TWA Flight 800 - Page 2

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - TWA Flight 800 (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 9/8/2004 12:41:40 PM EDT

[#1]

Give me a few to dig it up...

Posted: 9/8/2004 12:43:03 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Give me a few to dig it up...

Please post some REPUTABLE sources. Not tinfoil hat websites. No Rense.com and their ilk.

Posted: 9/8/2004 12:44:21 PM EDT

[#3]

ok, here's something that should be independently verifiable:

How many people are on (Federal) death row?

What is the average time from sentencing, through appeals, to execution for same?

Was that time interval significantly different for this case?

Posted: 9/8/2004 12:52:31 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
ok, here's something that should be independently verifiable:

How many people are on (Federal) death row?

What is the average time from sentencing, through appeals, to execution for same?

Was that time interval significantly different for this case?

There are currently 32 inmates on Federal death row. McVeigh was the first executed since 1963. There have been two more since his execution. McVeigh took four years form sentence to execution, the other two took eight. Sample size is far too small to draw ANY conclusions.

All but one of the current inmates was sentenced under a 1994 law. The exception was sentenced under a 1988 Act, but was not sentenced to death until 1993. He was executed eight days after McVeigh.

Posted: 9/8/2004 12:58:04 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
...can you provide a SOURCE for that? Or did the voices in your head tell you?

Here ya go:

Excerpted from OKC’s Mideast Connection.

During 1993 and 1994, President Clinton brought several thousand "former" Iraqi soldiers to America for "resettlement." Under angry prodding from the American Legion and the VFW, Congress expressed feeble "outrage" and called on the President to halt the program. The Administration never provided Congress with the information it had requested on the "resettlement." It may be, of course, that Mr. Hussain and his comrades are perfectly innocent immigrants seeking asylum from Saddam Hussein’s evil clutches, as they claim. But it should be remembered that when "master bomber" Ramzi Yousef entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport in 1992 he also claimed to be seeking asylum and claimed to be a member of a Kuwaiti resistance group fighting Saddam Hussein. And he was not the first. Many intelligence reports had cited the aggressive effort by Saddam to infiltrate his agents into the U.S. during and after the Gulf War. In fact, the Washington Post reported on January 28, 1991 that, according to "highly classified U.S. intelligence reports," Saddam Hussein had "dispatched more than 100 terrorists, both experienced and novice, to try to infiltrate the United States." What would be the political fallout if it were discovered that Mr. Clinton’s Iraqi "defectors" had a hand in the OKC bombing?

But there are additional, more important reasons for bringing Mr. Yousef into the picture other than as an evil exemplar. According to a couple of his notorious terrorist comrades, Yousef’s group was directly responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing. So says Abdul Hakim Murad, who, along with Ramzi Yousef and Wali Khan, was convicted on September 8, 1996 in New York City for conspiring to blow up 12 U.S. airliners. If that plot had been carried out successfully, as many as 4,000 passengers — or more — might have been killed. On April 19, 1995, Murad was in his New York jail cell when he received news of the bombing in Oklahoma. According to his prison guard, as reflected in an FBI report, Murad stated that the Liberation Army, of which he was a member, was responsible for the bombing.

Edwin Angeles, the military strategist for the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group, was arrested in 1996 and is now in the custody of Philippine authorities. Interviewed in his Philippine prison by McVeigh defense team members, Angeles said that Murad was referring to the Palestine Liberation Army and/or the Islamic Jihad. Angeles also stated that the Oklahoma City bomb plot had been hatched at a meeting he had attended in Davao, Philippines. With him at that meeting, he said, were Yousef, Murad, Khan, and an American who "introduced himself as a farmer." That "farmer," he says, was Terry Nichols.

Nichols, remember, married a Filipino "mail order" bride, then renounced his U.S. citizenship and moved to the Philippines. Even after moving back to the U.S., he made a number of trips to the Philippines that have raised many troubling and unanswered questions. According to sources who have seen the FBI’s reports on its OKC-Philippines investigation, Nichols’ landlord in the Philippines reported that Nichols did have a book on bomb making. And Nichols was in the Philippines during the same time periods that Ramzi Yousef and his terrorist network were operating there.

My mistake. Abu Sayyaf/PLA/Islamic Jihad, not AQ.

ETA: Source is www.thenewamerican.com, online version of the magazine.

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:01:42 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
ok, here's something that should be independently verifiable:

How many people are on (Federal) death row?

What is the average time from sentencing, through appeals, to execution for same?

Was that time interval significantly different for this case?

There are currently 32 inmates on Federal death row. McVeigh was the first executed since 1963. There have been two more since his execution. McVeigh took four years form sentence to execution, the other two took eight. Sample size is far too small to draw ANY conclusions.

All but one of the current inmates was sentenced under a 1994 law. The exception was sentenced under a 1988 Act, but was not sentenced to death until 1993. He was executed eight days after McVeigh.

Interesting (I honestly didn't know the answer before posing the question) - it did seem quick, especially when compared with PA (where after nearly 25 years, two monsters STILL sit on death row:

For a week during the Christmas holidays in 1980, John Lesko and Michael Travaglia went on a crime binge near Pittsburgh that came to be called the "kill for thrills" spree. Between Dec. 29, 1979, and Jan. 3, 1980, they took the lives of a church organist, an unemployed security guard, a seamstress and a rookie police officer. John Lesko was sentenced to death in the 1980 killing of Leonard Miller, a rookie police officer from Apollo, Armstrong County. Lesko pled guilty in the drowning of William Nicholls, 34, of Mount Lebanon.

Just one example, but seems like everywhere, killers sit on death row for at least a decade...

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:03:34 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
...can you provide a SOURCE for that? Or did the voices in your head tell you?

Here ya go:

Excerpted from OKC’s Mideast Connection.

My fault for not being clear - I meant a LEGITIMATE or REPUTABLE SOURCE

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:04:55 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ok, here's something that should be independently verifiable:

How many people are on (Federal) death row?

What is the average time from sentencing, through appeals, to execution for same?

Was that time interval significantly different for this case?

There are currently 32 inmates on Federal death row. McVeigh was the first executed since 1963. There have been two more since his execution. McVeigh took four years form sentence to execution, the other two took eight. Sample size is far too small to draw ANY conclusions.

All but one of the current inmates was sentenced under a 1994 law. The exception was sentenced under a 1988 Act, but was not sentenced to death until 1993. He was executed eight days after McVeigh.

Interesting (I honestly didn't know the answer before posing the question) - it did seem quick, especially when compared with PA (where after nearly 25 years, two monsters STILL sit on death row:

For a week during the Christmas holidays in 1980, John Lesko and Michael Travaglia went on a crime binge near Pittsburgh that came to be called the "kill for thrills" spree. Between Dec. 29, 1979, and Jan. 3, 1980, they took the lives of a church organist, an unemployed security guard, a seamstress and a rookie police officer. John Lesko was sentenced to death in the 1980 killing of Leonard Miller, a rookie police officer from Apollo, Armstrong County. Lesko pled guilty in the drowning of William Nicholls, 34, of Mount Lebanon.

Just one example, but seems like everywhere, killers sit on death row for at least a decade...

You cannot compare state and federal death rows. Different rules, different appeals processes, etc.

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:07:05 PM EDT

[#9]

yup, that's why I asked the question about stats on the Federal side...

as an aside, is there a specific limit on the number of conspiracies which may be addressed in a single thread? Need to know before I bring up Vince Foster...

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:08:38 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
...can you provide a SOURCE for that? Or did the voices in your head tell you?

Here ya go:

Excerpted from OKC’s Mideast Connection.

My fault for not being clear - I meant a LEGITIMATE or REPUTABLE SOURCE

But, I did in fact ask him for REPUTABLE sources. I specifically said no tinfoil hat sites.

The author of the piece you linked is a keynote speaker at John Birch Society events. Not exactly a source with lots of legitimacy,.

