Air crash investigation. TWA 800 CH 7 1930 26 April.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kermedecs
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to decide who's missile - US Navy or a third party?
if it's a US navy missile, it's a cover up. If it's a third party (and that could be anyone) it's terrorism. Clinton and his posse understood that having the eastern seaboard exposed to shoulder launched missiles was/is a nightmare-with no solution.
But, look at the evidence - Navy exercise, missile trace path witnessed (disputed, but backed up by evidence), flight path, radar tracks, flight path post impact (missile, meteor, what ever)
The evidence does not support the fuel tank explosion theory
if it's a US navy missile, it's a cover up. If it's a third party (and that could be anyone) it's terrorism. Clinton and his posse understood that having the eastern seaboard exposed to shoulder launched missiles was/is a nightmare-with no solution.
But, look at the evidence - Navy exercise, missile trace path witnessed (disputed, but backed up by evidence), flight path, radar tracks, flight path post impact (missile, meteor, what ever)
The evidence does not support the fuel tank explosion theory
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right, Thirty Eight South. The actual evidence does NOT support a CFT explosion, unless induced by a missile. The witnesses included a military helicopter pilot who described the explosion as being caused by ordnance, a scene with which he was very familiar.
Those who discredit the missile theory are simply not familiar with the actual facts. Try reading "First Strike."
And, further, why does the FBI still refuse to release information on the shrapnel removed from bodies of the victims? Why does the FBI still have any input to the investigation if, as claimed by the NTSB, no crime was involved? The investigation is still officially listed as "pending inactive" which permits the FBI to withhold information. Why, if the crash was really caused by a CFT explosion?
Clinton has much to answer for over this one.
Those who discredit the missile theory are simply not familiar with the actual facts. Try reading "First Strike."
And, further, why does the FBI still refuse to release information on the shrapnel removed from bodies of the victims? Why does the FBI still have any input to the investigation if, as claimed by the NTSB, no crime was involved? The investigation is still officially listed as "pending inactive" which permits the FBI to withhold information. Why, if the crash was really caused by a CFT explosion?
Clinton has much to answer for over this one.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bushy: They stated that Jet A has a flashpoint of 38.5 gegrees. If true that is scary. Our ambient temperature here often exceeds that.
Well, 38S, an accidental missile strike during an exercise, expertly covered up involving hundreds of investigators and others, is a lot harder to believe than the fuel tank explosion. (of which, there have been others)
Terrorism seems unlikely because up till now there hasn't been any claim of responsibility - highly unusual for terrorists.
Not sure what Clinton has to do with it, he probably knows less than you.
Terrorism seems unlikely because up till now there hasn't been any claim of responsibility - highly unusual for terrorists.
Not sure what Clinton has to do with it, he probably knows less than you.
Thirty Eight South:
I looked at that page - it shows 64 witness accounts drawn from a total of 755 witnesses. Were all 755 saying the same thing? I looked around a bit on that website but couldn't find any proper summary of the eyewitness accounts - plenty of stuff claiming to be a "summary" or an "analysis", but as the site is pushing the missile theory, it was all heavily skewed toward that theory.
That is not true. The NTSB did recognise that there appeared to be a significant number of witness reports suggesting a missile like trace. They constructed a simulation of the flight path after the nose section broke off and this flight path (flaming and climbing steeply) could have been the trace the witnesses reported.
Only to those that want to believe something far more fanciful! How can you say this? There is the known possibility of arcing of wiring resulting in a spark. There have been other cases of exploding centre fuel tanks. The wreckage clearly showed the origin of the explosion and how the break up proceeded.
As I said in a previous post, if there had been evidence of a missile entering the aircraft, or exploding in close proximity, it would have been extremely obvious. Could this have been hidden or covered up? With about 500 people (my guess) involved in the wreckage recovery and investigation that is way too many people to keep quiet.
If you think that somehow all these people have kept quiet because they were told to, or threatened to, then you really are delusional. Remember that this number of 500 becomes about 1500 when you add in family members and acquantances.
My mistake- it wasn't 400, that was from memory. In fact it's 700, take a look at the link and wade through this
The clue to this investigation is the exclusion of the eye witness reports from the official answer.
The evidence does not support the fuel tank explosion theory
As I said in a previous post, if there had been evidence of a missile entering the aircraft, or exploding in close proximity, it would have been extremely obvious. Could this have been hidden or covered up? With about 500 people (my guess) involved in the wreckage recovery and investigation that is way too many people to keep quiet.
If you think that somehow all these people have kept quiet because they were told to, or threatened to, then you really are delusional. Remember that this number of 500 becomes about 1500 when you add in family members and acquantances.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
________________________________________
________________________________________
How Sandy Berger paid back the GOP
________________________________________
Posted: January 29, 2007
11:11 p.m. Eastern
On July 6, 2006, Stonebridge International, a global strategy firm, announced that it had added a new member to its high-profile, five-member advisory board – former Democrat Rep. Lee Hamilton.
True to form, the major media ignored the Hamilton appointment. They should not have. Hamilton, who had served as vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, had just joined a firm headed by the man who had criminally undermined that very Commission, Stonebridge chairman and founder Samuel "Sandy" Berger.
In the words of a recent House Committee report, Berger had perpetrated "a disturbing breach of trust and protocol that compromised the nation's national security," a breach that had come at the expense of the 9/11 Commission's very mission.
(Column continues below)
The unseemly nature of this new alliance apparently did not trouble Hamilton, Berger or the Washington media. By the spring of 2006, Berger felt sufficiently comfortable in his relationship with that media to execute a brazen, political drive-by on the one man who most seriously threatened the Clinton legacy and his own reputation, namely Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania.
Berger began his spring offensive in March 2006 with a fund-raiser for Weldon's opponent, Joe Sestak. Almost universally despised by his Naval colleagues, the former vice admiral was forced into retirement for what the U.S. Navy charitably called "poor command climate." Before being recruited to run for Congress, Sestak had not lived in Weldon's district for 30 years.
Although hosted by Berger, the fund-raiser was held at the law offices of Harold Ickes, a veteran Clinton fixer, and Janice Enright, the treasurer of Hillary Clinton's 2006 Senate campaign.
Before the campaign was through, Clinton insiders would enlist Stonebridge's director of communications to serve as Sestak's campaign spokesperson, summon former President Clinton to rally the troops, and finally call in the federales. Their motives were transparent even to the local media.
"A Sestak victory," observed suburban Philadelphia's Delco Times early in the campaign, "would muzzle a Republican congressman who blames Clinton for doing irreparable harm to America's national security during the 1990s."
As the No. 2 Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, Weldon had not only exposed the Clinton administration's lethal "Able Danger" breakdown, but he had also catalogued the CIA's failures before Sept. 11 in his book "Countdown to Terror." And he wasn't stopping there.
In late July 2006, I accompanied Mike and Joan Wire to visit Weldon in his D.C. office. The Wires, who live in suburban Philadelphia, had arranged the interview.
I happened to be in New Jersey at the time so we drove down together. The interview lasted two and a half hours and ended only because I had to leave.
Mike Wire just happened to be the most critical of the 270 eyewitnesses to an apparent missile strike on TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996. As is well enough known, the government had argued that a mechanical failure brought down the plane.
To make the story work, however, the FBI and/or the CIA had to manufacture from whole cloth a second interview with Wire that fit their invented scenario.
This was criminal obstruction, and it is easily verified.
To get some sense of what Wire and others actually witnessed, I have put two relevant sections of the video "Silenced" on YouTube. The skeptical reader would do well to review these clips: Part 1 and Part 2.
