Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/19/2004 10:35:46 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/20/2004 11:17:59 AM EST by turboman]
Couple things been buggin me that a forum member may know more about...

Incident #1). Flight 800 off NY. Supposedly 100's of witnesses saw a ground/shoulder fired missile arch up, follow and then hit the airliner. An offshore type speeding boat was seen leaving the scene. The FBI made excuses for weeks. The final report said a fuel transfer pump overheated, so now all commercial airliners are being updated so IT doesn't happen again.

I heard the Whitehouse told the FBI not to release anything about a missile because of the effect it would have on airline travel. Also, Flight 800 took off out of sequence from the schedule. The plane that was supposed to be in that slot carried a bunch Isreali diplomats.

Incident #2). Sept. 11th. The plane that supposedly was forced to crash when the passengers fought for control with the terrorists.

The info I read was the wreckage field was way over a mile long. This is not consistent with a plane plowing into the ground, no matter how fast it's travelling. This is typical of a plane that exploded in flight.

Also the tape recordings of the passenger's "Let's roll.." was cut shorter because the next sound heard was fighter jet cannon shells/rocket ripping through the fuselage. We had no choice but to shoot it down. The news reports were manipulated into a rallying cry to fire up the public. Rightly so, because I'm sure the passengers were heroes.

Anybody in this forum know any more about these incidents then what I've (poorly) attempted to explain here...
Link Posted: 2/19/2004 10:51:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/19/2004 10:53:36 PM EST by a320az]
Your first theory sounds very believeable. But I simply do not think about what happend nor speculate. Your second theory seems just that. A theory. A mile is not very long when your hitting the ground at 300 knots my friend. I would think that a mile area would be small even for that. Do some research on PanAm over Lockerbie and see how spread out it was. It explode in the air. As for this retrofit bullshit. Its fucking stupid. It will cost my company over 18 million dollars to do this work. That could be money in the employees pocket and the airlines bank account. I hate this shit.... Edit: oh yeah, heres a website to check stuff on [url]http://airdisaster.com[/url]
Link Posted: 2/19/2004 10:55:29 PM EST
TWA 800 is fishy as hell. 747's just dont blow up in mid air like that. Couple of things make me think something's rotten in Denmark. 1. A few months after the "accident", Al Gore headed a commission to review air transport SECURITY in the US. His committee's findings were attacked by the airline industry as too expensive and troublesome to their customers, the Council on American Islamic Relations protested a part of Gore's commission that called for profiling young Middle Eastern men as terrorist risks. 2. After 9/11, three different politicians who were either in the White House or on the Senate Intelligence committee referred to TWA 800 as a bombing in interviews with the media: Bill Clinton, George Stephanopoulos, and John Kerry. 3. Boeing engineers were baffled that the blame for the explosion was pinned on a freak mechanical glitch, and the government's official explanation made no sense to them. Pierre Salinger claimed it was a Navy military exercise gone awry, which is absurd because there's no fucking way they'd be launching missiles right off Long Island in an airspace used by three major international airports. When you understand the scope of al-Qaeda's threat today and how we either didn't see it's extent or seriousness in 1996, Islamic assholes present themselves as the most obvious explanation to me.
Link Posted: 2/19/2004 11:01:48 PM EST
Would you really, truly, want to know all of the truth about everything? Seriously, this country would panic! Sgtar15
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 3:50:51 AM EST
You're right. If the public knew the whole truth the airline industry would go bankrupt because nobody would fly again. The same panic would happen if we had been told the truth about JFK and his brother's assasination. The Tonkin Bay incident that never happened that Johnson used as an excuse to start a war. Roosevelt knowing in advance about the Japs attacking Pearl Harbor and not warning them because he wanted the war for political and economical reasons. And the Clinton's list of "eliminations" (Vince Foster, etc, etc, etc) and lies would topple the Democrats. And let's not forget UFO's, Gulf Syndrome disease, Agent orange after effects, and manipulation of intelligence data about the Middle East (not Pres. Bush's fault). ...ain't knowing the truth wonderful? And God bless them all, every one.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 3:57:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/20/2004 4:05:51 AM EST by mr_wilson]
This book came out within a few months after the incident and Mr. Saunders went to jail for having friend of his wife (who worked for TWA) give him portions of one of the seat-covers, which he had analyized by 3 independent labs...., the NTSB and FBI weren't happy. [b]The Downing of TWA Flight 800[/b] by James Sanders, suggest ya give it a read. Mike
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 4:01:13 AM EST
My milspec tin foil helmet is proof against the most intense rumor.Now if we could only find that warehouse where the feds are keeping the Ark of the Covanant we would know all the secrets there are to know.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 4:03:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/20/2004 4:24:17 AM EST by mr_wilson]
How do ya keep from it fillin up with sand? Mike
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 4:04:31 AM EST
OMFG! The Tinfoil Hats are out in force this Friday! [BS]
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 4:33:22 AM EST
TWA was at 14,500 feet and 450 knots and climbing. If a shoulder fired missle took it down it was the shot of lifetime. Second, all the shoulder fired missiles I'm aware of are intrared seekers. At best it would have taken out one engine, not the center fuel tank. Third if it was terrorist, why hasn't anyone claimed credit for it? Terrorism is a political tactic. Doesn't do you any good if nobody knows you did it. Nov 11. Cannon fire? Please. To many people involved. Pilots, ground crew, investigators on the ground. Nope.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 4:38:10 AM EST
Originally Posted By LWilde: OMFG! The Tinfoil Hats are out in force this Friday! [BS]
View Quote
And the sheeple keep on believing what they are told.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 4:45:57 AM EST
Originally Posted By SkiandShoot:
Originally Posted By LWilde: OMFG! The Tinfoil Hats are out in force this Friday! [BS]
View Quote
And the sheeple keep on believing what they are told.