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:09:15 PM EDT

[#11]

This is fucking ridiculous. And this whole discussion epitomizes why people with a conspiracy theory about TWA800 are generally looked upon as nutcase retards with no credibility whatsoever.

Let me begin by saying that I in fact do think the fucker was blown up. I think it was a terrorist attack. I don't think any of us knows the true reason for the coverup, even though most people will rant on about how it was "to cover Clinton's ass". Whatever. There goes yer credibility.

The FACTS are that this fuel tank explosion business HAS HAPPENED ON 737s!!!!! Therefore, it can happen on the 747 which has a very similar fuel system. Shithouse opinions on the flammability of fuel won't change that FACT. I do also know for a fact that Honeywell is working on the FRS system for Boeing.

One critical flaw people with a conspiracy theory always make is never, ever conceding that there might, just might be another possibility than their favored theory. Bullpucky. There is ALWAYS a possibility. Improbable, maybe, but possible nonetheless. But when I hear rants talking about red herring issues like exposing diesel to sparks and it not blowing up, as if it were the final piece of damning evidence just PROVING the fucker was shot down, I know I'm hearing BS. As a matter of fact, I have arc welded inside a fuel oil tank before, and the thing didn't blow up. I'm not a fucking fuel systems engineer though so I must look at the FACTS I do have access to. That the 737 has had this issue.

In conclusion, in arguing FOR the theory that the plane was bombed/shot down, don't get sucked into the rathole argument that it COULD NOT have been a fuel system issue. It can happen, it has happened, those are facts.

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:09:20 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
...To tell you the truth, that attack reminds me of Middle Eastern terrorist organzation except the executers of the plan happened to be white guys. Everything else about the attack is line for line out of the Middle Eastern Car/Truck bomb playbook, heck the Hadji's taught the IRA how to do them.

So you wouldn't be suprised to hear that Nichols traveled to the Philipines and met with known Al-Queda operatives before the blast? 'Cause that's exactly what happened.

There were also a bunch of eyewitness reports that place men of Middle-Eastern appearance with McVeigh in the days leading up to the attack.

Of course, eyewitness accounts are unreliable, and the FBI sort of "lost" those files until after McVeigh was sentenced.

Go figure.

That's bullshit!

Here's the proof that McVeigh and Nichols didn't have help, Nichols was robbing gun collections to finance the project. These guys were so broke they had to resort to robbery to buy enough components for the bomb and to rent the truck. You think that with the millions of dollars that Al-Qeada had, they could have given a couple of thousand dollars to them so they wouldn't have to resort to these drastic measures to build their bomb.

What kind of assistance could AQ or anyone else provide if these guys didn't have enough money in the first place?

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:09:48 PM EDT

[#13]

I don't know what happened to the plane so I don't have an opinion but I remember during the 911 hearings someone remarked that the TWA 800 flight was an act or terrorism. THis was during testimony about previous acts of terror that preceded the Bush Whitehouse.

Also, a recent Canadian arrest of an Al Qadea type alluded to the fact that Youseff had successfully masterminded the downing of TWA 800 with a smuggled aboard bomb much like the type that Richard Reid (the shoe bomber) was found in possession of.

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:12:22 PM EDT

[#14]

Flight 800....wasn't that the one where some kid on a High School trip to Europe freaked out and he and some friends were kicked off? Then they all died later in a series of freak accidents?

Bomber

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:13:57 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
I do also know for a fact that Honeywell is working on the FRS system for Boeing.

Like I said earlier, I can back that up too. It is a fact. My father is working on the system right now at Honeywell.

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:20:52 PM EDT

[#16]

My fault for not being clear - I meant a LEGITIMATE or REPUTABLE SOURCE

But, I did in fact ask him for REPUTABLE sources. I specifically said no tinfoil hat sites.

The author of the piece you linked is a keynote speaker at John Birch Society events. Not exactly a source with lots of legitimacy,.

Sorry, no UFO stories like rense.com, nor the mainstream pap the networks put out. If you want to live in the NBC/ABC/CBS world, have at it. The JBS is all right by me.

As far as "reputable sources" which part of FBI interviews and testimony given to McVeigh's defence did you not read in the article?

You're right, they could be fabricated, and I'll have to take Jasper's word for it or get my own FOIA request together. I'm guessing that he might be telling the truth.

-FMD

PS; You might actually want to find out what the JBS is about before the tin-foil pronouncement. The rep has done lots of damage, but if you dig you'll find it's undeserved.

Oh, and before I forget, the AP thought enough of a couple of the JBS's "tin-foil" theories on OKC to report the same - seven years after they appeared in the TNA. linky

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:26:44 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
This is fucking ridiculous. ... don't get sucked into the rathole argument that it COULD NOT have been a fuel system issue. It can happen, it has happened, those are facts.

Decaf Pete!

I don't think that anyone (including myself) said that it HAD to be terrorism. My original thought was that things were hinkey, and I don't trust the "official" proclamation. That's it.

As far as the rest of the stuff, you're right, we got waaaaay off track.

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:31:54 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
My fault for not being clear - I meant a LEGITIMATE or REPUTABLE SOURCE

But, I did in fact ask him for REPUTABLE sources. I specifically said no tinfoil hat sites.

The author of the piece you linked is a keynote speaker at John Birch Society events. Not exactly a source with lots of legitimacy,.

Sorry, no UFO stories like rense.com, nor the mainstream pap the networks put out. If you want to live in the NBC/ABC/CBS world, have at it. The JBS is all right by me.

As far as "reputable sources" which part of FBI interviews and testimony given to McVeigh's defence did you not read in the article?

You're right, they could be fabricated, and I'll have to take Jasper's word for it or get my own FOIA request together. I'm guessing that he might be telling the truth.

-FMD

PS; You might actually want to find out what the JBS is about before the tin-foil pronouncement. The rep has done lots of damage, but if you dig you'll find it's undeserved.

Oh, and before I forget, the AP thought enough of a couple of the JBS's "tin-foil" theories on OKC to report the same - seven years after they appeared in the TNA. linky

Someone claiming that something is in an FBI report doesn't make it so - especially when that comes form a webpage FILLED with reports of how TWA 800 was SHOT DOWN BY A MISSILE. That claim has been made over and over again, and is completely unsubstantiated.

So I don't put much credence at all in a webpage of "news" that perpetuates urban legends and conspiracy theories.

That's kind of the OPPOSITE of reputable and legitimate

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:32:02 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
This is fucking ridiculous. ... don't get sucked into the rathole argument that it COULD NOT have been a fuel system issue. It can happen, it has happened, those are facts.

Decaf Pete!

I don't think that anyone (including myself) said that it HAD to be terrorism. My original thought was that things were hinkey, and I don't trust the "official" proclamation. That's it.

As far as the rest of the stuff, you're right, we got waaaaay off track.

No problem. That little rant wasn't actually directed to anyone specific here. Just a general pet peeve of mine. Kind of like friends of mine who, in the process of telling a non-gunner the flaws of the AWB and how stupid it is, steal defeat from the jaws of victory by going off on some tangent about reptoids under DIA secretly running our government. This usually happens just before said non-gunner was about to be converted to our way of thinking, but instead walks away thinking we're all a bunch of nutcases. Again, there may be big lizards assraping Ted Kennedy at DIA for all I know, but you don't bring that up in the first 5 minutes of conversation with someone you've just met, ya know?

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:37:59 PM EDT

[#20]

it's amazing how many freaking government cheerleaders we have on this site!! You actually believe your government?? Ha Ha Ha

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:43:48 PM EDT

[#21]

I read in "Why America Slept" by Posner that the TWA800 thing was a bit suspect. His position is that the timing was suspicuous... I think there was some Iran-sponsored meeting of terrorists just days or weeks before it happened, and that they discussed how to get a bomb into a bulkhead next to the fuel tanks.
<shrug>

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:51:03 PM EDT

[#22]

Center fuel tank explosion my ass. No other 747 in 30+ years of operation has even hinted at experiencing a problem such as the one they proposed in the case of TWA 800. Bomb or a missle took that thing down. 1996 Clinton was too busy getting BJ's under the desk to have to worry about the problems of terrorism. It was in the interest of .Gov and the airlines to cover it up. PAN AM 103's on US soil would've crippled the industry, much like we saw in the time after 9/11. Easier to just sweep it under the rug & keep moving. Then 9/11 came along, .Gov couldn't cover it up & we took the gloves off.