As late as 2001, I was as skeptical about TWA Flight 800 as the next guy. It was then that I met James and Elizabeth Sanders. The Sanders and TWA Capt. Terrel Stacey had been arrested in 1997 and charged with conspiracy.
An investigative reporter, Sanders was doing the job the major media had chosen not to do. Elizabeth, a TWA trainer, had introduced her husband to Stacey, then working inside the investigation; nothing more.
Before committing to co-produce "Silenced," I had flown to Ft. Lauderdale, where the Sanders were living, and spent three days reviewing their evidence and assessing their character. As I learned, the government arrested the three of them – and convicted the Sanderses – only because they had been closing in on the truth.
When the Wires and I met with Weldon and his aide Russ Caso, we showed them sections from "Silenced," but we were not revealing anything they did not know or at least suspect. What most intrigued Weldon was the cast of characters involved in the misdirection of the TWA Flight 800 investigation. Many of those characters were working to unseat him.
Sandy Berger: Col. Buzz Patterson, who carried the nuclear football the summer of 1996, identifies then Deputy National Security Adviser Berger as the one person holed up in the family quarters with the president on the night of July 17, 1996. In addition to his other services, Berger donated $1,000 to the Sestak campaign. Sestak was the only congressional candidate to whom Berger gave money.
Tony Lake: As national security adviser, Lake was Berger's immediate boss. Although he stayed out of the family quarters on July 17, he, too, was in the loop that night. At 3 a.m. he received a call from the president asking that he "dust off the contingency plans." Lake donated $500 to Sestak. It was his only federal donation in 2006.
Richard Clarke: The anti-terror honcho takes credit for discovering the exploding fuel tank theory that provided a mechanical explanation, however contrived, for TWA Flight 800's demise. He is likely also responsible for bringing the FBI and CIA together to create the "zoom-climb" animation seen in the YouTube clip, which was used to discredit the eyewitnesses. Clarke donated $2,100 to Sestak. It was the only federal donation he made in 2006.
John Deutch: Deutch was serving as CIA director the night TWA Flight 800 went down. Several months later, in a scandal that foreshadowed Berger's own, Deutch was discovered to have loaded classified documents onto to his personal computer and taken them home. His motives were never made clear. He eventually signed a plea agreement and agreed to pay a $5,000 fine only to be pardoned the next day by President Clinton. Deutch donated $500 to Sestak, one of of only two congressional candidates he supported in 2006.
Mary O. McCarthy: In 1996, McCarthy, a CIA analyst, served as an intelligence officer on the National Security Council. In 1998, Berger appointed her as special assistant to the president. In 2006, the CIA fired her for allegedly leaking secret information about overseas prisons to the Washington Post. The only federal candidate to whom she donated in 2006 was Joe Sestak. To give some sense of the politicized nature of the CIA, McCarthy donated $2,000 to John Kerry in 2004.
Jamie Gorelick: Gorelick does not have the excuse of knowing Sestak from his work on the National Security Council. Gorelick served as deputy attorney general in the Justice Department. Still she donated $3,000 to the Sestak campaign, the most she gave to any candidate in 2006.
Gorelick, of course, was one of five Democrats appointed to the 9/11 Commission – and for no more obvious reason than her stake in keeping talk of TWA Flight 800 out of the commission room.
On Aug. 22, 1996, the politically reliable Gorelick met with the FBI brass and directed their efforts away from any serious terror or missile leads. From this point on, the FBI was tasked with finding an alternative explanation for the explosive residue found throughout the plane and duly reported to the New York Times for the previous month.
This FBI search culminated in an exculpatory tale of a sloppy dog-training exercise aboard the Flight 800 plane five weeks before the crash. Though easily disproved, the story satisfied a painfully incurious media.
Unfortunately for America, by suppressing talk of TWA Flight 800, the Clinton administration had to suppress talk of a very real terror plot against the United States that culminated in the events of Sept. 11.
In the way of background, in January 1995, the Philippine police shared with the FBI detailed plans for an aerial terrorist assault on the United States. Those plans called for the use of hijacked airliners and/or explosives-filled private aircraft as flying bombs to attack the United States.
The architect of those plans was Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing and a cohort of 9-11 chief strategist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, his alleged uncle.
Richard Clarke obviously took Yousef's planes-as-bombs plots seriously. In planning security for the Atlanta Olympics in 1996, Clarke warned of the possibility of terrorists hijacking a 747 and flying it into a packed Olympic stadium.
The U.S. Navy apparently took Yousef's plans seriously as well. On July 17, 1996, National Liberation Day in Saddam's Iraq and two days before the start of the Atlanta Olympics, a small fleet of ships and subs, some perhaps NATO, cruised off the coast of Long Island, locked and loaded.
One of two things happened next: Either Navy missiles intercepted a terrorist plane and inadvertently took out TWA Flight 800 in the process; or, more likely, while practicing to intercept a terrorist plane in the kind of crowded air corridor where such an attack would likely occur, Navy missiles accidentally destroyed the 747.
In either case, the U.S. Navy did not have the will or the wherewithal to conceal this on its own. That decision would have been made in the family quarters of the White House in the early morning hours of July 18.
Those few subordinates in the know would have been told that the decision was made for reasons of national security. A more urgent reason, of course, was to secure Clinton's re-election a few months hence.
The evidence for Navy involvement has been greatly enhanced by the research of Capt. Ray Lahr on the west coast and the legal work in the federal courts by his counsel, John Clarke. Highly useful, too, has been a new and stunningly sophisticated crash analysis drafted by an apparent insider (or insiders), whose identity remains stubbornly unknown.
As a result of Lahr's work in particular, the NTSB and FBI have quietly abandoned the CIA zoom-climb scenario shown in the YouTube clip and rely now only on a quiescent media to ignore the un-rebutted testimony of some 270 eyewitnesses to a missile strike.
In the summer of 1996, President Clinton had a keen interest in the planes-as-bombs plot as well. Soon after the destruction of TWA Flight 800, Col. Buzz Patterson was returning a daily intelligence update from the Oval Office to the National Security Council when he "keyed on a reference to a plot to use commercial airliners as weapons."
"I can state for a fact that this information was circulated within the U.S. intelligence community," Patterson writes, "and that in late 1996 the president was aware of it." The president's handwritten comments on the documents verified the same.
Most likely to keep the subject of TWA Flight 800 off the table, all talk of planes as bombs ended in the summer of 1996. Incoming National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was not even warned about the possibility. Richard Clarke verified as much when he testified before the 9/11 Commission.
"Knowledge about al-Qaida having thought of using aircraft as weapons," admitted Clarke, was "5-years, 6-years old." He asked that intelligence analysts "be forgiven for not thinking about it given the fact that they hadn't seen a lot in the five or six years intervening about it."
As to President Clinton's legacy-killing notes on the Yousef plot documents, they obviously did not find their way to the 9/11 Commission. Not surprisingly, according to the National Archives staff, "Berger was especially interested in White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke's personal office files." Berger reviewed these and "original NSC numbered documents" on his first visit to the Archives.
The House report noted, "Had Berger seen 'a smoking gun' or other documents he did not want brought to an investigatory panel's attention, he could have removed it on this visit."
When the Wires and I left Weldon in July 2006, he was on his way to review the Berger evidence. Weldon was the one man in Washington willing and able to put all the pieces together of what loomed as the most serious scandal in American political history. But this was not to be. The Clintons and their cronies had other plans.