View Quote
Spooky isnt it
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 5:05:42 AM EST
Originally Posted By SkiandShoot:
Originally Posted By LWilde: OMFG! The Tinfoil Hats are out in force this Friday! [BS]
View Quote
And the sheeple keep on believing what they are told.
View Quote
How typical of the tinfoil hat brigade to call any sensible person who points out the whackiness of their conspiracy theories a "sheeple." Easier to make fun of those with more sense than to try to counter their facts.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 5:17:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/20/2004 6:07:29 AM EST by mr_wilson]
Originally Posted By RikWriter: How typical of the tinfoil hat brigade to call any sensible person who points out the whackiness of their conspiracy theories a "sheeple." [red]Easier to make fun of those with more sense[/red] than to try to counter their facts.
View Quote
Guess they learned this debating technique from guys like you, are you not quite fond of this tactic, yourself. FWIW, this was NO shoulder fired missile, and 3 independent laboratories identified the residue on the seat cover obtained by Saunders as "missile exhaust residue", read the book it's quite interesting and very well documented. Mike
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 5:24:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By turboman: Incident #2). Nov. 11th. The plane that supposedly was forced to crash when the passengers fought for control with the terrorists.
View Quote
Did you mean Sept 11??? I recall hearing early reports that we shot down a hijacked jet, but later the reports said it crashed... that one has always sounded fishy to me... What about the single jet that crashed after 9/11-- remember they had to analyze the tail to see why it fell off?
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 5:29:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/20/2004 5:31:04 AM EST by SkiandShoot]
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By SkiandShoot:
Originally Posted By LWilde: OMFG! The Tinfoil Hats are out in force this Friday! [BS]
View Quote
And the sheeple keep on believing what they are told.
View Quote
How typical of the tinfoil hat brigade to call any sensible person who points out the whackiness of their conspiracy theories a "sheeple." Easier to make fun of those with more sense than to try to counter their facts.
View Quote
My thoughts are this.... In everything that has happened for the last 200+ years of the country, do you honestly believe things happened the way the media or people claim it did in EVERY SINGLE instance? How many times do we not hear "the rest of the story"? If you honestly say "yes the way media says it happened and thats what i believe" without thinking on your own, your a fucking idiot and a sheeple. If it didn't go down once like they say it did, then why not twice? why not three times? why not always question the way things are reported and what the agenda is?
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 5:34:23 AM EST
The one that realy get me for some reason is the pentagon there was no debris it is just wierd to me the footage from the gaurd booth is laughable.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 5:37:00 AM EST
Originally Posted By raven: TWA 800 is fishy as hell. 747's just dont blow up in mid air like that.
View Quote
Actually they do. A 747 blew up over Japan killing all on board when a rear pressure bulkhead failed at altitude.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 5:41:07 AM EST
Originally Posted By mr_wilson: Guess they learned this debating technique from guys like you, aren't you not quite fond of this tactic, yourself.
View Quote
Nope, I NEVER make fun of those with more sense than me. They're so rare, when I find them I treasure them.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 5:44:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/20/2004 5:44:47 AM EST by mr_wilson]
Touche' [rofl2] Mike
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 5:45:49 AM EST
Originally Posted By SkiandShoot: My thoughts are this.... In everything that has happened for the last 200+ years of the country, do you honestly believe things happened the way the media or people claim it did in EVERY SINGLE instance?
