TWA Flight 800 - Someone Has Finally Talked!

WorldNetDaily ^ | January 31, 2002 | Reed Irvine

[VectoRama]

Yeah, ha ha, an anonymous someone. Did he see Elvis too?

"Anonymous"? Reed knows who the guy is, and is withholding the name due to the person fearing retaliation. Reed is not the type to make this up.

[Ragin1]

LOL! I think ya gotta put _Jim in the To: box.

[alphadog]

The pilot of the HH-60 Major Meyers (Nam Vet) from the NY Air National Guard, 106th Air Rescue Group... already said it was a missle, he was doing a mission in the area (so close that he had to evade falling junk) to support a "RAMS" training mission (rubber raft from a HC-130 dumped in the water and pararescuemen swim to it...yada yada)

[yazd]

Salinger was indeed a U.S. Senator for a few months, appointed to fill the remainder of Claire Engle's term when he died in 1964. See: http://politicalgraveyard.com/geo/CA/ofc/ussen.html

[alphadog]

Submarines don't carry surface-to-air missiles

Stingers and maybe a little gismo launched out or the "tubes" the kinda floats on the surface bobbing nose up when the anti sub plane or whatever flies over....well surprise....just guessing don't know for sure.

[VectoRama]

I am wondering about the logic of the source trying to remain a secret.

I agree that the Navy should be able to track the guy down with just this information and so he'd be better off coming out of the closet. But if by that you suggest that the story is questionable. Consider that the actions of two people are involved, Irvine and a source. The actions of Irvine in reporting what someone told him are not the same as the actions or fears of the person he spoke to. The source did not think "I'll report my story but keep my identity secret." If he did, that would be strange... but that is not the case here. The source also became spooked after their first discourse.

It will be interesting to see what if anything develops from this.

[timestax]

bump

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I have posted on this forum several times about a student I had in a class I taught that was the one on a sub in the Navy in the position of "locking on" targets in the area 800 went down, and they would practice by locking onto commercial aircraft. he said it was only one more step to fire. I am not saying that is the case in this, but it was not a center tank aircraft failure that caused it. There *may* be some NTSB agents have never SEEN an airplane before becoming an investigator ;)

[concerned about politics]

. Stephanopoulos, a Clinton adviser who is now an ABC News correspondent, mentioned on the air a secret meeting in the White House situation room "in the aftermath of the TWA 800 bombing."

Opps. That was suppose to be a Clinton secret.
The tin foilers still don't believe it. They wrap that foil too tight around their heads they can't see, I guess.

[John Jorsett]

I'm pretty familiar with submarines, having worked on the communications system used for Tomahawk targeting, and I've not heard of anything like a tube-launched anti-air missile. I have a difficult time conceiving of the circumstances in which you'd be messing with an experimental one near the coast like that. They also need some means of positive targeting. You wouldn't just pop one out to float on the surface and activate it to shoot down whatever comes within range. At least I wouldn't. Never know what those dweebs at Naval Research Lab might do in their drunken stupor (just kidding, NRLers).

[UberVernunft]

But who's missile?... well at first I agreed with those who suspected a navy misfire...but post 9-11, and considering the WH occupant at the time, I'm open to the terrorist got lucky position.

I'm not a fan of the friendly fire scenario. That would involve a wide ranging coverup. What's really weird is the night of the crash some kind of practice "missile" was photographed over the area. This photograph was included in one of the issues of Paris Match.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

read 28?

[UberVernunft]

What's really weird is the night of the crash some kind of practice "missile" was photographed over the area.

This should properly be termed a "drone", perhaps towed by another aircraft.

[yazd]

"Anonymous"? Reed knows who the guy is, and is withholding the name due to the person fearing retaliation. Reed is not the type to make this up.

Reed is careful not to state that the missle (or whatever the witness saw) came from a sub, but he is clearly stating that, if his witness is to be believed, the authorities have lied to us about the location of USN subs. This is a big advance in the process of untangling the coverup.

[A CA Guy]

Excuse me, I wanted to know how is this was true there would only be 36 posts after ALL this time. Then I reas the year 2000 mark on the article.

Why the article at this time?

[JHL]

This is so sad because I used to have such a great deal of respect for Reid Irvine. In this case, however, he really is dead wrong. I was the weapons officer on board USS Normandy in 1991-1993, a few years before this alleged shoot down. Normandy is the usual culprit cited by conspiracy theorists as the alleged source of the missile. From my own experience as a Navy officer with extensive battle group experience, I can tell you that this Navy shoot-down theory is pure bunk. I know I'll never convince those who long ago wedded themselves to that bizarre and untenable theory, but it is so obviously implausible to any credible Sailor with a shred of USN experience that it just isn't worth even arguing over.

In my opinion, this submariner, if he does exist, has an axe to grind with the Navy. After his first interview with Irvine, he probably realized he was in over his head with his "sea story" and hence his reticence when Irvine tried to get his story on tape.

[A CA Guy]

reas = read. I found the article date of Jan 31. I at least feel better now about that.

The story is a story still though.

[Cicero]

Exactly. It's a virtual certainty that a missile, or possibly two missiles, brought down the plane. But no one has brought forward any evidence to say who fired the missile. It could have been the naval exercise, it could have been terrorists in a small boat. This statement only says that people on the subs saw the missile--as did many others, including a number of pilots who were Vietnam veterans and know what ordinance explosions look like.

Clinton covered things up and lied more or less instinctively, so it could easily have been terrorists who were responsible, and he didn't want that to get out because he might have to do something about it.

As for losing his pension, a number of retiring generals were threatened with just that penalty by clinton. There are ways of doing it. Anyone who has been in the service knows that the mysterious military bureaucracy can do anything it wants, and no one ever knows who was responsible.