During the now legendary Chris Wallace interview with President Clinton in late September 2006 on Fox News, the nation saw just how potent were the guns aimed at Weldon.
"A three-star admiral," Clinton announced out of nowhere, "who was on my National Security Council staff, who also fought terror, by the way, is running for the seat of Curt Weldon in Pennsylvania." He did not even mention Sestak by name. He may not have known it. Other than President Bush, Clinton mentioned no other Republican than Weldon.
It is not easy to take out a popular 10-term congressman. Weldon's enemies, however, had a nasty little ace up their sleeves. A week after President Clinton visited Weldon's district to fire up the troops, the McClatchy Newspapers broke a story attributed to two anonymous sources, namely that Weldon had "traded his political influence for lucrative lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter."
Alleging a need to act quickly because of the leak, the FBI raided the homes of Weldon's daughter and a friend on Monday, Oct. 16. By noon of that same day, a group of nearly 20 Democrat protesters were milling outside Weldon's district office in Upper Darby, carrying matching signs that read "Caught Red-Handed." The story received a great deal of unreflective attention from a media desperate for a Democrat win, and Weldon went down to defeat.
The move against Weldon was naturally attributed to the Bush Justice Department. As the Berger case proved, however, there are powerful forces operating in the Justice Department and FBI that seem to have no greater goal than protecting the Clinton legacy and advancing the Democrat agenda. The idea that Karl Rove somehow orchestrated the Weldon hit makes sense only in the nether reaches of the liberal blogosphere.
Sometimes, as in the case of Watergate, conspiracy is not a theory. It's a crime. Still, the major media will use the "conspiracy theory" mantra as an excuse to ignore this story.
To this point, the "respectable" conservative media have been intimidated into following their lead. It is past time for those media to show some sand.
________________________________________
How Sandy Berger paid back the GOP
________________________________________
Posted: January 29, 2007
11:11 p.m. Eastern
On July 6, 2006, Stonebridge International, a global strategy firm, announced that it had added a new member to its high-profile, five-member advisory board – former Democrat Rep. Lee Hamilton.
True to form, the major media ignored the Hamilton appointment. They should not have. Hamilton, who had served as vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, had just joined a firm headed by the man who had criminally undermined that very Commission, Stonebridge chairman and founder Samuel "Sandy" Berger.
In the words of a recent House Committee report, Berger had perpetrated "a disturbing breach of trust and protocol that compromised the nation's national security," a breach that had come at the expense of the 9/11 Commission's very mission.
(Column continues below)
The unseemly nature of this new alliance apparently did not trouble Hamilton, Berger or the Washington media. By the spring of 2006, Berger felt sufficiently comfortable in his relationship with that media to execute a brazen, political drive-by on the one man who most seriously threatened the Clinton legacy and his own reputation, namely Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania.
Berger began his spring offensive in March 2006 with a fund-raiser for Weldon's opponent, Joe Sestak. Almost universally despised by his Naval colleagues, the former vice admiral was forced into retirement for what the U.S. Navy charitably called "poor command climate." Before being recruited to run for Congress, Sestak had not lived in Weldon's district for 30 years.
Although hosted by Berger, the fund-raiser was held at the law offices of Harold Ickes, a veteran Clinton fixer, and Janice Enright, the treasurer of Hillary Clinton's 2006 Senate campaign.
Before the campaign was through, Clinton insiders would enlist Stonebridge's director of communications to serve as Sestak's campaign spokesperson, summon former President Clinton to rally the troops, and finally call in the federales. Their motives were transparent even to the local media.
"A Sestak victory," observed suburban Philadelphia's Delco Times early in the campaign, "would muzzle a Republican congressman who blames Clinton for doing irreparable harm to America's national security during the 1990s."
As the No. 2 Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, Weldon had not only exposed the Clinton administration's lethal "Able Danger" breakdown, but he had also catalogued the CIA's failures before Sept. 11 in his book "Countdown to Terror." And he wasn't stopping there.
In late July 2006, I accompanied Mike and Joan Wire to visit Weldon in his D.C. office. The Wires, who live in suburban Philadelphia, had arranged the interview.
I happened to be in New Jersey at the time so we drove down together. The interview lasted two and a half hours and ended only because I had to leave.
Mike Wire just happened to be the most critical of the 270 eyewitnesses to an apparent missile strike on TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996. As is well enough known, the government had argued that a mechanical failure brought down the plane.
To make the story work, however, the FBI and/or the CIA had to manufacture from whole cloth a second interview with Wire that fit their invented scenario.
This was criminal obstruction, and it is easily verified.
To get some sense of what Wire and others actually witnessed, I have put two relevant sections of the video "Silenced" on YouTube. The skeptical reader would do well to review these clips: Part 1 and Part 2.
As late as 2001, I was as skeptical about TWA Flight 800 as the next guy. It was then that I met James and Elizabeth Sanders. The Sanders and TWA Capt. Terrel Stacey had been arrested in 1997 and charged with conspiracy.
An investigative reporter, Sanders was doing the job the major media had chosen not to do. Elizabeth, a TWA trainer, had introduced her husband to Stacey, then working inside the investigation; nothing more.
Before committing to co-produce "Silenced," I had flown to Ft. Lauderdale, where the Sanders were living, and spent three days reviewing their evidence and assessing their character. As I learned, the government arrested the three of them – and convicted the Sanderses – only because they had been closing in on the truth.
When the Wires and I met with Weldon and his aide Russ Caso, we showed them sections from "Silenced," but we were not revealing anything they did not know or at least suspect. What most intrigued Weldon was the cast of characters involved in the misdirection of the TWA Flight 800 investigation. Many of those characters were working to unseat him.
Sandy Berger: Col. Buzz Patterson, who carried the nuclear football the summer of 1996, identifies then Deputy National Security Adviser Berger as the one person holed up in the family quarters with the president on the night of July 17, 1996. In addition to his other services, Berger donated $1,000 to the Sestak campaign. Sestak was the only congressional candidate to whom Berger gave money.
Tony Lake: As national security adviser, Lake was Berger's immediate boss. Although he stayed out of the family quarters on July 17, he, too, was in the loop that night. At 3 a.m. he received a call from the president asking that he "dust off the contingency plans." Lake donated $500 to Sestak. It was his only federal donation in 2006.
Richard Clarke: The anti-terror honcho takes credit for discovering the exploding fuel tank theory that provided a mechanical explanation, however contrived, for TWA Flight 800's demise. He is likely also responsible for bringing the FBI and CIA together to create the "zoom-climb" animation seen in the YouTube clip, which was used to discredit the eyewitnesses. Clarke donated $2,100 to Sestak. It was the only federal donation he made in 2006.
John Deutch: Deutch was serving as CIA director the night TWA Flight 800 went down. Several months later, in a scandal that foreshadowed Berger's own, Deutch was discovered to have loaded classified documents onto to his personal computer and taken them home. His motives were never made clear. He eventually signed a plea agreement and agreed to pay a $5,000 fine only to be pardoned the next day by President Clinton. Deutch donated $500 to Sestak, one of of only two congressional candidates he supported in 2006.
Mary O. McCarthy: In 1996, McCarthy, a CIA analyst, served as an intelligence officer on the National Security Council. In 1998, Berger appointed her as special assistant to the president. In 2006, the CIA fired her for allegedly leaking secret information about overseas prisons to the Washington Post. The only federal candidate to whom she donated in 2006 was Joe Sestak. To give some sense of the politicized nature of the CIA, McCarthy donated $2,000 to John Kerry in 2004.