View Quote
Of course not. But that isn't the point. What you and those pushing these conspiracy theories are asserting is that there is an organized conspiracy to hide the facts from the public, AND that there are very significant facts to hide. This is very nearly impossible. Now, it's a matter of plain fact that the media makes mistakes and makes incorrect assumptions in its reporting, and it's also a matter of plain fact that the government makes mistakes and then often tries to hide the fact that it made mistakes---usually unsuccessfully. But those don't add up to a conspiracy to hide the truth, they are just business as usual for incompetent beaurocrats and overzealous reporters.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 6:04:28 AM EST
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By SkiandShoot: My thoughts are this.... In everything that has happened for the last 200+ years of the country, do you honestly believe things happened the way the media or people claim it did in EVERY SINGLE instance?
View Quote
Of course not. But that isn't the point. What you and those pushing these conspiracy theories are asserting is that there is an organized conspiracy to hide the facts from the public, AND that there are very significant facts to hide. This is very nearly impossible. Now, it's a matter of plain fact that the media makes mistakes and makes incorrect assumptions in its reporting, and it's also a matter of plain fact that the government makes mistakes and then often tries to hide the fact that it made mistakes---usually unsuccessfully. But those don't add up to a conspiracy to hide the truth, they are just business as usual for incompetent beaurocrats and overzealous reporters.
View Quote
Almost but not exactly. People who are scared of the truth use the word "Conspiracy" since they can attach such a stigma to it and have people like you prove their methods correct. Methods being, attacking anyone thinking unlike the way they are being told to, un-sheepleesque. Your right way too many people being involved in things going on, no way an actual conspiracy exists like that. It's not about conspiracy, it's about AGENDA.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 6:23:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/20/2004 6:33:26 AM EST by OLY-M4gery]
Why would hundreds of people be looking up at a basically empty spot in the sky, AND spot a missile traveling at 3000 mph? See that's fishy. Have you ever heard tires screaching, then a thump? By the time you look over the crash is done. Most of the time, car crash, bar fight, etc. people don't see how it starts they see how it ends. Ever wonder why the guy who hits back is more likely to get penalized? Because people detect the "motion" involved in the first hit. The turn and look towards motion, THEN SEE the second hit. It's sometimes amazing the debris field from 60 mph car crashes, that I get to see. 500 mph with a mile long debris field? I think that's very possible. Think about the OODA loop. Observe, Orient. What happens with observe is your eyes see things and send that "raw data" to your brain. Orient means you make sense, evaluate the raw data that you were just sent but your eyes. The trick is observe is neutral. Your eyes, or ears, nose, etc. are observing something. Orient ISN'T neccesarily as nuetral. Your brain tries to interpret that data. It is limited by your data processing speed, etc. But it is also interpreted based on you life experience. In other words if you see something unusual your brain tries to make waht you just saw make sense to you. Rationalization, and minimization also come into play. I could go on I'm sure you guys know what I mean.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 6:40:13 AM EST
Originally Posted By SkiandShoot: Almost but not exactly. People who are scared of the truth use the word "Conspiracy" since they can attach such a stigma to it and have people like you prove their methods correct. Methods being, attacking anyone thinking unlike the way they are being told to, un-sheepleesque. Your right way too many people being involved in things going on, no way an actual conspiracy exists like that. It's not about conspiracy, it's about AGENDA.
View Quote
No, I was exactly correct. Agenda+secrecy=conspiracy. You don't like the word, but you do believe it.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 6:51:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/20/2004 6:56:41 AM EST by OLY-M4gery]
As an example, take the Hindenburg disaster. People "knew what they saw", a hydrogen fire. The zeppelins vented hydrogen to descend. The real story: The exterior of the Hindenburg was treated with a paste, that has a similar make up as rocket fuel. When the Hindenburg approached Patterson NJ, there was a lot of static electricity in the air. That static electricity was passed on to the Hindenburg. A few of the Hindenburgs exterior panels were not suffuciently grounded, allowing a charge to build up in those pannels. When there was enough of a charge the electricity "jumped" to adjacent panels. Causing small static electricty "lightning". That lightning caught the panels, with their highly flammable coating on fire. The skin of the Hindeburg burned fast and hot. That fire penetrated the hydrogen cells, only after a large portion of the exterior panels were engilfed. Continuing the devesatation with a much slower burning, cooler burning hydrogen fire. But popular opinion said hydrogen was the cause of the disaster. PBS "Secrets of the Dead, The Hindenberg". Think about all the odd circumstances that had to converge to make that disaster happen. Improperly grounded exterior panels (even though most were grounded) Signifigant atmospheric static electricty Highly flammable panel coating materials It seems to be a bizzare convergence of non-related pieces that lead to a massive KB. I don't think airliners are unusual coincidences triggering a bigger problem proof.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 7:05:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/20/2004 7:08:15 AM EST by SkiandShoot]
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By SkiandShoot: Almost but not exactly. People who are scared of the truth use the word "Conspiracy" since they can attach such a stigma to it and have people like you prove their methods correct. Methods being, attacking anyone thinking unlike the way they are being told to, un-sheepleesque. Your right way too many people being involved in things going on, no way an actual conspiracy exists like that. It's not about conspiracy, it's about AGENDA.