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:52:07 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
it's amazing how many freaking government cheerleaders we have on this site!! You actually believe your government?? Ha Ha Ha

It's amazing how many nutball conspiracists we have on this site. You actually don't listen to facts?? Ha Ha Ha

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:53:15 PM EDT

[#24]

Yes, the Philippine & Thai 737's did have fuel tank explosions, (I don't think) anyone stated it was positively NOT a fuel tank explosion, however, several conditions do have to be met (hence the sidetrack into flashpoints, lel/uel & inerting) for an explosion to occur. That's nothing more (or less) than science. In fact, the FRS systems do partially inert (reducing available oxygen) to lessen the likelihood of explosion.

What is unsettling is as soon as a feasible, non-terrorist possible cause was identified, there is considerable evidence that other avenues of inquiry were discouraged or abandoned. That does not mean that it was not a fuel tank explosion caused by an "unknown spark", but does damage the credibility of the overall investigative effort. You eliminate what can't happen to find out what can, not work to promote a pet theory (this applies to both the invesstigators and the tinfoil hatters)

If you have ever been involved with any equipment failure post-mortems, and the prestige (and liability /bottom line) of a company are at risk, you will very often see certain things discouraged. People that don't toe the line are either sent to corporate gulags to rot out the balance of their careers, or suddenly "laid off". No tin foil there, fact. Happens over and over, and is all too common. (whistleblower laws sound great in theory, but nobody hires a whistleblower, your career is done.) Governments operate very similarly to large corporations, and rocking the boat is not rewarded in either.

Posted: 9/8/2004 1:54:01 PM EDT

[#25]

let me jump in here for a bit. seems the only topics i post on are aviaiton ones.

i can't say i know what happened to twa800. i don't think we'll ever know. but what i can say, with near absolute certainty, is that what the cia video says happened, didn't. i just don't think its possible for an explosion in the center wing box violent enough to cause the entire forward fuselage to sheer off, for the wings to retain structural integrity enough to execute a climb. most all boeing aircraft ( not sure about the 777 ) are built basically the same. you have the center wing box, the wings are attached to the center wing box with fittings forward and aft to attach to the fuselage, then the fuselage is built around the wing box.

(tin foil time)
because i don't know, i'll ask. does anyone know if a loaded 747 can make a transatlantic flight on just wing cells and the vertical cell? and if it can, if they had an emergency, can they land with the wing cells full? and if they can't, they would have to dump fuel from the wings, then the fuel in the vertical cell would offset the cg aft, so they would have to dump the vertical cell, too. then what fuel are the engines running on?

Posted: 9/8/2004 2:04:05 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

But, I did in fact ask him for REPUTABLE sources. I specifically said no tinfoil hat sites.

The author of the piece you linked is a keynote speaker at John Birch Society events. Not exactly a source with lots of legitimacy,.

Here are some more "tinfoil-hat" types regarding the McVeigh/Nichols/Mideastern Terrorist OKC thing:

November 19, 2001 Insight Magazine
Article: Iraq Connections to U.S. Extremists
by Kelly Patricia O’Meara:

Link to the story

Oct 29, 2001 U.S. News & World Report
Article; "McVeigh's Ghost" (part of his"Washington Wispers" column)
By Paul Bedard:

Link to (archived) article

Here's some more:

Misc Articles from Indianapolis Star

Edited to correct link for the IndyStar.

Posted: 9/8/2004 2:05:43 PM EDT

[#27]

The CIA "simulation" was actually the thing that got me thinking something was rotten in Denmark.

It showed the plane climbing smoothly to 12 or 13K (feet), then the explosion and the front falls away, and the plane picks up and climbs another 4000 feet before rolling over & dropping?

Aerodynamically, an open 747 fuselage would be quite the load for 4 engines (even at full throttle) - and all of the control surfaces maintained a smooth climb? With the yokes gone? No yaw? No roll?

Some things just strike you in the gut as being extremely improbable and that video was it.

Posted: 9/8/2004 2:13:20 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

But, I did in fact ask him for REPUTABLE sources. I specifically said no tinfoil hat sites.

I almost forgot to add:

Rep. Dan Burton (head of the congressional investigation into OKC) doesn't exactly strike me as a "tin-foil" kind of guy either.

~~What's he up to lately?~~
What was he up to the last time anybody looked at the OKC bombing?

Burton's panel finds links to foreigners in Oklahoma blast
by James Patterson
The Indianapolis Star
Published: August 24, 2002

Yep, the .gov's theory of two nitwits and a small truck bomb is looking better and better each time the ~~lie~~ tell it.

Edit changed strikeout question for DK-Prof, PAEBR, and guardian855.

Posted: 9/8/2004 2:16:56 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:

But, I did in fact ask him for REPUTABLE sources. I specifically said no tinfoil hat sites.

I almost forgot to add:

Rep. Dan Burton (head of the congressional investigation into OKC) doesn't exactly strike me as a "tin-foil" kind of guy either.

What's he up to lately?

Burton's panel finds links to foreigners in Oklahoma blast
by James Patterson
The Indianapolis Star
Published: August 24, 2002

Yep, the .gov's theory of two nitwits and a small truck bomb is looking better and better each time the ~~lie~~ tell it.

Wow, a bunch of articles from two and three years ago, all basically citing each other. I'm convinced.

Posted: 9/8/2004 2:18:12 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:

But, I did in fact ask him for REPUTABLE sources. I specifically said no tinfoil hat sites.

I almost forgot to add:

Rep. Dan Burton (head of the congressional investigation into OKC) doesn't exactly strike me as a "tin-foil" kind of guy either.

What's he up to lately?

Burton's panel finds links to foreigners in Oklahoma blast
by James Patterson
The Indianapolis Star
Published: August 24, 2002

Yep, the .gov's theory of two nitwits and a small truck bomb is looking better and better each time the ~~lie~~ tell it.

So, you haven't answered my original question, if McVeigh and Nichols had the help of a large terrorist organization, or even a middle eastern country like some people theorize, why did they have to resort to robbing people to pay for it? Wouldn't those countries have finacned it?

And what's wrong with the gov. theory? Look at how easy it was to make the bomb. It was diesel fuel and fertilezer, not that hard to make. Hell, didn't they get one of the components at a race track? What did they need for the bomb, fuel, fertilzer and a rental truck? Not something that you would need anybodies assistance for.

Posted: 9/8/2004 2:20:27 PM EDT

[#31]

For TWA 800, the missile theory is complete tinfoil, a SA-7 or other Manpads just were not designed for shooting down aircraft 10,000 ft and above. They are for low level aircraft , particularly helicopters. The theory of the Navy shooting a damn SAM at it is complete and utter tinfoil, a strike from a RIM-66/67 with 137 lbs. (62 kg) continuous rod warhead would have been immediatly apparent.

A carry on explosive is not outside the world of possibility like the Richard Reed shoe bomb plan but TWA 800 was in the Salt Water too long to yield any hopes of recovering explosive residue. The Fuel tank is probably the likely culprit. IIRC, no terrorist organizations came out and claimed they knocked it from the air. Al-Queda if they had done so would be proclaiming their success against the infidels, it would have been great PR in the Arab world. TWA-800 IMHO was a victim of Mr. Murphy, sometimes weird shit happens.

As far as OKC, I think there were more than Tim McViegh and Terry Nichols involved. I can't prove it but I would not be surpised if McViegh or another one of his Neo-nazi buddies didn't at least get some directions on how to make and use a car bomb from the Middle East. The whole attack was very well planned and executed, we have seen over the past few years just how proficient the Hadjis are at using them. I however don't doubt for a second the ability and determination of Tim McViegh to carry out the attack, his record as a soldier showed he could be relied on to complete the mission at hand.