Jamie Gorelick: Gorelick does not have the excuse of knowing Sestak from his work on the National Security Council. Gorelick served as deputy attorney general in the Justice Department. Still she donated $3,000 to the Sestak campaign, the most she gave to any candidate in 2006.
Gorelick, of course, was one of five Democrats appointed to the 9/11 Commission – and for no more obvious reason than her stake in keeping talk of TWA Flight 800 out of the commission room.
On Aug. 22, 1996, the politically reliable Gorelick met with the FBI brass and directed their efforts away from any serious terror or missile leads. From this point on, the FBI was tasked with finding an alternative explanation for the explosive residue found throughout the plane and duly reported to the New York Times for the previous month.
This FBI search culminated in an exculpatory tale of a sloppy dog-training exercise aboard the Flight 800 plane five weeks before the crash. Though easily disproved, the story satisfied a painfully incurious media.
Unfortunately for America, by suppressing talk of TWA Flight 800, the Clinton administration had to suppress talk of a very real terror plot against the United States that culminated in the events of Sept. 11.
In the way of background, in January 1995, the Philippine police shared with the FBI detailed plans for an aerial terrorist assault on the United States. Those plans called for the use of hijacked airliners and/or explosives-filled private aircraft as flying bombs to attack the United States.
The architect of those plans was Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing and a cohort of 9-11 chief strategist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, his alleged uncle.
Richard Clarke obviously took Yousef's planes-as-bombs plots seriously. In planning security for the Atlanta Olympics in 1996, Clarke warned of the possibility of terrorists hijacking a 747 and flying it into a packed Olympic stadium.
The U.S. Navy apparently took Yousef's plans seriously as well. On July 17, 1996, National Liberation Day in Saddam's Iraq and two days before the start of the Atlanta Olympics, a small fleet of ships and subs, some perhaps NATO, cruised off the coast of Long Island, locked and loaded.
One of two things happened next: Either Navy missiles intercepted a terrorist plane and inadvertently took out TWA Flight 800 in the process; or, more likely, while practicing to intercept a terrorist plane in the kind of crowded air corridor where such an attack would likely occur, Navy missiles accidentally destroyed the 747.
In either case, the U.S. Navy did not have the will or the wherewithal to conceal this on its own. That decision would have been made in the family quarters of the White House in the early morning hours of July 18.
Those few subordinates in the know would have been told that the decision was made for reasons of national security. A more urgent reason, of course, was to secure Clinton's re-election a few months hence.
The evidence for Navy involvement has been greatly enhanced by the research of Capt. Ray Lahr on the west coast and the legal work in the federal courts by his counsel, John Clarke. Highly useful, too, has been a new and stunningly sophisticated crash analysis drafted by an apparent insider (or insiders), whose identity remains stubbornly unknown.
As a result of Lahr's work in particular, the NTSB and FBI have quietly abandoned the CIA zoom-climb scenario shown in the YouTube clip and rely now only on a quiescent media to ignore the un-rebutted testimony of some 270 eyewitnesses to a missile strike.
In the summer of 1996, President Clinton had a keen interest in the planes-as-bombs plot as well. Soon after the destruction of TWA Flight 800, Col. Buzz Patterson was returning a daily intelligence update from the Oval Office to the National Security Council when he "keyed on a reference to a plot to use commercial airliners as weapons."
"I can state for a fact that this information was circulated within the U.S. intelligence community," Patterson writes, "and that in late 1996 the president was aware of it." The president's handwritten comments on the documents verified the same.
Most likely to keep the subject of TWA Flight 800 off the table, all talk of planes as bombs ended in the summer of 1996. Incoming National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was not even warned about the possibility. Richard Clarke verified as much when he testified before the 9/11 Commission.
"Knowledge about al-Qaida having thought of using aircraft as weapons," admitted Clarke, was "5-years, 6-years old." He asked that intelligence analysts "be forgiven for not thinking about it given the fact that they hadn't seen a lot in the five or six years intervening about it."
As to President Clinton's legacy-killing notes on the Yousef plot documents, they obviously did not find their way to the 9/11 Commission. Not surprisingly, according to the National Archives staff, "Berger was especially interested in White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke's personal office files." Berger reviewed these and "original NSC numbered documents" on his first visit to the Archives.
The House report noted, "Had Berger seen 'a smoking gun' or other documents he did not want brought to an investigatory panel's attention, he could have removed it on this visit."
When the Wires and I left Weldon in July 2006, he was on his way to review the Berger evidence. Weldon was the one man in Washington willing and able to put all the pieces together of what loomed as the most serious scandal in American political history. But this was not to be. The Clintons and their cronies had other plans.
During the now legendary Chris Wallace interview with President Clinton in late September 2006 on Fox News, the nation saw just how potent were the guns aimed at Weldon.
"A three-star admiral," Clinton announced out of nowhere, "who was on my National Security Council staff, who also fought terror, by the way, is running for the seat of Curt Weldon in Pennsylvania." He did not even mention Sestak by name. He may not have known it. Other than President Bush, Clinton mentioned no other Republican than Weldon.
It is not easy to take out a popular 10-term congressman. Weldon's enemies, however, had a nasty little ace up their sleeves. A week after President Clinton visited Weldon's district to fire up the troops, the McClatchy Newspapers broke a story attributed to two anonymous sources, namely that Weldon had "traded his political influence for lucrative lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter."
Alleging a need to act quickly because of the leak, the FBI raided the homes of Weldon's daughter and a friend on Monday, Oct. 16. By noon of that same day, a group of nearly 20 Democrat protesters were milling outside Weldon's district office in Upper Darby, carrying matching signs that read "Caught Red-Handed." The story received a great deal of unreflective attention from a media desperate for a Democrat win, and Weldon went down to defeat.
The move against Weldon was naturally attributed to the Bush Justice Department. As the Berger case proved, however, there are powerful forces operating in the Justice Department and FBI that seem to have no greater goal than protecting the Clinton legacy and advancing the Democrat agenda. The idea that Karl Rove somehow orchestrated the Weldon hit makes sense only in the nether reaches of the liberal blogosphere.
Sometimes, as in the case of Watergate, conspiracy is not a theory. It's a crime. Still, the major media will use the "conspiracy theory" mantra as an excuse to ignore this story.
To this point, the "respectable" conservative media have been intimidated into following their lead. It is past time for those media to show some sand.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kermedecs
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only to those that want to believe something far more fanciful!
-Always a good idea to know what you're talking about - show the evidence, not some popular science mumbo jumbo about domestic electricians inducing sparks. You've heard about electrical bonding presumably (amongst others)
How can you say this?
-Because I know what I'm talking about
There is the known possibility of arcing of wiring resulting in a spark.
-If there's a 'known' possibility it wouldn't be certified to fly (or get through design), or the fix would have been mandated
There have been other cases of exploding centre fuel tanks.
-Really, name one?
The wreckage clearly showed the origin of the explosion and how the break up proceeded.
- The evidence presented showed what the NTSB wanted to support. The scatter pattern wreckage map is contradictory to the NTSB's theory.
Just out of curiosity, what part of the previous posts don't you understand?
that should keep you busy
-Always a good idea to know what you're talking about - show the evidence, not some popular science mumbo jumbo about domestic electricians inducing sparks. You've heard about electrical bonding presumably (amongst others)
How can you say this?
-Because I know what I'm talking about
There is the known possibility of arcing of wiring resulting in a spark.
-If there's a 'known' possibility it wouldn't be certified to fly (or get through design), or the fix would have been mandated
There have been other cases of exploding centre fuel tanks.