View Quote
No, I was exactly correct. Agenda+secrecy=conspiracy. You don't like the word, but you do believe it.
View Quote
LMAO. Knuckle draggers in every group. I never used the C word in the original context. Ever heard of a 'hidden agenda' that isn't a conspiracy? Obviously listening with an open mind to what other people have to say and actually making an effort comprehending what people mean lacks in certain posters. Oh well.. [img]http://lincoln.stangnet.com/funny/Misc/arguing.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 7:10:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By TexasEd:
Originally Posted By raven: TWA 800 is fishy as hell. 747's just dont blow up in mid air like that.
View Quote
Actually they do. A 747 blew up over Japan killing all on board when a rear pressure bulkhead failed at altitude.
View Quote
That JAL 747 did NOT explode in flight, a few years earlier it had over rotated on takeoff and slammed the tail into the runway. JAL sent to Boeing for instructions on a repair to the aft pressure bulkhead. Boeing sent a print only calling for a single row of rivits, it needed a double row. After so many clcyes with the improper repair on the aircraft the aft pressure bulkhead finally blew. When the bulkhead blew it took a large section of the stabilizer off with it, along with the hydraulic lines. The aircraft suffered an explosive decompression, the Oxygen masks dropped and everyone was still alive. Unfortunatly the aircraft was completly out of the pilots control, it flew doing 70 degree dutch rolls for over 20 miniutes before it crashed into a mountian. it flew for so long that passengers were writing goodbye notes before they died. It no more exploded than the Sioux City DC-10 did, there were 524 people on the JAL flight 4 survived.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 7:19:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2004 1:49:36 PM EST by CAR-10]
I don't have the time to get into this right now, but that cannon fire theory is crap for several reasons, most of which have already been mentioned. As for flight 800, it'll just always be a mystery. The aviation community is suspicious about the handling of the investigation. I can tell you that yesterday when we asked Capt. John Cox from ALPA [url]http://cf.alpa.org/internet/meetings/ASForum-2001/Air_Safety_bios/Cox_biography.html[/url]about the feasibility of adding a flare system to commercial aircraft he said that it was totally impractical because of the required maint. Even if airlines could afford, or were given, the system they would have to be maintained so often the aircraft would have a major negative impact on air commerce. I believe the system would have to go in for maint every 3000 (maybe 300) hours. Airlines can't even afford to equip all of their jets with GPS or the technology to prevent CFIT. Besides, could you imagine what would happen if flares were released over a school?
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 7:20:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/20/2004 7:22:10 AM EST by SpentCasing]
Analagy to the Hindenburg rocket fuel skin: Sounds kind of stupid to douse yourself in gasoline and then go for a smoke. What about lighting strikes? Weird if the skin was actually that flammable.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 7:32:18 AM EST
Originally Posted By SkiandShoot: LMAO. Knuckle draggers in every group.
View Quote
And you calling everyone who disagrees with you a "knuckle-dragger" will advance your case how, exactly?
I never used the C word in the original context.
View Quote
I know. You're rightly embarrassed to. But trying your damndest to avoid the word didn't prevent you from trying to advance the idea.
Obviously listening with an open mind to what other people have to say and actually making an effort comprehending what people mean lacks in certain posters.
View Quote
No, when one person has already seen the evidence that disproves the other's assertions, there is no need to "listen with an open mind." If someone came up to you and informed you that you were, in fact, a green dragon that has been transformed into a human, would you "listen to him with an open mind," or walk briskly away?
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 7:36:31 AM EST
The dope and fabric on the Hindenburg was standard on ALL fabric covered aircraft. That flamable stuff is still on some old aircraft. The stabilizers on some dc-3's are still fabric, I think the HIND has some fabric on it as well.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 7:42:33 AM EST
Originally Posted By turboman: You're right. If the public knew the whole truth the airline industry would go bankrupt because nobody would fly again. The same panic would happen if we had been told the truth about JFK and his brother's assasination.
View Quote
So far, so good.