Posted: 9/8/2004 2:30:10 PM EDT

[#32]

JP-4 Flash point is -77 degrees F
Jet A Flash point is -40 degrees F
Jet A-1 Flash point is -53 degrees F
JP-5 (Navy use) Flash point is 140 degrees F

Diesel Fuel typically has a flash point between 100 and 160 F

Flash point is the temperature at which a liquid will give off enough vapor to ignite. Lower flash point equals more volitale fuel. JP-4/5 are military fuels. Jet A is more common in civilian use that A-1, but both have significantly lower flash points than diesel fuel. Source for aviation fuel flash points is my H-46 NATOPS manual.

Bottom line - Jet A/A-1 vapors are pretty easy to ignite compared to diesel fuel.

Posted: 9/8/2004 3:01:05 PM EDT

[#33]

MTUSA: I'm sorry for the hijack. I didn't mean it to get this out of control.

Quoted:
Wow, a bunch of articles from two and three years ago, all basically citing each other. I'm convinced.

You're right. My use of the term "lately" was wrong. As far as citing each other, I disagree.

The TNA article I cited mentions the Insight article. The Insight article mentions the comments of author of the US News piece on FoxNews (not his written piece). The copious IndyStar articles reference none of the above.

That's far from "all basically citing each other".

As far as the articles being from a few years ago, you do realize that it happened almost a decade ago right?

While you might not be convinced of a link, I am. I was asked for corroberating "non-tin-foil-hat" sources, and I gave them.

Guardian: I don't think I addressed your question.
[hint]Perhaps, though, if you went back and read the cites I gave, your question would be answered. [/hint]

H46 Driver: I'm not an aircraft mechanic (obviously) so can you break down to me how JET A, if it is comprised of 98% Kerosene, would have such a low flash point? Also, is the following statement from this article: "Aircraft then went to using Jet-A commercial jet fuel. It is kerosene-based and has a flashpoint of 49 °C (120 °F). It's a high-quality fuel that includes an anti-freeze to prevent ice buildup inside fuel tanks. Jet A-1 is used by most turbine-powered aircraft. It's quite similar, but it has a higher freezing point." that far off?

I'm seriously asking, because all the flashpoint data I've come across indicates that kero has a similar flashpoint to diesel.

So anyone wanna make the claim that the ATF was telling the truth that Koresh was running a meth lab?

Posted: 9/8/2004 3:23:38 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
JP-4 Flash point is -77 degrees F
Jet A Flash point is -40 degrees F
Jet A-1 Flash point is -53 degrees F

Those are freeze points, not flash points.

flash points are ~38C for A1 & ~46C for A (those are ~ "approx" not - "minus" signs!)

for anyone who is interested in a detailed analysis of fuel ignition (wrt TWA800), try this paper

(Cal Tech paper)

Posted: 9/8/2004 3:26:13 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Faulty wiring

\

Caused by a stray AIM-9 ............... Wooops

Posted: 9/8/2004 4:52:24 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Max range on a shoulder fired missile is about 5 miles, So I find it very hard to believe that someone shot it down while in flight.

Wow! Since there are 5,280 feet in a mile, the ceiling limit is 26,400 feet according to your report. TWA flight 800 was a 13,700 feet when it fell out of the sky. BTW, the unclassified maximum effective altitude of shoulder-fired surface to air missles are about the same altitude of TWA flight 800. The classified maximum effective altitudes are higher and a bARFCOMer leaked a few here back then.

Pakistan manufactures their own version of the Stinger (but a Chinese copy) that can shoot a 747 down at TWA flight 800's altitude. They been manufacturing those since at least 1994. Get this, Pakistan's missiles are manufactured at a facility named after Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program!

Edited to add: Unknown to the average American, Pakistan put great emphasis on building surface to air missile technology near equal to nuclear weapon technology. The reason was India's superior Air Force. Pakistan believed that a significant arsenal of shoulder-fired missiles could negate India's advantage. Ane why not? The world saw how the tables were turned against the Soviets in Afganistan due to the US supplied Stingers.

Posted: 9/8/2004 5:34:48 PM EDT

[#37]

About the “Shoulder Fired Weapon”…Those rocket launchers are noisy! Long Island is crowded. So how come nobody heard the launch?

Posted: 9/8/2004 6:00:55 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Remember that flight that left Long Island and went down after take off into the Atlantic (late 90's)
What was the ruling on that? I don't recall any official answer. Witnesses claimed they saw a flash before it went down (ie: missile)

Nope...it wasn't a missile...it was faulty wiring igniting fuel vapors in the center fuel tank...

Read this: www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/AAR0003.htm

Posted: 9/8/2004 6:10:51 PM EDT

[#39]

Peter Lance's theory was as follows (I caught most of the Fox News broadcast this morning):
Before TWA800, another passenger blew themself up on another 747, but too far forward to detonate the fuel tank. Damage was limited to dead passenger and a hole in the floor. This required the next bomber be moved further back to rupture the tank.

In prison, a mobster was in the cell between Yousef and whoever he was passing info to, the mobster started letting the cops know the contents of the notes.

The cover-up came when they wanted to prosecute the mobster: if it was let out that he helped the FBI on TWA800, his testimony (in another mobster's defense) might be seen as more truthful to the jury, which couldnt be allowed as it would unravel the fed's entire case against all of them. Yousef and the other dude were already in prison till the end of time for their other crimes, so it was decided by Ms. Gorelick (?) and buddies to just let the terrorist angle die and blame a malfunction so the mobsters could all be imprisoned.

Kharn

Posted: 9/9/2004 12:21:59 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Max range on a shoulder fired missile is about 5 miles, So I find it very hard to believe that someone shot it down while in flight.

Wow! Since there are 5,280 feet in a mile, the ceiling limit is 26,400 feet according to your report. TWA flight 800 was a 13,700 feet when it fell out of the sky. BTW, the unclassified maximum effective altitude of shoulder-fired surface to air missles are about the same altitude of TWA flight 800. The classified maximum effective altitudes are higher and a bARFCOMer leaked a few here back then.

Pakistan manufactures their own version of the Stinger (but a Chinese copy) that can shoot a 747 down at TWA flight 800's altitude. They been manufacturing those since at least 1994. Get this, Pakistan's missiles are manufactured at a facility named after Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program!

Edited to add: Unknown to the average American, Pakistan put great emphasis on building surface to air missile technology near equal to nuclear weapon technology. The reason was India's superior Air Force. Pakistan believed that a significant arsenal of shoulder-fired missiles could negate India's advantage. Ane why not? The world saw how the tables were turned against the Soviets in Afganistan due to the US supplied Stingers.

The Stinger's ceiling is listed as 10,000 feet, a typical ceiling for most shoulder launched missles.

FAS

Also, shoulder launched missles are infared guided, the missle would have struck an engine, not the fuselage.

Also, a plane doesn't blow up in mid air because of a shoulder launched missle. If you are lucky, you might cripple it to the point where it crashes, but you are going to damage the plane, not blow it up in mid air. I saw an Airbus plane get hit by a shoulder launched missle coming out of Baghdad. It was a smaller plane than a 747. The plane didn't blow up in mid air, it turned around and landed again. The missle had struck the wing right next to an engine (again, because it's infared guided)

Posted: 9/9/2004 12:32:15 PM EDT

[#41]

WHAT!?!?!
You mean they don't blow up like they do in the MOVIES!!

Here is the aftermath of a stinger missile hit on a C-5 (bigger than a 747)

Quoted:

Also, a plane doesn't blow up in mid air because of a shoulder launched missle. If you are lucky, you might cripple it to the point where it crashes, but you are going to damage the plane, not blow it up in mid air. I saw an Airbus plane get hit by a shoulder launched missle coming out of Baghdad. It was a smaller plane than a 747. The plane didn't blow up in mid air, it turned around and landed again. The missle had struck the wing right next to an engine (again, because it's infared guided)

Posted: 9/9/2004 12:50:31 PM EDT

[#42]

And notice where it got hit

the engine, not the fuselage

Posted: 9/9/2004 1:14:28 PM EDT

[#43]

To obliterate a 747 or similar sized aircraft, you need a large SAM along the lines of a SA-2 or RIM66/67 missiles.