-Really, name one?
The wreckage clearly showed the origin of the explosion and how the break up proceeded.
- The evidence presented showed what the NTSB wanted to support. The scatter pattern wreckage map is contradictory to the NTSB's theory.
Just out of curiosity, what part of the previous posts don't you understand?
that should keep you busy
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thirty Eight South,
The NTSB noted in its release that since the TWA accident, there have been two fuel tank explosions on jetliners. One occurred in 2001, in the center wing tank of a Boeing 737 parked at the terminal in Bangkok, Thailand.
The board is currently investigating the explosion last month in the left wing fuel tank on a Transmile Airlines 727 cargo plane in Bangalore, India.
There have been other cases of exploding centre fuel tanks.
-Really, name one?
-Really, name one?
The board is currently investigating the explosion last month in the left wing fuel tank on a Transmile Airlines 727 cargo plane in Bangalore, India.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thirty Eight South Wrote
- Because I know what I'm talking about
I'm not so sure
-If there's a 'known' possibility it wouldn't be certified to fly (or get through design), or the fix would have been mandated
Have a quick search around for Airworthiness Directives (on reputable websites) relating to fuel tanks and the posibility of explosions. You'll find several. I have first hand (not on the internet) proof that fuel tank explosions can and do happened.
I can't be bothered rebutting the other "evidence". The NTSB is a reputable safety body with a strong history of technical skill. Your basically saying you know better without direct access to the evidence. I just don't buy the cover up theory.
- Because I know what I'm talking about
I'm not so sure
-If there's a 'known' possibility it wouldn't be certified to fly (or get through design), or the fix would have been mandated
Have a quick search around for Airworthiness Directives (on reputable websites) relating to fuel tanks and the posibility of explosions. You'll find several. I have first hand (not on the internet) proof that fuel tank explosions can and do happened.
I can't be bothered rebutting the other "evidence". The NTSB is a reputable safety body with a strong history of technical skill. Your basically saying you know better without direct access to the evidence. I just don't buy the cover up theory.
Thirty Eight South,
Haven't "heard about electrical bonding" - you may have to enlighten me. The "evidence" for the spark is the bleeding obvious, provided you know a little electrical theory. Would you like me to elaborate? I can outline a simple experiment you could conduct at home which will result in a spark at a point distant from where the arcing occurs. I would be happy to do that, but you could get the same rundown from a LAME with electrical qualifications.
On the "known" possibility of a spark resulting from arcing:
This possibility has been known about for as long as man has been using electricity. Provided the insulation is in reasonable condition, there is virtually no risk, but if the insulation has deteriorated sufficiently, or has been damaged, then the risk level starts to become significant.
In a previous post in this thread I named: the Iranian air force 747-100 and the Thai Airways 737. Today I learned of a 737 in the Philippines. The 747 suffered the explosion in flight but the 737s were both on the ground. Other posters have mentioned specific cases, but I am unaware of those.
I did some research today on the investigation of TWA 800. That research consisted of watching a documentary that I had taped from TV years ago. What I write below has been drawn from that documentary.
Thirty Eight South again:
The NTSB did conduct tests. They rigged a 747 CFT with temperature sensors then subjected the tank to the same heating conditions that were endured by TWA 800. To Boeing's surprise, the inside of the tank got to temperatures well above that needed for an explosion. The hottest sensor showed a reading of 127 degrees F.
Another test was to evaluate whether an exploding CFT could subject enough force to the airframe to cause it damage. Boeing had expressed doubt that such an explosion could result in the aircraft being brought down. The NTSB test showed that in fact, the force from the explosion was "3 times that needed to damage the airframe".
The "smoking gun" would have to be the visible evidence provided by the pieced-together wreckage. In the documentary, Jim Wildey, Chief Metallurgist NTSB, takes us on a guided tour of the pieced together fuselage around the vicinity of the CFT. Standing in the "dry bay" ahead of the CFT and immediately aft of the front spar, he points to witness marks on the back side of the front spar.
The witness marks are clearly visible in the video. Conspiracy theorists would probably say that the NTSB put them there with a mallet. He goes on to say the following:
"These witness marks (were created by) spanwise beam 3 (which) broke at the top, rotated forward and impacted the back of the front spar. This is the result of an 'overpressure event' or an explosion inside the wing centre section fuel tank."
The "spanwise beam 3" is one of the forward beams across the CFT. During the wreckage recovery from the sea floor it was noted that one of these spanwise beams was found some distance from the main remains of the CFT (which should have been mostly intact).
Jim Kallstrom, Assistant Director FBI, was in charge of the FBI investigation. On the subject of missile strike evidence he had this to say:
"... we wouldn't be looking at little holes in the plane the size of dimes and quarters. If a missile from the USS Normandy hit the plane it would demolish the plane, and evidence, metalurgy evidence would be EVERYWHERE. People wouldn't be looking at little pieces, 10 times, and saying "I wonder?". It would slap you across the face."
... show the evidence, not some popular science mumbo jumbo about domestic electricians inducing sparks. You've heard about electrical bonding presumably (amongst others)
On the "known" possibility of a spark resulting from arcing:
If there's a 'known' possibility it wouldn't be certified to fly (or get through design), or the fix would have been mandated
There have been other cases of exploding centre fuel tanks.
-Really, name one?
-Really, name one?
I did some research today on the investigation of TWA 800. That research consisted of watching a documentary that I had taped from TV years ago. What I write below has been drawn from that documentary.
Thirty Eight South again:
If the 747 tank explosion cause can be explained, it can be replicated: why didn't the NTSB go out to the Mojave, find a decommissioned 100 series 747 and replicate the explosion? The more conjecture, the more room there is to postulate and defend alternative theories, however unsubstantiated they may be
Another test was to evaluate whether an exploding CFT could subject enough force to the airframe to cause it damage. Boeing had expressed doubt that such an explosion could result in the aircraft being brought down. The NTSB test showed that in fact, the force from the explosion was "3 times that needed to damage the airframe".
The "smoking gun" would have to be the visible evidence provided by the pieced-together wreckage. In the documentary, Jim Wildey, Chief Metallurgist NTSB, takes us on a guided tour of the pieced together fuselage around the vicinity of the CFT. Standing in the "dry bay" ahead of the CFT and immediately aft of the front spar, he points to witness marks on the back side of the front spar.
The witness marks are clearly visible in the video. Conspiracy theorists would probably say that the NTSB put them there with a mallet. He goes on to say the following:
"These witness marks (were created by) spanwise beam 3 (which) broke at the top, rotated forward and impacted the back of the front spar. This is the result of an 'overpressure event' or an explosion inside the wing centre section fuel tank."
The "spanwise beam 3" is one of the forward beams across the CFT. During the wreckage recovery from the sea floor it was noted that one of these spanwise beams was found some distance from the main remains of the CFT (which should have been mostly intact).
Jim Kallstrom, Assistant Director FBI, was in charge of the FBI investigation. On the subject of missile strike evidence he had this to say:
"... we wouldn't be looking at little holes in the plane the size of dimes and quarters. If a missile from the USS Normandy hit the plane it would demolish the plane, and evidence, metalurgy evidence would be EVERYWHERE. People wouldn't be looking at little pieces, 10 times, and saying "I wonder?". It would slap you across the face."
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kermedecs
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same Jim Kallstrom presumably.
FBI's Kallstrom angrily denies any TWA probe cover-up
SMITHTOWN, New York (CNN) -- Officials from the FBI, Navy and National Transportation Safety Board angrily denied Friday a claim by former White House Press Secretary Pierre Salinger that a Navy missile might have shot down TWA Flight 800.
