Posted on 02/28/2002 9:31:30 AM PST by Asmodeus
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.
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.
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.....
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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.