Note. Some of the Tinfoil types think the Navy used a RIM-66/67 SAM to down TWA 800 which is rubbish as the Continuous Rod warhead spews unbelieveable amounts of INDENTIFIABLE frag.

SA-2 (200 Kg warhead)

RIM-66 (137 lbs. (62 kg) continuous rod)

Posted: 9/9/2004 1:50:56 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

The Stinger's ceiling is listed as 10,000 feet, a typical ceiling for most shoulder launched missles.

FAS

Also, shoulder launched missles are infared guided, the missle would have struck an engine, not the fuselage.

Also, a plane doesn't blow up in mid air because of a shoulder launched missle. If you are lucky, you might cripple it to the point where it crashes, but you are going to damage the plane, not blow it up in mid air. I saw an Airbus plane get hit by a shoulder launched missle coming out of Baghdad. It was a smaller plane than a 747. The plane didn't blow up in mid air, it turned around and landed again. The missle had struck the wing right next to an engine (again, because it's infared guided)

So it's likely it wasn't a Stinger. (the Mistral might have slightly more reach, but still a long shot) Perhaps a Qianwei?

NAME: Qianwei-1 (QW-1)

TYPE: Man-portable shoulder-launched ultra-low-altitude surface-to-air missile

INVENTORY: The QW-1 has reportedly entered service with the PLA ground troops and navy ships. The missile has also been exported to Pakistan.

PROGRAMME

The QW-1 (Qian Wei = Advance Guard) is China's second-generation shoulder-fired air defence missile. First appeared at the 1994 Farnborough air show in the UK, the QW-1 is claimed to be comparable to the U.S. Stinger missile, with longer effective range, target seeker tracking capability, and warhead power.

Compared to the first generation HN-5 shoulder-fired SAM, which can only attack jet aircraft targets from tail aspect, the QW-1 is capable of engaging jet and propeller-driven aircraft and helicopters from all aspects. As well as being carried by soldiers, the QW-1 can be fired from launchers mounted on vehicles and ships, or used in the mixed anti-aircraft artillery and air-defence missile battery, or carried by helicopter as a short-range air-to-air missile.

SPECIFICATIONS

System Length: 1.532 m
System Weight: 16.5 kg
Missile Length: N/A
Missile Diameter: 0.071 m
Missile Launch Weight: N/A
Propulsion: Single stage solid rocket
Operating Altitude: 0.03 ~ 4 km
Operating Range: 0.5 ~ 5 km
Maximum Speed: 600 m/s
Guidance: Infrared
Warhead: 0.57 kg HE fragmentation

"IR guided, so it will go for the engines" you might say? Yup, but look what else is (white)hot in the IR spectrum on a 747:

Possible that something more than an "unknown spark" blew the center fuel tank?

This might be a bit curious then, a few months later, in the same neck of the woods,

On November 16, 1996, subsequent to the TWA 800 downing, a missile was fired at two commercial aircraft in the vicinity of Long Island. Pakistan International Airlines Flight 712 left Kennedy at 9:25pm, bound for Frankfurt. The pilot, W. Shah, said his co-pilot saw an orange light coming from the left hand side to the right hand side of the airplane. The object was 3 - 4 miles in front of the aircraft and above it. Boston apparently confirmed 'two unidentified blips' on radar. The tapes were turned over to the FBI and NTSB since the object(s) rose directly out of Long Island Sound and ascended almost vertically. Radio 5 in the U.K. reported that the object which crossed the Pakistani aircraft had exploded. On a McNeill - Lehrer newshour, when asked about the direction of the object, Mr. Kallstrom admitted that it was "ascending". TWA Flight 884 was following close behind the Pakistani flight.

Another report on this incident stated:

"This evening I flew flight 1504 FLL to BOS. It was an extremely clear night over the Eastern Seaboard. You could see the Connecticut shoreline from Cape May, NJ. We were at FL 330 just east of JFK proceeding direct to PVD. It was about 10:15 PM when an aircraft asked center the following question: were there any fireworks going off in the area. Center replied in the negative, to the best of their best knowledge. The aircraft then reported they had something streak up towards them from the left and pass in front of them and through their altitude. There was silence on the frequency. I asked center the position of the aircraft reporting the event. Center replied 20nm south of HTO. It was a foreign carrier, but judging by the accent of the pilot, I would say it was Air India or Pakistan Intl. I didn't get a call sign, and to my surprise, center did not ask any more questions. It was a crystal clear night, and we could see the Hamptons from our position. There were no fireworks taking place anywhere. Unless the controller was working both frequencies, the aircraft was at least climbing to or in the high sector. Fact is someone reported a streak that came from the ground and to the left of them and passed in front and through their altitude. It was 10:17 when center replied to me that the aircraft was 20nm south of Hampton. Is it merely a coincidence this is close to where TWA 800 blew up, or is something else going on? I don't believe the aircraft was flying inverted and that was a meteor that streaked by their windshield. Again I was amazed at the silence of the controller after the report. This event certainly got our attention."

Kallstrom told Lehrer on the PBS Newshour of November 17, 1996 that object observed was probably a meteorite .....

Lehrer: Now, the latest new public report, was that of a Pakistan airlines pilot, who said he saw, quote: "something with lights in the sky" near where this TWA plane went down that night. Have you determined what that might have been?
Kallstrom: We think it was a meteorite shower, Jim, we're not absolutely sure. We've interviewed the pilot. He's a highly experienced pilot. Appears to be very competent. Has a good memory of what he saw. We have no doubt that he saw what he described; an object he thought ascending from his left to his right. We're in the process of looking at radar tapes and other things to tell us if we can know for sure there was some other event. But there were reports that evening of meteorite showers. They were reported widely throughout Suffolk County.
Lehrer: And the National Weather Service confirmed it, did they not?
Kallstrom: More than likely, Jim, that's what it is, but we're still looking in to it.

You be the judge of Kallstrom's conclusion. He had the following audio file and transcript

Kallstrom's attitude throughout the whole investigation was one of dismissive arrogance. Perhaps 800 was simply a fuel tank explosion, but the "don't question us" demeanor of the investigative head did little to lend confidence to the findings, back to the tape...

PIA 712: Boston Pakistan 712
FAA: Pakistan 712 go ahead
PIA 712: Do you have any fireworks going on in this area where we are? We just saw a kind of a large something just streak ahead and it went beyond our altitude.
FAA: Ah ... no .. nothing reported other than that. You said it was some large streak?
PIA 712: It came up diagonally from left to right and it crossed our altitude right in front of us.
FAA: OK thanks.
1504 FLL: Boston Center 1504
FAA: 1504 Go ahead
1504 FLL: Yea - where about is that aircraft that reported that streak?
FAA: Ah .. He's about 20 miles south of Hampton
1504 FLL: 1504
TWA 884: Boston Center TWA 884 heavy just out of four thousand for one one thousand
FAA: TWA Flight 884 Boston Center Climb and maintain flight level 190
TWA 884: Flight level 190 TWA 884 heavy
FAA: Pakistan 712 Boston
PIA 712: Boston 712
FAA: Just to confirm .. you saw like something that was like a white streak coming from below and ending up on top of you - that went out in front of you? .. I'm not sure exactly what you saw. Could you classify maybe what you saw?
PIA 712: It was a streak of light like some kind of a large firecracker rocket or something like that coming from below .... from the coast side - left to right ..... climbing beyond our altitude. At that time we were about 16,000 feet.
FAA: OK. Thanks very much.
FAA: Kennedy Departure (unclear)
Kennedy Departure: Kennedy
FAA: I'm going to put TWA on a 70 heading. Is that OK? 884
Kennedy Departure: Ya I'll shove over
FAA: Thanks
FAA: TWA 884 Fly heading 070
TWA 884: 070 TWA 884 heavy
TWA 884: Boston TWA 884. Where was that fireworks area?
FAA: 884 Actually, I'm kinda ... I'm going to vector you around the area. It's about 20 miles .... actually, 30 miles south of Hampton.
TWA 884: OK and I understand some type of rocket?
FAA: Yea ... we had a Pakistan just reported ... looked like a firecracker that was passing from left to right about 30 miles south of Hampton.
TWA 884: 884 heavy thank you.
TWA 884: Firecrackers don't go past 16,000
FAA: I hear ya!