The Tonkin Bay incident that never happened that Johnson used as an excuse to start a war.
View Quote
How about proof of this. Real proof.
Roosevelt knowing in advance about the Japs attacking Pearl Harbor and not warning them because he wanted the war for political and economical reasons.
View Quote
Again, real proof. This is the wackiest, most non-sensical one of the bunch.
And the Clinton's list of "eliminations" (Vince Foster, etc, etc, etc) and lies would topple the Democrats.
View Quote
And that would be bad how?????????
And let's not forget UFO's, Gulf Syndrome disease, Agent orange after effects, and manipulation of intelligence data about the Middle East (not Pres. Bush's fault).
View Quote
See Clinton above.
...ain't knowing the truth wonderful? And God bless them all, every one.
View Quote
Some of what you say is viable, other is total hogwash.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 7:50:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/20/2004 7:50:53 AM EST by mr_wilson]
posted by LARRYG: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roosevelt knowing in advance about the Japs attacking Pearl Harbor and not warning them because he wanted the war for political and economical reasons. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, real proof. This is the wackiest, most non-sensical one of the bunch.
View Quote
Larry, read the books I referred to and final link I posted here, for your "proof" as they are quite convincing, [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=63&t=229222&w=myTopicPop[/url]. Mike
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 7:58:11 AM EST
Originally Posted By a320az: Your first theory sounds very believeable. But I simply do not think about what happend nor speculate. Your second theory seems just that. A theory. A mile is not very long when your hitting the ground at 300 knots my friend. I would think that a mile area would be small even for that. Do some research on PanAm over Lockerbie and see how spread out it was. It explode in the air. As for this retrofit bullshit. Its fucking stupid. It will cost my company over 18 million dollars to do this work. That could be money in the employees pocket and the airlines bank account. I hate this shit.... Edit: oh yeah, heres a website to check stuff on [url]http://airdisaster.com[/url]
View Quote
Not to mention that 20mm cannon fire does not 'blow up' aircraft... 20mm will shoot a plane down, cause it to break up and possibly burn, but it's not going to cause it to 'blow up in mid air'... To make a commercial airliner explode, you'd have to use missiles. P.S. The shoulder-fired missile story would be believable except for the altitude. Most shoulder-fired rockets (actually, most anti-air missiles) are NOT hit-to-kill. They explode when they get 'close enough' and rely on frag damage to bring the plane down... 14kft is a tad high, though...
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 8:35:08 AM EST
Originally Posted By mr_wilson: Larry, read the books I referred to and final link I posted here, for your "proof" as they are quite convincing
View Quote
Not really, not unless you're predisposed to believe the theory they're preaching.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 9:26:42 AM EST
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By mr_wilson: Larry, read the books I referred to and final link I posted here, for your "proof" as they are quite convincing
View Quote
Not really, not unless you're predisposed to believe the theory they're preaching.
View Quote
Not theory, Rik, these books contain researched actual radio transmissions, code explanation and dissemination, when codes were broken, xerox copies of actual transmissions, some doctored after the fact to cover and agree with the LIES being told, information and persons not contacted or interviewed by any of the investgations that have been done and interviews with the actual radio operators (still extent). Definately not theory. As to the [b][red]"Red Symphony"[/red][/b] link here's an exerpt pertaining to the topic at hand..., they are speaking about WWII issues prior to the onset of any hostilities whatsoever...as this is 1938. [blue]G: Your forgot about the United States. R: In a moment you will see that I have not forgotten. I shall limit myself to the investigation of the function in the preliminary programme, which occupies us at present, and I shall say that America will not be able to force France or England to attack Hitler and Stalin simultaneously. In order to attain that the United States would have to enter the war from the very first day. But that is impossible. In the first place because did not enter a war formerly and never will do so if it is not attacked. [b]It's rulers can arrange that they will be attacked, if that will suit them. Of that I can assure you.[/b] In those cases when provacation was not successful and the enemy did not react to it, [b]aggression was invented.[/b] In their first international war, the war against Spain, of the defeat of which they were sure, they invented an aggression, or, more correctly, "They" invented it. In 1914 provacation was sucessful. True, one can dispute technically if there was one, but the rule without exceptions is that he who makes a sudden attack without warning, does it with the help of a provacation. Now it is like this: this splendid American technique which I welcome at any moment is subject to one condition; that aggression should take place at a suitable moment, i.e. the moment required by the United States who are being attacked; that means then, when they will have the arms. Does this condition exist now? It is clear that it does not. In America there are at present a little less than one hundred thousand men underarms and a middling aviation; it has only an imposing fleet. But you can understand that, having it, it can not persuade its allies to decide on an attack on the USSR, since England and France have preponderance only at sea. I have also proved to you that from that side there can be no change in the comparative strengths of the forces.[/blue] This is just a snippet of what is revealed in this document, but when taken in toto these words and other parts of this dicussion "which again is being conducted BEFORE the outbreak of hostilities leading to WWII" is quite an interesting read, or should be to those actually "seeking the truth". Nuff said, Mike ps - the "They", Christian Rakovsky is speaking of above is referred to nowdays mostly by the name of the "Rothschild-Illuminati" or just "Illuminati".