"What we can say is that the United States military did not shoot a missile at this airplane. The United States military did not shoot anything," FBI assistant director James Kallstrom told a news conference
The ntsb took a fuel tank into the desert and were surprised it got hot? hardly science. They didn't take the experiment to it's conclusion - which is spontaneous ignition , not surprising considering they don't determine the cause in the ntsb report - only probability and conjecture:
NTSB Number AAR-00/03
'National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the TWA flight 800 accident was an explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT), resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system'
what's not in the report is the ambient temp at the time of the ignition - the 747 is at 13 000 feet, at approx 230 kts: the ambient temp and the fuel tank temp are much lower than the red herring ground temp in the CFT. fuel is conductive; thermal conductivity in metallic materials is the same. I could go on, but I'm getting bored with this
as for the ntsb being the source of information for a tv documentary and providing the evidence, no thanks. The structure deformation evidence isn't conclusive, there's no mention of fastener shear loads and tension loads causing plastic deformation ect. Witness marks are just that-evidence of impact.what's required is detailed grain analysis, heat induced structural changes and the over pressure trace mapping ect, ect
FBI's Kallstrom angrily denies any TWA probe cover-up
SMITHTOWN, New York (CNN) -- Officials from the FBI, Navy and National Transportation Safety Board angrily denied Friday a claim by former White House Press Secretary Pierre Salinger that a Navy missile might have shot down TWA Flight 800.
"What we can say is that the United States military did not shoot a missile at this airplane. The United States military did not shoot anything," FBI assistant director James Kallstrom told a news conference
The ntsb took a fuel tank into the desert and were surprised it got hot? hardly science. They didn't take the experiment to it's conclusion - which is spontaneous ignition , not surprising considering they don't determine the cause in the ntsb report - only probability and conjecture:
NTSB Number AAR-00/03
'National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the TWA flight 800 accident was an explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT), resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system'
what's not in the report is the ambient temp at the time of the ignition - the 747 is at 13 000 feet, at approx 230 kts: the ambient temp and the fuel tank temp are much lower than the red herring ground temp in the CFT. fuel is conductive; thermal conductivity in metallic materials is the same. I could go on, but I'm getting bored with this
as for the ntsb being the source of information for a tv documentary and providing the evidence, no thanks. The structure deformation evidence isn't conclusive, there's no mention of fastener shear loads and tension loads causing plastic deformation ect. Witness marks are just that-evidence of impact.what's required is detailed grain analysis, heat induced structural changes and the over pressure trace mapping ect, ect
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Discovery Channel scoops CNN on TWA 800 story
Slant Index: 2.29 (vote)
Email this story
Discovery Channel’s recent program examining the cause of the TWA 800 disaster not only scoops CNN’s previously aired ”No Survivors” program on the same subject, but is a far superior investigative report. Discovery’s ”Best Evidence” takes a critical look at the available hard evidence and the government’s conclusions pertaining to the jetliner’s demise. By contrast, CNN’s ”No Survivors” contained a number of factual inaccuracies, the result of CNN’s producers relying too heavily on official sources and failing to verify the information those sources provided.
For example, CNN based their crash sequence animation that showed Flight 800 climbing sharply after exploding on government simulation data. But the government admitted that the simulations were ”steered,” and outside experts have shown that they do not match the hard radar evidence.
The government used the climb scenario based on their steered simulation data to explain eyewitness accounts of a missile. At a major FBI press conference in 1997, the CIA released an animation showing TWA 800 climbing and said the aircraft ”may have looked like a missile”.
The producers of ”Best Evidence” looked closely at the data behind the government simulations and found that the CIA’s animation did not match the hard radar evidence. FAA radar sites that recorded what actually happened to Flight 800 show that the jetliner banked left and descended after exploding.
For the first time on national television, former FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom admitted that he had reservations about the CIA’s animation. ”In retrospect,” he told Discovery’s producers, ”I shouldn’t have asked the CIA” to produce the animation of Flight 800’s final moments.
But CNN’s producers, who also interviewed Kallstrom, apparently did not confront the chief FBI investigator for the TWA 800 case about the discrepancy between the radar data and the CIA animation. In fact, the controversy surrounding the CIA or any other government animation was not mentioned at all in CNN’s program. Instead, CNN simply cited the government as their source and ran an animation based on the government’s invalid data. Clearly, CNN’s producers did not review the available hard evidence--the radar tapes--to verify the information provided by the official government sources they used.
”No Survivors” interviewed the first eyewitness contacted by authorities. Naneen Levine said the object she saw rose off the surface and arced to the west--opposite to the direction Flight 800 was flying. CNN didn’t investigate this discrepancy, but instead let Mr. Kallstrom explain that she probably saw the plane on fire.
On the other hand, ”Best Evidence” allowed structural engineer and eyewitness Paul Angeldes to comment on the government’s explanation of what he saw. He said the government’s theory doesn’t account for the object he saw, which he said first appeared close to shore and in a completely different part of the sky than where Flight 800 was flying.
CNN’s ”No Survivors” didn’t discuss any of the wreckage that went missing during the investigation, not even the wreckage FAA radar sites tracked exiting Flight 800 at apparent supersonic speeds.*
”Best Evidence” displayed the hard radar and debris field evidence confirming the existence of the high-speed wreckage. When Discovery’s producer asked how this wreckage vanished from the investigation, FBI chief TWA 800 investigator James Kallstrom said it may have been sent to Washington for further analysis. Kallstrom provided no further details on the whereabouts of this wreckage.**
cnnX editorial
Flight 800 crashed off the coast of Long Island, NY in 1996 killing all 230 people onboard. Hundreds of witnesses reported seeing a streak of light in the sky before Flight 800 exploded. Two Air National Guard pilots in the air at the time identified the streak as a missile.
Government animations were used to discredit eyewitnesses, not to help explain the cause of the crash. Once the jetliner broke in two, what happened later--the plane climbing, according to the government--had nothing to do with the cause. Yet even with the government's explanation, a majority of the relevant witnesses (including Naneen Levine from "No Survivors" and Paul Angelides in "Best Evidence") still contradict the official crash scenario.
Valuable reporting techniques include fact-checking and obtaining multiple sources for information. When "Best Evidence" applied these techniques, they uncovered significant lapses in the official investigation and got a former FBI Assistant Director to second-guess his judgment. When CNN neglected these techniques, they aired an inaccurate report and got scooped.
If you missed the Discovery Channel show, it will air again on February 15th at 1PM EST.
*FAA radar sites recorded this wreckage traveling at an average speed of approximately 500 mph over four seconds. Because wreckage exiting an aircraft rapidly decreases its speed due to the extreme force of air resistance, this piece of wreckage most likely had an initial velocity far greater than the speed of sound, which at Flight 800's altitude was approximately 700 mph.
**No analysis of this wreckage has ever been publicly released.
Slant Index: 2.29 (vote)
Email this story
Discovery Channel’s recent program examining the cause of the TWA 800 disaster not only scoops CNN’s previously aired ”No Survivors” program on the same subject, but is a far superior investigative report. Discovery’s ”Best Evidence” takes a critical look at the available hard evidence and the government’s conclusions pertaining to the jetliner’s demise. By contrast, CNN’s ”No Survivors” contained a number of factual inaccuracies, the result of CNN’s producers relying too heavily on official sources and failing to verify the information those sources provided.