back on 800 for a bit, remember the simulation where NTSB claimed the explosion occurred, the nose fell off, and the plane continued to climb for another 4,000 feet before rolling over & heading down? And how long that took?" (think rate of climb on a 747 & compare it with the reports from an air-witness)

Eastwind Flight 507 8:31:50: We just saw an explosion out here.
Eastwind Flight 507 8:32:01: Ah, we just saw an explosion up ahead of us ... It just went down -- in the water.
Virgin Atlantic Flight 009 8:32:25: I can confirm that. ... It looked like an explosion out there about five miles away, six miles away.
Controller: ..507 Thanks for that report. New York on 113.05. Good day sir.
Eastwind 507 8:37:05: Anything we can do for you before we go.
Controller 8:37:11: Well I just want to confirm that you saw the splash in the water approximately 20 south west of Hampton. Is that right?
Eastwind 507 8:37:20: Ah yes sir it blew up in the air and then we saw two fireballs go down to the water and a big smoke plume coming up from it. Also there seemed to be a light - I thought it was a landing light - coming right at us at about 15,000 feet and I put my landing light as soon as I saw him and then it blew.
Controller 8:37:40: Roger that sir. That was a 747 out there - you had a visual on that. Anything else in the area when it happened?
Eastwind 507 8:37:47: I didn't see anything - seemed to be - I thought he had a landing light on - maybe it was a fire - I dunno.

Link with Real Audio files of actual ATC tapes

It all makes for interesting musings over a cold beer, but for all the energy expended in the investigation, it does seem somewhat hollow. Why?

selections from 800 by the numbers

270
The number of eyewitnesses that the FBI admitted saw what appeared to be ascending streaks of light.

34
The number of eyewitnesses interviewed by analysts from the Defense Intelligence Agency's Missile and Space Intelligence Center whose descriptions "were very consistent with the characteristics of the flight of [surface to air] missiles."

1
The number of eyewitnesses the New York Times interviewed.

0
The number of eyewitnesses that the New York Times interviewed who had seen an ascending streak.

1
The number of witnesses, according to the CIA, who saw the crippled and ascending TWA 800 that merely looked like a missile ("the man on the bridge").

1
The number of interviews the CIA fully fabricated ("the man on the bridge").

3,200
The number of feet the CIA claimed the noseless plane climbed.

1,700
The number of feet the NTSB claimed the noseless plane climbed.

750
Of the roughly 750 total FBI eyewitnesses the number who did not see the noseless plane climb at all, including other airline pilots.

12
"Or less." The number of total eyewitnesses that, a year later, the New York Times was reporting had seen the crash.

0
The number of Freedom of Information Act requests to which the NTSB has responded to show its climb calculations.

0
The number of ships or subs the Navy claimed were within 185 miles of the disaster.

4
The number of Navy ships or subs the FBI, in its final report, admitted were in "the immediate vicinity" of the disaster.

7
The number of days it allegedly took the Navy to find the black boxes in 130 feet of calm water off the Hamptons.

7
The number of hours it actually took the Navy to find the black boxes of a crashed Turkish airplane in 7,200 feet of water earlier in that year off the Dominican Republic.

4
The number of seconds missing at the end of both the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder.

3
The number of satellites in position to record the disaster.

3
The number of satellites reportedly broken at that very moment.

0
The number of times the New York Times used the word "military" or "satellite" in the first two months of reporting on TWA 800.

5
The number of minutes it took the Department of Defense to alert Russia that one of our satellites had spotted a Ukranian missile accidentally downing one of its aircraft in October 2001.

5
The number of different official explanations authorities gave for what the FAA radar technicians had seen "merge" with TWA Flight 800 on the night of July 17.

116
The number of pieces of "suspicious" debris, many of which had tested positive for explosive residue in Long Island, that were sent to the notorious FBI lab in Washington.

116
The number of pieces of suspicious debris that were never heard of again.

150
Roughly the number of airline pilots I have communicated with since the book came out.

3
The number who believed that mechanical failure had destroyed the airplane.

2
The number of times Sen. John Kerry referred to the destruction of TWA 800 as a terrorist act on national TV.

0
The number of references to TWA Flight 800 in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligent Report in 1996 and 1997, on which committee Kerry sat.

Posted: 9/9/2004 1:59:47 PM EDT

[#45]

So if TWA800 was a massive cover-up by the Clinton administration of a terrorist plot, why did the Bush adminstration not expose this, thus proving how much tougher on terrorists Republicans are?

Just curious.

Posted: 9/9/2004 2:14:35 PM EDT

[#46]

Number of streaks I saw when I watched a missle fly into a passanger airplane out of BIAP?
None

You're telling me that a shoulder launched missle with a half a kilogram warhead completely disintergrated a big 747 after striking it on the fuselage, ignoring the four huge giving off heat engines?

Percentage of wreackage from Flight TWA800 was recovered?
90%

How many fragments were recovered from the crash site that comprised fragments of a missle, plane or drone other than flight TWA800?
None.

How many people would know the truth of the investigation if it was a missle or related to terrorism if there was a coverup?
dozens, maybe even hundreds

How many people have come forth with "the truth" in 10 years? (excluding tinfoil types who did not work on the investigation)
none

Other Passanger planes (Airbus or Boeing) that have been hit with a shoulder fired missle?
At least one, I think there might have been another one

How many of those blew up completely in mid air?
none

Posted: 9/9/2004 2:27:35 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
So if TWA800 was a massive cover-up by the Clinton administration of a terrorist plot, why did the Bush adminstration not expose this, thus proving how much tougher on terrorists Republicans are?

Just curious.

gee, I dunno, wrecking the already shaky airline industry & economy & destroying the public's belief that their government would never lie to them?

Note that I've never stated that I believe 800 was downed by a missile, just that the investigation was run by non-technical bureaucrats and is riddled with conflicts and questionable activity (NTSB asked CIA to change a simulation that they did from radar data - Why? Changing something to fit your premise is junk science, and I've seen it done first-hand in industry.)

If they are confident with their conclusions, then why not accept independent review? And what's with dismissing 100's of witnesses as suffering from "mass delusions"? Why all the hush-hush, and why persecute the hell out of the guy who tried to get the seat material tested? Why not slap him with a fine but let the results out in the open for all? What is so bad about getting a second opinion? The only people I know that don't like second opinions are afraid of being shown up as imperfect. Big problem with DC appointee egos.

Do things happen your government does not tell you about? Absolutely (and often with good reason, or at least good intention) I have no idea if that's what happened here or not. It might be a good investigation marred by arrogance. Personally, I'll take all the data I can get, be it hard data, eyewitness data, you name it. Root causes usually reveal themselves with enough input.

Posted: 9/9/2004 2:59:11 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Number of streaks I saw when I watched a missle fly into a passanger airplane out of BIAP?
None

That was during the day, right? 800 went down at 8:30PM Eastern. How many meteors do you see during the day?

Stinger just before impacting test F14:

Just after impact:

(time 5:30AM)

You're telling me that a shoulder launched missle with a half a kilogram warhead completely disintergrated a big 747 after striking it on the fuselage, ignoring the four huge giving off heat engines?

No, I'm asking the question if it is possible that a missile impacting the center fuel tank detonated the vapors within, breaking the aircraft apart. Look at the IR image again, that's what the missile is homing on. Look what is dead nuts center (and also white hot), the packs right under the fuel tank.

