT explosion, then the nose (now unattached to anything) falls in an arc to the ocean, then the rest of the fuselage, wings, and ...oh... THE CENTER WING TANK ?
If the CWT blew up FIRST, why didn't it hit the ocean FIRST ?
The NTSB's claim and evidence were controlled and directed by the FBI. I guess you explicitly trust the 'government' (even knowing today how crooked they have been all along) ?
Anyway, here is the Ringmaster with his positive proof.
This is the piece allegedly taken from the CWT where the "arcing of metal" allegedly occurred.
Remember, this particular piece would have been at the center of the explosion.
I can guarantee you that that piece of metal has never been in a fire and explosion.
To put it a simpler way, the stall speed of an aircraft that has the middle section in front of the wings blasted out sideways, while the nose arcs in a path to the ocean, and the rest of the fuselage and wings tilt upwards at an extreme angle is.... INFINITY. Wouldn’t matter how fast or slow it was going, it was no longer ‘flying’ in the aeronautical meaning of the word.
With the wings tilted up, there was no lift. They were 'stalled' the instant they tilted up.
Since you seem to want to pursue the meaningless, let me ask you this.
After the wings separated from the fuselage, what was their stall speed ?
The only reason that video is on youtube, and that you posted a link to it, is because it is a video of an aircraft CRASHING. Falling out of the sky in a complete and total stall.
The main reason for the stall is because of a load shift to the rear, (which was minor compared to the loss of everything in front of the wings on TWA800), AND the plane was intact (while TWA800 was not).
So... are you playing ignorant, or are you just making jokes because it's obvious you lost the debate on that particular point ?
Only that , like a rock, if it's trajectory is on the upward curve of an arc, it will carry as far as momentum vs. gravity allows.
A cannon ball continues upward after it leaves the cannon barrel, but it only continues upward for so long, then it arcs back down. A cannon ball has little drag. A blown up airplane had a lot of drag, and no lift.
The amount of altitude something like that would gain is still based completely on a ballistic path with the addition of major air friction due to ripped open fuselage and wings/elevators/rudder/etc.
The length of time it could continue 'upward' and the altitude gain are miniscule.
In that video, how long after the load shift did the plane tilt up and completely stall ? 2 seconds ?
That's about how long TWA800 could have 'climbed'.
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.