Posted on 06/13/2016 8:53:08 AM PDT by Lockbox
As I hoped would happen, American Thinker’s series on TWA Flight 800 has prompted individuals with first hand knowledge to come forward. “Mark Johnson” is one. An air traffic controller (ATC), he worked the night of July 17, 1996 -- the night TWA Flight 800 was destroyed -- at the New York Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) located in Westbury, New York.
Johnson has provided me with his real name, and I have confirmed that he was in a position to know what he says he knows. He requested that I use an alias because he has children who depend on him. The federal government, he believes, “will seek revenge, retribution and/or any other remedy they feel like. I would be fearful my pension would be at risk.” I have heard this sentiment voiced by many people involved in this incident.
Although Johnson was not responsible for tracking TWA Flight 800, he spoke directly with the ATC who did. In fact, he asked him “plenty of questions to prepare myself for the ‘suits’ who were beginning to arrive.” Along with several other ATCs, he viewed the radar tape of the incident. According to Johnson, “A primary radar return (ASR-9) indicated vertical movement intersecting TWA 800.”
An advanced radar system, the Northrop Grumman ASR-9 is able to detect a “target” in severe clutter even when the target has no transponder. The absence of a transponder is what distinguishes a “primary radar return” from a “secondary” one. In others words, the radar picked up a small, unidentified, ascending object intersecting TWA 800 in the second before the 747 “disappeared from radar.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The multi-tube launcher swivels to point the missile in the desired direction before launch. Once out of the tube, the missile is no longer under control of the submarine’s weapons software.
As I understand it, this lack of control, especially in a highly trafficked area like the south shore of Long Island, necessitated a second sub with missile capacity to be used as a backstop.
So two questions I would ask, if I had any clue at all concerning the military and ASW, is how the submarine determines what direction to point the missile in and what use is a missile that cannot be controlled to the target? But since I obviously don't know what I'm talking about then there is no point in asking that.
The missile would have had a new sensor that locked on the largest overhead object. In this case instead of the target drone it found the airliner.
That's not what the story said.
A poster named darth was mentioning an ASW missile with that new sensor awhile back. He says he knew that such a missile had been under development at the time, and then apparently the program went black before this incident. The particular missile builder he has in mind has its own sub so no Navy types may have been involved. Just a few black program techs and the project manager who made the unwise decision to test too close to airline traffic.
And I share your confusion. And your supposition...though I doubt the Navy was responsible. But they are likely to know more about it than, say, the CIA.....
Stephanopoulos' mention was obviously innadvertent (it was on 9/11), but I got the impression Kerry's mention (early in the 2004 Dem primaries) was intentional.
That's bizarre - are they trying to release it, tease it, or just screwing it up? With the Clinton cabal, you really can't tell.
So two questions I would ask
how the submarine determines what direction to point the missile in ?
Feed of information from other ships in the 'fleet'.
what use is a missile that cannot be controlled to the target?
It didn't say it wasn't controlled, it said the sub no longer controlled it. Control may have passed to same 'ships' that fed it the info on which way to 'point' the missile.
But since I obviously don't know what I'm talking about then there is no point in asking that.
Quit saying things like that. I Thank you for your time in the service, and respect your knowledge and experience.
As I said, the sub missile theory is just one of those that COULD be true.
You say it could not. OK.
That leaves the other possibilities. Other than a sub fired missile, do you believe it could have been a missile launched from somewhere else ? A drone ?
"According to a senior member of the staff of then-Secretary of the Navy John Dalton, the test firing of a new generation Navy missile from the submarine USS Seawolf accidentally struck TWA flight 800 en route from New York to Paris on July 17, 1996. According to the former Navy official, the missile test was so important for the Clinton administration, it was being shown live on a Navy closed-circuit television feed at the White House. The Seawolf's missile was to have struck a drone reportedly being towed by a Navy P-3 Orion maritime surveillance aircraft. However, to the horror of the Navy personnel involved with the test and senior White House staff gathered to witness the missile's successful launching, it veered off course and intercepted the TWA 800 Boeing 747, killing the 230 passengers and crew on board the aircraft.
The Seawolf, which had recently completed sea trials but had not yet been fully commissioned into service, was participating in a major Navy exercise off Long Island in exercise area W-105. The exercise was dubbed GLOBAL YANKEE '96."
Post #309.
It is inconceivable that the US Navy would conduct a live missile test in an area of heavy commercial air traffic.
I ain't buying it.
I wouldn't put anything past that bich.
Neither he nor Jennings picked up on it.
Kerry, however, seemed to be sending a message when he, very studiedly, referred to TW800 as a "bombing". At the time, it was early in the 2004 Dem primary process and I got the impression he was warning the Clintons to end their sub rosa support for Dean. Again, the interviewer (whoever he was) didn't pick up on the reference.
For my own part, I was in the Green room of a Dallas studio and Fox (I believe it was) was showing radom ootage of the recovery process.
All of a sude, I saw a section of fuselage retreived by the crane and deposited on the adjacent barge. I was first exposed to an outside view -- and there was a smooth oval hole about the diameter of a telephone pole immediately below the window line.
As the fuselage part pivoted on the cable as it was placed on the barge, I got an insie view. The metal skin around the hole displayed a ragged skirt. Exactly the kind of damage that a projectile would've caused.
I've seen no other remarks concerning this particular piece of fuselage, nor does it appear in any of the photographs of the reconstruction.
I know that a missile isn't supposed to penetrate its target, but is supposed to explode in close proximity. But I saw what I saw.
Thank you. Looks like I nailed most of it with simple logic. And it also looks like the coverup trolls are still alive and well, 24 years later.
If it was a test against a drone it could have been a dummy warhead. Which would mean the missile did a direct hit through the body of the plane and caused a catastrophic structural collapse, probably broke it in half. The article says there wasn't a fireball until it feel to 7500 feet. What a nightmare.
Still, I just cannot conceive of the US Navy conducting a live missile test in such a crowded air space.
Neither can I. So what's left? That the test was a cover for an op.
Occam's razor.
It is inconceivable that the US Navy Sub would do an emergency dive, then blow ballasts to perform a 'leap' out of the water right underneath a civilian fishing boat. The maneuver was done to impress civilian VIP's who were on the sub AND SOME were even at some of the controls of the ship, or in the way of the ship's crew during the incident.
Many children on the fishing boat died.
I heard Occam died. He cut his throat while shaving.
; 0/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.