Percentage of wreackage from Flight TWA800 was recovered?
90%

How many fragments were recovered from the crash site that comprised fragments of a missle, plane or drone other than flight TWA800?
None.

Takeoff Weight of a 747-100: 875,000 pounds

10% of that: 87,500 pounds (missing material)

Weight of QW-1 system 36.3 pounds

% of 87,500 pounds missing material that a QW-1 would comprise - .041% (4.14857 e-4)

needle in a haystack, eh?

How many people would know the truth of the investigation if it was a missle or related to terrorism if there was a coverup?
dozens, maybe even hundreds

Not sure how you draw a numerical estimate. You can have one person withhold evidence and it could be a coverup. Two for a conspiracy. Beyond that is anybody's guess. Look at how long the Manhattan Project was kept under wraps, and that was more than a few hundred. Not saying that is what happened, just that the "inability to keep a secret" fails as a scientific benchmark.

How many people have come forth with "the truth" in 10 years? (excluding tinfoil types who did not work on the investigation)
none

8 years, but who's counting. Depends on if there is a "hidden truth" and if so, how many know about it. Hell, the whole Roswell revival got started by a guy who told his kid something 30 years after the "fact"

Just because someone is selected for an investigation doesn't mean they are the best-qualified, I've seen (personally) "team players" selected over more capable folks for the aftermath of industrial accident investigations. When death & liability are involved, an expedient (and favorable to the interested party) solution is highly desired.

Other Passanger planes (Airbus or Boeing) that have been hit with a shoulder fired missle?
At least one, I think there might have been another one

How many of those blew up completely in mid air?
none

If it hit an engine, not surprising. If it hit a fuel tank...

Posted: 9/9/2004 3:27:03 PM EDT

[#49]

More on the Qianwei / Anza

The Qianwei-1 made its first public appearance at the 1994 Farnborough International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition in the United Kingdom. The Qianwei-1 caught the attention of foreign media and research institutions when it was first introduced to the public because it was claimed to surpass the US Stinger in maximum effective range, target seeker tracking capability, warhead power and other indicators.

The Anza anti-aircraft missiles give Pakistan a response to India's superiority in modern aircraft -- India has a numerical superiority in modern fighter aircraft of more than 3 to 1 over Pakistan. The Anza MK-1, Anza MK-2, and Anza MK-3 surface to air anti-aircraft missiles have ranges of 4, 6 and 15 km, respectively. The missiles are manufactured by the laboratory named after Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program.

The Anza MK-II is a portable shoulder-fired, IR homing air defence weapon system similar to the US Stinger missiles. It has a maximum slant range of 5 kilometers, though in the future the maximum range will be increased to almost double. The Anza MK-II is an improved version of Anza MK-II, which was handed over to Pakistan Armed Forces in January 1990. The Anza MK-II was inducted in Pakistan Army in September 1994, and has been locally produced in Pakistan since October 1994. The improved version is a lightweight portable system incorporating a contact-fuse warhead. The main differences from the earlier version are in its high speed (600 M/Sec), accuracy and sustained velocity, high maneuverability and all aspect engagement capability. It can be used to target both fixed and rotary targets and the missile can be fired by a soldier either on his feet or knees. It can be launched in automatic mode as well as in manual mode. The maximum altitude gained by Anza is 4000 meters, and it can carry 550 grams of warhead explosive. Its reaction time is less than 3.5 seconds, while transition time from movement to ready for operation is less than 10 seconds. Its self-destruction time is between 14 to 18 seconds. The launch motor to have a safe distance between the gunner and the missile after it is released has a jettison/separation characteristics. The total length of the missile with launch motor is 147-7 mm and its weighs 10.68 kg. The operating time of ground battery is more than 50 seconds, and the operating temperature range is between minus 40 centigrade to plus 55 centigrade.

L Type 2-stage, low altitude
Length
(missile, with booster motor) 1.447 m
Weight 16.5 kg
(total launch assembly in
firing condition)
(missile at launch) 10.68 kg
Propulsion solid fuel booster and solid fuel sustainer rocket motor
Guidance cooled InSb passive infra-red homing seeker
Warhead HE fragmentation (containing 0.55 Kg HE) with contact and
graze fuzing
Average missile cruise speed 600 m/s
Max missile manoeuvring 16 g
Self destruction time 14-18 s
Max effective slant range 5,000 m
Min effective slant range 500 m
Max effective altitude 4000 m
Min effective altitude 30 m
Weapon reaction time less than 3.5 s
Time from march to ready less than 10 s
for operation
Battery operation time more than 50 s

4000 meter = 13,123feet

So we have missiles being produced in Pakistan prior to TWA800's downing, okay what next?

EXCERPT of ABC INTERVIEW 28 MAY 1998 John Miller and Usama Bin Laden:

JOHN MILLER: Mr. Bin Laden, these are most of the questions we came with. Is there anything else that I did not ask that you would like to add?

[NON-PERTINENT SECTION CUT]

USAMA BIN LADEN: ... "The Saudi Arabian government captured a few months ago in Ramadan a number of missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, SAM and Stinger missiles. Can the American government explain to its people when a SAM missile is launched against a passenger military airplane with 250 soldiers aboard? Can they justify their deaths? What the Saudi Arabian government captured is much less than what was not captured."

okay, so we have a guy who doesn't much like us, who is known to have hung out in Pakistan and claims to have anti-aircraft missiles...

Wouldn't somebody have seen something?

Some eyewitness interviews

In April of 2000, the NTSB released thousands of documents representing (mostly FBI) interviews with 670 eyewitnesses. Many witness documents are missing and listed by the FBI as "unable to locate." And it is possible that interviews with hundreds of other witnesses have not yet been released. However, from the available witness documents, 21 eyewitnesses observed two distinct objects in the air. The following are direct quotes taken from official FBI witness documents, available at www.ntsb.gov.

Witness 73: "On 7/17/96, at approximately 8:37 P.M., she was on the Mobay (phonetic) section of Long Island Beach, New York, when she observed an aircraft climbing in the sky, traveling from her right to her left. She advised that the sun was setting behind her. While keeping her eyes on the aircraft, she observed a 'red streak' moving up from the ground toward the aircraft at an approximately a 45 degree angle. The 'red streak' was leaving a light gray colored smoke trail. The 'red streak went passed the right side and above the aircraft before arcing back toward the aircraft's right wing. Described the arc's shape as resembling an upside down NIKE swoosh logo. The smoke trail, which was light gray in color was narrow initially and widened as it approached the aircraft.

She initially thought someone had set off a flare and commented same to her friends...She never took her eyes off the aircraft during this time. At the instant the smoke trail ended at the aircraft's right wing, she heard a loud sharp noise which sounded like a firecracker had just exploded at her feet. She then observed a fire at the aircraft followed by one or two secondary explosions which had a deeper sound. She then observed the front of the aircraft separate from the back. She then observed burning pieces of debris falling from the aircraft."

Witness 88: "All of a sudden he heard an explosion. He glanced over to the southeast and observed what he thought was a firework ascending into the sky. He stated he originally felt this firework emanated from the shoreline on the other side of the jetty to the east. He stated that he continued to watch the firework ascend, expecting to view the explosion in the sky. He stated this object which was ascending left a wispy white smoke trail. About midway through its flight, the smoke trail stopped and the object turned a bright red in color. He felt that this bright red flame was at the top of the device. He stated that he now thought it was some type of boating distress flare. All of a sudden, it apparently reached the top of its flight. He stated that the red fireball then arced from the east to the west. At this point he observed an airplane come into the field of view. He stated this airplane was very high up and many miles from his location. He stated that the bright red object ran into the airplane and upon doing so both the plane and the object turned a real bright red then exploded into a huge plume of flame. He noted that he felt that either the bright red object pushed the nose cone of the plane up or the plane was slightly angled upward when the strike occurred. He stated he felt the bright red object struck the plane towards the cockpit area."