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 9:46:26 AM EST
To return to the core issue: I am a retired Navy Surface Warfare Officer with a specialty background in ship weapons systems and missiles. I have been involved in test and evaluation of these systems as a military member, as a DoD contractor and now as a faculty member at a university research lab. I was not directly involved in the Flt 800 investigation but I worked with many folks in DC who were, including the officer that led the Navy technical branch that did the detailed analysis. This subject has been beaten to death over the last few years...and I've blathered on about it time and again. In the interest of truth...I think a few more words are needed here...just to send you tinfoil hatters home for the weekend feeling comfy. Based purely on the geometry of the flt 800 flight path, it would have been POSSIBLE to hit the aircraft with a MANPADS SAM such as a Stinger...[b]under certain conditions[/b]. This could only have happened if the boat carrying the shooters was in fairly close to shore. There is [b]no[/b] evidence other than that cooked up by those leading the tinfoil hat brigade to indicate that a terrorist boat was involved. Further strictly from a missile engineering point of view...as has been stated here already, those types of missiles are heat seekers, designed to follow the heat of the a/c engine. The newer models employ a dual mode IR/UV seeker head with a laser fuze. They are very accurate. Typically, as the missile fuse senses CPA, it detonates the warhead. Since the warhead on these missiles is very small, on the order of a few kilograms (Remember, we are dealing with a missile diameter of <6 inches.), the missile must get very close. They were orginally designed to destroy jet engines, primarily on tactical aircraft like figher bombers and helos. They were not designed to down 747s. You may remember just a few months ago when a commercial jet was hit by one of these, taking out the engine and the a/c was able to safely return to the Bagdad airport. The engine was gone...but the airframe was ok. Back to the MANPADS theory: Based on the timeline of when Flt 800 was known to have suffered catastrophic damage, based primarily on the radar data, we know that the a/c altitude was almost certainly beyond the capabilities of any known MANPADS system. I've also heard some folks say that a Navy ship shot down the plane with a missile. One wag even opined that we used a "Tomahawk" to kill the plane. There was a Navy cruiser operating about 200 NM south of the crash site. I can assure you that the STANDARD surface to air (SM-2) missiles carried by that ship did not have the reach necessary to cause that plane's destruction. Further, to think that somehow, the Navy, and the rest of the evil dark forces of the Federal Government could somehow, someway prevent the entire crew of nearly 500 men from blabbing is simply beyond ALL human comprehension. I know I can never convince the tinfoil hatters that this isn't a giant conspiracy...but strictly from a technical standpoint, the missile theory doesn't stand up. When all other causes are ruled out...then we must return to the theory of an internal explosion caused by a KNOWN problem in that class of a/c with that many years under its belt.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 9:51:45 AM EST
Originally Posted By Ameshawki: TWA was at 14,500 feet and 450 knots and climbing. If a shoulder fired missle took it down it was the shot of lifetime. Second, all the shoulder fired missiles I'm aware of are intrared seekers. At best it would have taken out one engine, not the center fuel tank. Third if it was terrorist, why hasn't anyone claimed credit for it? Terrorism is a political tactic. Doesn't do you any good if nobody knows you did it.
View Quote
Not to mention the difficulty of even getting the initial lock-on while holding a hand-held missile in a small boat that is pitching, rolling, and bobbing in the sea while looking at an object that is over 2.5 miles away even if the shooter was directly underneath the plane. IIRC, I think that one of the MANPADs that we supplied the Afghan mujahadeen with was optically guided - I believe the British Blowpipe. The Afghans didn't like it though, because it was difficult to use against fast moving targets (like jets) and against armed helos in close, the shooter had to remain exposed to guide the missile.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 10:16:28 AM EST
conspiracy theories are a crutch for weak minded people, they enable people to think that they are one up on the general population. Most conspiracy theories desreve no discussion, they are just plain stupid.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 10:36:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By Mr_Fabulous: conspiracy theories are a crutch for weak minded people, they enable people to think that they are one up on the general population. Most conspiracy theories desreve no discussion, they are just plain stupid.