For example, CNN based their crash sequence animation that showed Flight 800 climbing sharply after exploding on government simulation data. But the government admitted that the simulations were ”steered,” and outside experts have shown that they do not match the hard radar evidence.
The government used the climb scenario based on their steered simulation data to explain eyewitness accounts of a missile. At a major FBI press conference in 1997, the CIA released an animation showing TWA 800 climbing and said the aircraft ”may have looked like a missile”.
The producers of ”Best Evidence” looked closely at the data behind the government simulations and found that the CIA’s animation did not match the hard radar evidence. FAA radar sites that recorded what actually happened to Flight 800 show that the jetliner banked left and descended after exploding.
For the first time on national television, former FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom admitted that he had reservations about the CIA’s animation. ”In retrospect,” he told Discovery’s producers, ”I shouldn’t have asked the CIA” to produce the animation of Flight 800’s final moments.
But CNN’s producers, who also interviewed Kallstrom, apparently did not confront the chief FBI investigator for the TWA 800 case about the discrepancy between the radar data and the CIA animation. In fact, the controversy surrounding the CIA or any other government animation was not mentioned at all in CNN’s program. Instead, CNN simply cited the government as their source and ran an animation based on the government’s invalid data. Clearly, CNN’s producers did not review the available hard evidence--the radar tapes--to verify the information provided by the official government sources they used.
”No Survivors” interviewed the first eyewitness contacted by authorities. Naneen Levine said the object she saw rose off the surface and arced to the west--opposite to the direction Flight 800 was flying. CNN didn’t investigate this discrepancy, but instead let Mr. Kallstrom explain that she probably saw the plane on fire.
On the other hand, ”Best Evidence” allowed structural engineer and eyewitness Paul Angeldes to comment on the government’s explanation of what he saw. He said the government’s theory doesn’t account for the object he saw, which he said first appeared close to shore and in a completely different part of the sky than where Flight 800 was flying.
CNN’s ”No Survivors” didn’t discuss any of the wreckage that went missing during the investigation, not even the wreckage FAA radar sites tracked exiting Flight 800 at apparent supersonic speeds.*
”Best Evidence” displayed the hard radar and debris field evidence confirming the existence of the high-speed wreckage. When Discovery’s producer asked how this wreckage vanished from the investigation, FBI chief TWA 800 investigator James Kallstrom said it may have been sent to Washington for further analysis. Kallstrom provided no further details on the whereabouts of this wreckage.**
cnnX editorial
Flight 800 crashed off the coast of Long Island, NY in 1996 killing all 230 people onboard. Hundreds of witnesses reported seeing a streak of light in the sky before Flight 800 exploded. Two Air National Guard pilots in the air at the time identified the streak as a missile.
Government animations were used to discredit eyewitnesses, not to help explain the cause of the crash. Once the jetliner broke in two, what happened later--the plane climbing, according to the government--had nothing to do with the cause. Yet even with the government's explanation, a majority of the relevant witnesses (including Naneen Levine from "No Survivors" and Paul Angelides in "Best Evidence") still contradict the official crash scenario.
Valuable reporting techniques include fact-checking and obtaining multiple sources for information. When "Best Evidence" applied these techniques, they uncovered significant lapses in the official investigation and got a former FBI Assistant Director to second-guess his judgment. When CNN neglected these techniques, they aired an inaccurate report and got scooped.
If you missed the Discovery Channel show, it will air again on February 15th at 1PM EST.
*FAA radar sites recorded this wreckage traveling at an average speed of approximately 500 mph over four seconds. Because wreckage exiting an aircraft rapidly decreases its speed due to the extreme force of air resistance, this piece of wreckage most likely had an initial velocity far greater than the speed of sound, which at Flight 800's altitude was approximately 700 mph.
**No analysis of this wreckage has ever been publicly released.
Groan
Casper, Thirty Eight South and any other conspiracy theorists,
What would it take for you to believe the official version of events?
If you feel inclined to answer with something like "for the NTSB and FBI to admit that it was a missile" then you don't quite understand the question.
What would it take for you to believe the official version of events?
If you feel inclined to answer with something like "for the NTSB and FBI to admit that it was a missile" then you don't quite understand the question.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The below FAA information and the interview with Major Myers (Air Guard helicopter pilot who had witnessed missiles in Vietnam and who was one of the closest living witnesses to the TWA 800 explosion) are some, only some, of the reasons why I consider the official version with extreme suspicion.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In truth, to its credit, the FAA refused to change its story despite the pressure to do so. When in November 1996, the NTSB leaned on the FAA to "agree that there is no evidence that would suggest a high-speed target merged with TWA 800," the FAA refused.
"We cannot comply with your request," the FAA's David Thomas responded. "By alerting law enforcement agencies, air traffic control personnel simply did what was prudent at the time and reported what appeared to them to be a suspicious event. To do less would have been irresponsible."
To set the record straight on this issue, Ray Lahr persuaded one key witness, James Holtsclaw, to go public for the first time. In 1996 Holtsclaw was serving as the deputy assistant for the Western Region of the Air Transport Association. Within a week of the crash, Holtsclaw received the radar tape directly from an NTSB investigator frustrated by its suppression.
"The tape shows a primary target at 1200 knots converging with TWA 800, during the climb out phase of TWA 800," swears Holtsclaw on the Lahr affidavit.
In fact, before the investigation was through, authorities would introduce five different explanations to rationalize away that "blip." This obvious dissembling may explain why investigators felt the need to smuggle out evidence. Holtsclaw's informant would be the first of several, at least four of whom would be either suspended from the investigation or arrested.
Within weeks of the crash, the FBI would interview more than 700 eyewitnesses.
By its own count, 270 of them saw lights streaking upwards towards the plane. Defense Department analysts also debriefed some of these witnesses, 34 of whom, according to the FBI, described events "consistent with the characteristics of the flight of [anti-aircraft] missiles."
----------------------------------------------------------------
In truth, to its credit, the FAA refused to change its story despite the pressure to do so. When in November 1996, the NTSB leaned on the FAA to "agree that there is no evidence that would suggest a high-speed target merged with TWA 800," the FAA refused.
"We cannot comply with your request," the FAA's David Thomas responded. "By alerting law enforcement agencies, air traffic control personnel simply did what was prudent at the time and reported what appeared to them to be a suspicious event. To do less would have been irresponsible."
To set the record straight on this issue, Ray Lahr persuaded one key witness, James Holtsclaw, to go public for the first time. In 1996 Holtsclaw was serving as the deputy assistant for the Western Region of the Air Transport Association. Within a week of the crash, Holtsclaw received the radar tape directly from an NTSB investigator frustrated by its suppression.
"The tape shows a primary target at 1200 knots converging with TWA 800, during the climb out phase of TWA 800," swears Holtsclaw on the Lahr affidavit.
In fact, before the investigation was through, authorities would introduce five different explanations to rationalize away that "blip." This obvious dissembling may explain why investigators felt the need to smuggle out evidence. Holtsclaw's informant would be the first of several, at least four of whom would be either suspended from the investigation or arrested.
Within weeks of the crash, the FBI would interview more than 700 eyewitnesses.
By its own count, 270 of them saw lights streaking upwards towards the plane. Defense Department analysts also debriefed some of these witnesses, 34 of whom, according to the FBI, described events "consistent with the characteristics of the flight of [anti-aircraft] missiles."
Groan
Just how does one go about arguing with the conspiracy theorist? They reject outright any evidence or explanations advanced by the government (the enemy), so how can you put to them the counter arguments?