Witness 150: The shiny object "had no projections on it, like wings, but [she asked herself] why would there be such a huge bullet hurling through the sky?...She followed the object for approximately 2 or 3 seconds when she then noticed a large commercial airliner which appeared to be traveling at the same altitude, 'just stop' and begin to disintegrate...As the plane [identified by the witness as a 747] came apart, its nose turned up and to the right."

Witness 166: "noticed a large commercial plane flying east...[then] noticed something ascending 30-35 miles away, which looked like white, yellow fire, trailed by black smoke...It ascended in a straight line at an angle of seven to ten degrees away from a vertical ninety degree...[He] believed it was from the water...After hearing news of the crash, he concluded that he had seen a missile. He stated he was in the Polish army in 1974 and has experience with missiles...[He] opined that this was a medium size missile which would have required three experienced people to operate."

Witness 675: At a water hole in Speonk, NY "...noticed an orange flare ascending from the south, traveling in a WNW direction trailing white or light gray smoke. He then observed the flare strike what looked like an eastbound Cessna airplane on the port side. 675 saw a small burst of flame erupt from the port side wing near the fuselage. Approximately two (2) seconds later he saw the plane go into a spiral and explode. With five (5) seconds [of losing the falling debris behind the tree line] he heard what sounded like thunder and felt the ground shake."

Witness 34: "observed what he thought was a shooting star travelling west to east coming from the south shore...[it] moved faster than an airplane and had no arch to it...he stated that it approached the aircraft (what he originally thought was a Coast Guard flare) from west to east...He was approximately 15 miles from where he observed the crash site and no more then 5 miles from the missile (originally described as a shooting star)."

Witness 107: He "described the flare as starting off in the front of a larger obect and giving off an orange glow initially...[and] advised that the initial flare seemed to hit the object then shoot off to the west at an eighty (80) degree angle giving off an orange and red glow."

Witness 145: "stated that she saw a plane and noticed an object spiraling towards the plane. The object which she saw for about one second, had a glow at the end of it and a gray/white smoke trail. She stated she saw the object hit the plane and the object headed down toward the ocean. She could not be sure where the object hit the plane, but said it could have been to the side or near the back. She heard a loud noise and saw an explosion just as the object hit the plane. The plane dropped towards the water and appeared to split in two pieces. A few seconds later, she heard another explosion. She stated that the explosions were so loud that they shook the house." A drawing of the collision is presented.

Witness 640: At Smith Point Park, "he leaned back to stretch [and] his eye caught a jet plane in the sky, off to his left, and moving eastward. At the same time, he saw, off to his right, a 'green flash' rising up, and going toward the plane. The "flash" was far out in the ocean, was rising from the west, was also traveling east, and was behind the plane."

Witness 144: "she first noticed a plane in the sky traveling right to left...She then saw an object angle to the right with a bright orange glow with a white streak behind it...She then lost site of the streak because of the clouds. She described this streak as 'taking off like a rocket.' She thought at first that she saw fireworks but then changed her mind and said 'no way it was a missile.' After the clouds parted she saw a bright orange fireball, more than doubled in size, which broke shortly after into two pieces."

Witness 550b: "[H]e saw a plane coming from west to east and then what looked like a 'smaller' plane coming from the northeast on a dead course heading toward the nose of the larger plane...and saw what looked like aerial bomb fireworks. The larger plane blew up and became a big fireball...he heard a sound like paper crackling when the 'two planes' crunched up."

Witness 649: At Westhampton Beach High School, 649 observed a "projectile ascend in the sky." It was "red or pink with a trail of whitish smoke. The projectile moved in a squiggly manner in a southwest direction. The projectile was airborne for six-seven seconds and then it met with a shiny object that produced white smoke. The white smoke disappeared and then a red ball began to form. The red ball fell in an easterly direction at a much quicker pace than the projectile was ascending." [? this is contradicted by a later FBI summary that says the second object fell at the same or half the speed of the first, ascending object.]

Witness 658: While piloting an Air National Guard Helicopter, "Baur first noticed what he thought was a flare and said into the helicopter's radio, "Is that a pyro?" Baur's first thought was that two things had flown into each other." He also saw the falling debris and immediately flew to the area in a search and rescue effort. From NTSB interview, Appendix N: A "white-hot..pyrotechnic... device...[which] came from the left and went to the right. And it made the object on the right explode."

Witness 221: "At approximately 8:30 pm, he heard the sound of jet plane engines and he looked up so see a large commercial jet which had apparently just taken off from John F. Kennedy International Airport. The aircraft was increasing in altitude as it flew out over the ocean in an easterly or southeasterly direction...Within seconds after the aircraft past him, his wife called his attention to two fishing draggers which were directly south or southwest of their location. ...looking at the draggers, but further east or in the same direction of where the aircraft flew, he saw a streak of light travel up from the water into the sky...[like] a rocket or like a shooting star only going upward..." then heard rumbling sound and saw flash of light.

Witness 157: "he noticed a red flare or firework trailing white smoke ascending over the tree line on the south side of the waterhole. The flare was angling east-southeast. Approximately seven (7) to ten (10) seconds later, he observed a large fireball erupt approximately 12 miles away. An object, not on fire fell away from the fireball. Before the explosion in the sky, he observed a plane in the area of the flare. After the explosion, he could no longer see the plane."

Witness 218: "observed what appeared to him as two objects flying up, coming together and exploding....then a blue and dark purple flash. Then another part dropped off. The rest of the plane seemed to coast a little further."

Witness 233: "she noticed a flare off in the distance, rising into the air [later describing the flare as rising "at a steady, remarkable pace"]...and straight up..[then after looking away at nearby boats that she thought may have launched the flare], she reacquired the flare still glowing and still steadily rising...pause..then brightly pulse in a small concentrated area...within two (2) seconds of the pulse she observed a large object seemingly stopping its forward momentum while igniting into a fireball."

Witness 261: "saw a red navigator light from an airplane in the distance. He then saw an orange firework, with a tail, in the air southwest of him. The firework traveled up, then arched down before he lost sight of it. Seconds later he saw a second and third firework in the sky simultaneously..[and they]..traveled in the same arching pattern of the first firework. Approximately 30 seconds later, he heard a rumble and saw a blue vertical line of smoke stretch down to the horizon."

Witness 243: "This flying object looked like it came up from land [later described as "ascending into the sky from an east to west direction"] in the Moriches area.. [It] was relatively slow in flying up and took about four or five seconds before hitting the plane. The smoke which trailed this object was whitish in color and the band of smoke was narrow. It looked like a Roman candle flying into the air...and neither it, nor its impact with the plane, made any noise."

Witness 508: saw "an orange thing streak toward a dark object for about 10 seconds [approaching] ...from behind and on a downward angle and continued until an explosion occurred...[And from another FBI summary, he described the trajectory of the orange object:] saw an orange object ascending in the sky...travelling horizontally from right to left." [This other summary does not mention the "dark object."]

Witness 185: "To the right of the star, a 'yellowy-orange" light, 'all glowing', was coming up, it arced, from the right of the star going left. It went in front of the star and then exploded like a big bright light...She saw the rising light originate, she thought...from the water...then one piece falling"

Actual field investigators notes

Now what did all those witnesses see that night?

Posted: 9/9/2004 3:30:50 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
To obliterate a 747 or similar sized aircraft, you need a large SAM along the lines of a SA-2 or RIM66/67 missiles.

Note. Some of the Tinfoil types think the Navy used a RIM-66/67 SAM to down TWA 800 which is rubbish as the Continuous Rod warhead spews unbelieveable amounts of INDENTIFIABLE frag.

SA-2 (200 Kg warhead)
www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/sa-2-DDST8501311_JPG.jpg

RIM-66 (137 lbs. (62 kg) continuous rod)
www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/sm2-dvic458.jpg

This hitting it would do it tho… my preferred hypothesis.

Andy

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - TWA Flight 800 (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us