View Quote
Oh boy, do I agree with this. I'd like to point out, Alex Jones is a local nutcase, and I've had more than enough of this crap. Let me tell you about my own conspiracy experience. Few years ago one of the local radio stations tried an April Fool's joke. They broadcast that a UFO had been sighted over the airport. 911 fielded OVER 700 calls of people claiming they saw the UFO, little aliens, etc. Tied up our call center for hours. TO THIS DAY people insist it's a govt coverup.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 11:24:55 AM EST
I believe as you do that there may have been disinformation in the 2 accidents mentioned. For thee record though, your argument about the 9-11 debris field holds no water, as an aircraft will breakup in flight if handled roughly while being flown above design maneuvering speed.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 11:30:27 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/20/2004 11:38:42 AM EST by BillofRights]
LWilde- just a slight correction, The DHL aircraft hit in Iraq was hit in the left wing fuel cell. The left engine was intact and operating, in fact, the crew used differential thrust to land the aircraft because the hyd. controls were ots. Also, even if you think that a Manpad could not have hit 800, what makes you think that terrorists couldn't have used a larger anti-aircraft missile, or that an onboard bomb could not have been responsible? BTW- fuel pumps do not cause explosions, even if the wires are arcing. Think for a moment how many aircraft would be blowing up if that were possible. If you are still not convinced, get a bucket of Kerosene, and flick a few matches into it. It will not light.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 11:34:22 AM EST
One point that most "missile debunkers" fall upon is the altitude of 14,500 ft as being too high for a shoulder fired projectile. Other sources I've run across say that the true altitude was MUCH LESS. One witness was another commercial pilot/aircraft that was way ABOVE the subject plane. The 14,500 number was part of the miss-information put out by the FBI.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 12:16:26 PM EST
As to Flight 800: There are way too many questions about the investigation and the subsequent ruling on "exposed wires" or somesuchthing casing the fuel tank to explode in mid flight. I've always wondered that if this indeed was *really* the cause for the crash, then why wasn't the entire world fleet of 747's grounded until they were "fixed"? Look at the Concorde, it suffered a blown tire on takeoff and the fleet was grounded. That said, I have no idea what took down 800, but I kind of doubt the official explanation. As to Flight 93, I've seen plenty of evidence that points to the fact that it was downed by an ANG F-16, in fact if you go looking for it you'll find it yourself, there's no big coverup there. Were the passengers actively trying to wrest control of the plane when it went down? Sure. Keep in mind that on the evening of Sept. 11, 2001 America needed some heros, some hope. We had just suffered a devastating loss to our country. The passengers of Flight 93 were evidence that the American Spirit was not dead, and that we'd go down fighting if need be. It is my opinion that nobody in the USAF was going to stand up in the back of the room and say, "Uh, excuse me, but we shot that plane down..." They just sort of let the media take the popular story and run with it. No big names in the media are going to touch it lest they be thought of as being unpatriotic. And you know what? I'm OK with that, there are times when disinformation might not really be a bad thing. -Gator
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 1:17:45 PM EST
Originally Posted By mr_wilson: Not theory, Rik, these books contain researched actual radio transmissions, code explanation and dissemination, when codes were broken, xerox copies of actual transmissions, some doctored after the fact to cover and agree with the LIES being told, information and persons not contacted or interviewed by any of the investgations that have been done and interviews with the actual radio operators (still extent).
View Quote
The problem occurs when they make the logical leap from "We knew the Japanese were going to attack us SOMEWHERE at SOMETIME" to "FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor on December 7 and did nothing about it."
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 1:44:30 PM EST
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Why would hundreds of people be looking up at a basically empty spot in the sky, AND spot a missile traveling at 3000 mph?
View Quote
Um, the sky is pretty large. It's visible by a lot more people than one intersection. How many people saw shuttle debris across the sky? If something out of the ordinary happens in the sky, people are generally going to notice it. I mean, otherwise we wouldn't have so many people claiming to see UFOs.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 2:24:23 PM EST
Originally Posted By BillofRights: LWilde- just a slight correction, The DHL aircraft hit in Iraq was hit in the left wing fuel cell. The left engine was intact and operating, in fact, the crew used differential thrust to land the aircraft because the hyd. controls were ots. Also, even if you think that a Manpad could not have hit 800, what makes you think that terrorists couldn't have used a larger anti-aircraft missile, or that an onboard bomb could not have been responsible? BTW- fuel pumps do not cause explosions, even if the wires are arcing. Think for a moment how many aircraft would be blowing up if that were possible. If you are still not convinced, get a bucket of Kerosene, and flick a few matches into it. It will not light.