It is part of their mindset to regard any agency that supports or agrees with the government line as being "in on the conspiracy". This effectively means they will only listen to argument that favours the conspiracists views. Their minds are closed, in other words, yet they claim to be "seekers of the truth".
I did some research tonight on the psychology of the conspiracy theorist. It appears that the conspiracy theories give comfort on various psychological levels - they make the world a more predictable and less hostile place, for example.
Here is a good read that explores the mindset and methods of operation that are common to all conspiracy theorists (mainly to do with the 9/11 conspiracy theories):
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/4199607.html
I suggest that posters to this thread that favour the missile theory have a read of that page then ask themselves whether any of the tendencies and behaviours described there apply to them.
56P said:
Many witnesses reported "a streak of light", but not one single witness described a missile strike. To have described a missile strike, the witness report would have to give something like the following:
(1) a light from the buring missile motor ascending very rapidly and steeply for about 8 seconds;
(2) the light disappearing for up to 7 seconds;
(3) upon the missile striking the aircraft and igniting the CWT another light, moving considerably slower and more laterally than the first for about 30 seconds;
(4) this light descending while simultaneously developing into a fireball falling toward the ocean.
The above description is from the NTSB final report, as is the following:
On this point, the NTSB final report said:
owing to the conspiracy theorist mindset, never will:
It is part of their mindset to regard any agency that supports or agrees with the government line as being "in on the conspiracy". This effectively means they will only listen to argument that favours the conspiracists views. Their minds are closed, in other words, yet they claim to be "seekers of the truth".
I did some research tonight on the psychology of the conspiracy theorist. It appears that the conspiracy theories give comfort on various psychological levels - they make the world a more predictable and less hostile place, for example.
Here is a good read that explores the mindset and methods of operation that are common to all conspiracy theorists (mainly to do with the 9/11 conspiracy theories):
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/4199607.html
I suggest that posters to this thread that favour the missile theory have a read of that page then ask themselves whether any of the tendencies and behaviours described there apply to them.
56P said:
90% of the OFFICIAL witnesses reject the official scenario!
(1) a light from the buring missile motor ascending very rapidly and steeply for about 8 seconds;
(2) the light disappearing for up to 7 seconds;
(3) upon the missile striking the aircraft and igniting the CWT another light, moving considerably slower and more laterally than the first for about 30 seconds;
(4) this light descending while simultaneously developing into a fireball falling toward the ocean.
The above description is from the NTSB final report, as is the following:
The NTSB Witness Group reviewed these summaries and determined that the documents contained 736 witness accounts. Of these, the group determined that 670 witness reported seeing something that probably related to the accident, and 250 reported hearing something that was likely related to the accident. 258 accounts were characterized as "streak-of-light" witnesses ("an object moving in the sky...variously described [as] a point of light, fireworks, a flare, a shooting star, or something similar"). Of these 258 witnesses, 38 reported that the streak was ascending vertically or nearly so, 18 indicated that it originated from the surface of the earth, and 7 reported that it originated at the horizon.
599 witnesses reported a fireball; of these 264 reported seeing the fireball originate, 200 reported seeing the fireball split into two fireballs, and 217 reported observing the fireball hit the surface of the water, or disappear below the horizon. 210 witnesses reported seing both a fireball and a streak of light.
Both the FBI and the NTSB started the investigation fully expecting that the aircraft had been brought down by a bomb. Unfortunately however, this mindset was projected into the wording of the questions that were put to the witnesses. Some "contamination" of the witnesses must be regarded as having occurred.599 witnesses reported a fireball; of these 264 reported seeing the fireball originate, 200 reported seeing the fireball split into two fireballs, and 217 reported observing the fireball hit the surface of the water, or disappear below the horizon. 210 witnesses reported seing both a fireball and a streak of light.
On this point, the NTSB final report said:
In examining these accounts, the investigation noted that the interviews conducted by the FBI focused on information that might be relevant to a possibility of a missile attack, noting that some of the suggested interview questions given to the FBI agents for the interview process included assumptions that a missile attack had occured.
What should be regarded as the final word on what the witnesses saw, but owing to the conspiracy theorist mindset, never will:
The NTSB Witness Group concluded that the streak of light reported by witnesses might have been the accident airplane during some stage of its flight before the fireball developed, noting that most of the 258 streak of light accounts were generally consistent with the calculated flightpath of the accident airplane after the CWT explosion.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kermedecs
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good try Freud but stick to the day job or high school, whichever's appropriate. Anyone proposing domestic electrical experiments to justify a point about ignition in fuel tanks who also doesn't understand electrical bonding in aviation structures really is a plonker
Constantly referring to the NTSB to justify an argument when it's been stated that the report is not an accurate reflection of the evidence is somewhat self defeating as well, so instead of looking up conspiracry look up delusional.
Questioning the so called official version of events when the evidence is contradictory is healthy objectivity; anyway, I think there's a bell ringing somewhere for you Pavlov
Constantly referring to the NTSB to justify an argument when it's been stated that the report is not an accurate reflection of the evidence is somewhat self defeating as well, so instead of looking up conspiracry look up delusional.
Questioning the so called official version of events when the evidence is contradictory is healthy objectivity; anyway, I think there's a bell ringing somewhere for you Pavlov
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, let’s take it slowly, one issue at a time. The last sentence of the below information is sworn testimony.
Why would the FAA refuse to change its story, even after pressure from the NTSB?
And what sort of object is capable of 1200 knots?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In truth, to its credit, the FAA refused to change its story despite the pressure to do so. When in November 1996, the NTSB leaned on the FAA to "agree that there is no evidence that would suggest a high-speed target merged with TWA 800," the FAA refused.
"We cannot comply with your request," the FAA's David Thomas responded. "By alerting law enforcement agencies, air traffic control personnel simply did what was prudent at the time and reported what appeared to them to be a suspicious event. To do less would have been irresponsible."
To set the record straight on this issue, one key witness, James Holtsclaw, went public for the first time. In 1996 Holtsclaw was serving as the deputy assistant for the Western Region of the Air Transport Association. Within a week of the crash, Holtsclaw received the radar tape directly from an NTSB investigator frustrated by its suppression.
"The tape shows a primary target at 1200 knots converging with TWA 800, during the climb out phase of TWA 800."
Why would the FAA refuse to change its story, even after pressure from the NTSB?
And what sort of object is capable of 1200 knots?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In truth, to its credit, the FAA refused to change its story despite the pressure to do so. When in November 1996, the NTSB leaned on the FAA to "agree that there is no evidence that would suggest a high-speed target merged with TWA 800," the FAA refused.
"We cannot comply with your request," the FAA's David Thomas responded. "By alerting law enforcement agencies, air traffic control personnel simply did what was prudent at the time and reported what appeared to them to be a suspicious event. To do less would have been irresponsible."
To set the record straight on this issue, one key witness, James Holtsclaw, went public for the first time. In 1996 Holtsclaw was serving as the deputy assistant for the Western Region of the Air Transport Association. Within a week of the crash, Holtsclaw received the radar tape directly from an NTSB investigator frustrated by its suppression.
"The tape shows a primary target at 1200 knots converging with TWA 800, during the climb out phase of TWA 800."
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
after working in many ctr wing tanks of 747's i find it hard to swallow ,shorted wire or not .capton wiring etc ,at 13800 ft exactly how much is the oxygen to air component for a spark to take place also fuel vapour jeta or a1 is not easy to ignite thats why ignition systems on engines is 4 joule or ten joule for inflight start,have thrown cigarette buts into buckets of jet a at ground level and never a flash ,conspiracy i love but call mulder because you will never know