How the New York Times blew its biggest story

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Saturday, February 15, 2003 | Jack Cashill

[lonestar]

My local and county are controlled by a Democrat "machine" and sucks. State is better than local.

[Archangelsk]

If I've learned anything at all as an aviator it's this: when a non-aviator or non-engineer is confronted with something he/she doesn't understand (about airplanes or aviation) then their reptilian brain defaults to something he/she can.

[gaucho]

I was on Westhampton beach that day and saw TWA800 explode. I don't buy a ground launch SAM theory. If TWA800 was indeed shot down by a missle it would have most likely come from the air. Even more likely is that a bomb was on board.

To shoot down that plane at the distance it was at and current atmospheric conditions, you would have needed a fairly sophisticated guidance system (not heat seeking or optically guided) with enough range -- certainly nothing very portable or easily hidden if on board a ship.

And if you ever saw something like an SM1 or SM2 being launched from a Navy ship there wouldn't be any question. It's quite a sight!
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/sm-2.htm

The "Ceiling" of the Stinger is Only 1.8 miles
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stinger.htm

SA14 (The USSR's Replacement for the SA-7) its ceiling is also 1.8 miles. Introduced in 1978
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-14.htm

The SA18 is the Third Generation heat seeking man portable missle
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-18.htm

THE UK has supplemented its Stingers with Blowpipes/Javelein/Starstreak series of missles. Unlike the Stinger and the SA-7, 14 and 19 these are opitcaly guided missles, not heat seeking (With the Starstreak riding a laser beam to the target)
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/starstreak.htm

[leadpenny]

You have told us that you are some kind of gifted aviator in a real long sentence, but what is your point?

[Quilla]

Doesn't all this beg the question as to why George W. Bush has not followed up on this?

September 11, a war on terror, Saddam Hussein, North Korea, Iran, troops in the Gulf, a weak economy, nearly two years of an obstructionist Senate, past presidents unprecedently picking at policy, warnings of more attacks, and a left leaning media. I'd say the boy has got his hands full. Hopefully, each criminal act of the Clintons will be exposed by a natural course of discovery and events that make it impossible for critics to play the 'oh, he's just doing this for political reasons' card.

[Archangelsk]

The point is, find a clue.

There, is that short enough?

[leadpenny]

Gee, thanks. That really clears things up for me but what does it have to do with the article posted?

[InterceptPoint]

Doesn't all this beg the question as to why George W. Bush has not followed up on this?

It sure does. It looks like a "let sleeping dogs lie" strategy by the Bush Administration. I don't like it.

[leadpenny]

And, you pinged a FReeper who signed up in Sept 01 and has since been banned. ??

[demkicker]

Right or Wrong, Bush has to worry about our overall economy. Rehashing the tragedy and blaiming terrorism would only hurt the airline industry further. I would, however, like to see the truth come out. Yet another lie and cover-up added to the Clinton legacy.

[exnavy]

I'm trying to understand your meaning in your posts here, could you help me with a little more explaination? Thank you.

[Archangelsk]

You're an aviator, right? OK, do center tanks ever fly without fuel because the dispatcher is adhering to company policy (as long as he doesn't file illegally under Flag operations (FAR 121) and the captain signs off on the dispatch)? Think, maybe, a design flaw by the engineers could have put an electrical, or some other potential ignition source, close to that tank? Think, maybe, that erosion or some other wear and tear element might have exposed an empty tank, full of fumes, to that ignition source?

OK, now that I've got your attention, I'll even benchmark for you: what were the chances that an uncontained engine failure could sever all three hydraulic systems on a DC-9 (United 232, Sioux City)? A billion to one? Think, maybe, the odds were lower for a center tank explosion on TWA-800? Is my point clear now?

The main foul up involved with this whole investigation was that when the incompetent people with guns and badges, the FBI, arrived on the scene, they screwed the site up for the real accident professionals, the NTSB.

[exnavy]

What about Chinese made surface to air? Do they have anything capable?

[exnavy]

Your post #32 answered my question, thanks.

[leadpenny]

Is my point clear now?

Not really. I'm guessing that you are coming down on the side of mechanical failure? BTW, I think you mean DC-10.

[Archangelsk]

My pleaure, you're welcome.

[Archangelsk]

Pardon me, you're right, DC-10. I'm working on a case study for Air Canada 797, which was a DC-9.

[leadpenny]

Was that the lavatory fire? . . circuit breaker procedures?

[Quilla]

I was at work on September 11 and watched the second plane fly into the WTC on an old television with rabbit ears. Shortly thereafter, amid all the tension of the day, George Stephanopolis said (and I'm paraphrasing):

Someone in the White House is probably watching this unfold from the Situation Room. I remember when TWA800 was shot down and Clinton was in the Situation Room....

Hmmmm....

[Archangelsk]

Yes, it was. But it was more than the circuit breakers, there was a breakdown of reliable communications between the cabin attendants and the captain. At first, NTSB found fault with the flight crew (1984), but after a redress and petition by ALPA, NTSB revised their report (1986) and exonerated the crew actions.

The critical gap of four minutes between 1904 and 1908, when the emergency descent was initiated, was all the difference between getting the plane down sooner (Louisville) rather than later (Cincinnati).