View Quote
You are entirely correct about the location of the missile strike on the DHL jet. The missile did hit the wing. The attack geometry was such that the missile must have passed next to the jet engine. I guess the old Russian missiles don't work quite as well as our Stinger. A larger AA missile would require a larger support system. MANPADS use passive seekers and are fire and forget. They are man-portable. Larger systems usually (Not always...but usually.) use a semi-active radar homing guidance and control system. Many systems do use an optical backup system but the primary is usually in the radar spectrum, usually in the 5-10GHz range. These systems require power, a support radar and fire control system, cooling and a means of transportation. Not an impossible task, or scenario...but difficult to move around and set up without being spotted. I never said that a bomb was not possible. I did allude to the fact that there was no evidence to indicate the presence of a bomb. Explosive devices ALWAYS leave traces of evidence of their origin. The report did not report any indications of such an explosive device. I totally agree about trying to ignite kerosene or JP-4/5. It is difficult. What is very easy however, is to detonate the vapors. The tank in question was almost certainly empty or nearly so. If it had not been completely purged or filled with inert gas, then it had the potential of a bomb just waiting for an ignition source.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 2:33:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/20/2004 2:36:49 PM EST by turboman]
Originally Posted By turboman: Roosevelt knowing in advance about the Japs attacking Pearl Harbor and not warning them because he wanted the war for political and economical reasons.[quote/] _____________________________________________ There was a documentary that originated in the UK that interviewed a ex-MI-5 person that said that Churchill was informed of an impending Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbor sometime within a 3-4 day window. If Churchill knew, Rooseveldt knew because they were working hand-in-hand on getting the US into the war. Against the will of Congress. Rooseveldt had already engineered the stopping of shipments of critical scrap iron and coal to Japan, knowing it would back them into an untenable position.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 3:17:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By Energizer: What about the single jet that crashed after 9/11-- remember they had to analyze the tail to see why it fell off?
View Quote
American Airlines Flight 587 crashed because Airbus makes POS airliners. The heavy use of composite material to reduce the cost of operation and the "cutting-edge" technology that Airbus uses is their main problem. The vertical stabilizer and rudder weren't strong enough to withstand the wake turbulence from the 747 that had taken off in front of them. Pilots had never heard of not being able to reverse rudder to combat vortices, and American Airlines stands behind their FO and his ability to fly the plane. In other words, it wasn't his fault the tail broke. Airbus isn't called Scarebus for nothing. Paris '86 air show - excellent Alpha Floor protection on the A320. I will never fly on an Airbus myself, for many reasons. I can't comment on TWA 800, however, I really doubt the conspiracy theories about missiles or other terrorist acts. Something within the plane caused its demise. A mention of "..crazy fuel flow indicator there on number four" at 8:29 PM might give some insight into a problem. As far as United 93 is concerned, the 757 was in view of at least one or two other commercial airliners at the time it deviated from the flight plan and Clevland center tried to establish contact. From what I've heard, the other pilots in the area saw it go down, but not one mentioned seeing anything to suggest it was shot down. The supposed eye witnesses who saw a "mysterious" small aircraft describe a small business jet, like a Gulfstream. These stories don't sound like it could have been shot down. A large plane like a 757 could spread debris a long way, especially if someone tried to pull the yoke back and/or the plane wasn't in a steep dive on impact.
Link Posted: 2/20/2004 9:34:36 PM EST
Forgot to mention this link: [url]http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110102_wellstone.html[/url] A lot of DU types actually believe Paul Wellstone(d)'s accident was caused by Republicans with electronic devices nearby. [rolleyes] [lol] One good look at the report clearly shows that the King Air stalled in icing conditions. The NTSB report: [url]http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0303.htm[/url] With plenty of evidence to show it was an accident when you read the PDF.
Link Posted: 2/21/2004 2:58:20 AM EST
Originally Posted By turboman: You're right. If the public knew the whole truth the airline industry would go bankrupt because nobody would fly again. The same panic would happen if we had been told the truth about JFK and his brother's assasination. The Tonkin Bay incident that never happened that Johnson used as an excuse to start a war. Roosevelt knowing in advance about the Japs attacking Pearl Harbor and not warning them because he wanted the war for political and economical reasons. And the Clinton's list of "eliminations" (Vince Foster, etc, etc, etc) and lies would topple the Democrats. And let's not forget UFO's, Gulf Syndrome disease, Agent orange after effects, and manipulation of intelligence data about the Middle East (not Pres. Bush's fault). ...ain't knowing the truth wonderful? And God bless them all, every one.
View Quote
Okay...now your just a nut. Sgtar15
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top