Posted on 06/20/2016 11:33:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
When I see former FBI New York honcho Jim Kallstrom appear on Fox News, I see a tortured soul. As boldly honest as he has been on the subject of Islamic terrorism, this once honorable man has lived a lie for the last twenty years on the subject of TWA Flight 800. Others have lived the lie as well, but none so personally.
It was Kallstrom who spoke to the press, Kallstrom who testified at congressional hearings, Kallstrom who consoled the families of the 230 dead with the assurance he would leave “no stone unturned” in his pursuit of the truth.
When Kallstrom arrived on the scene in Long Island the day after the crash in July 1996, the truth was indeed what he was seeking. By July 30, 1996 -- less than two weeks after the 747 blew up -- FBI agents had interviewed 144 “excellent” witnesses to a missile strike. As revealed in a recently unearthed CIA memo, the evidence was “overwhelming” and the witness testimony “too consistent” for the cause of the plane’s destruction to be anything other than a missile.
1996 being an election year, however a missile strike on an American airliner involved far too much political risk for the Clinton White House. Working through the CIA, its operatives took effective control of the investigation. For reasons only he knows, Kallstrom knuckled under.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The thoroughly corrupted CIA dutifully produced a fraudulent video to support the great lie, protecting Clinton’s re-election chances. The CIA is so full of liars and anti-Republic operatives, so thyoroughly sold out to evil that NOTHING they issue to the public should be believed to any degree. And now a devil son, Brennan, is running that thoroughly corrupted agency! The FBI are also completely compromised, working for the oligarchy not the rule of law in a Constitutional Republic.
Go ahead refute my point. I’ll stand on the fact that no one knows how the weight shift proceeded including the NTSB. So postulating the plane climbed through the stall is pure conjecture.
Ah, but it IS the job of some government stooges to defend all lies from the CIA/Fed.
“Ah, but it IS the job of some government stooges to defend all lies from the CIA/Fed.”
You didn’t see me do that so I hope you are not implying I was.
No. Did you even read the NTSB report in its entirety? I did. That accident was a complex cause accident which also involved the destruction of the hydraulic controls to the rear control surfaces which prevented the pilots from gaining control of the aircraft. The event initiated when the aircraft started its take off climb under full power to the engines and was only 33 feet off the ground, when one or more of the very heavy military vehicles it was carrying broke free and shifted to the rear of the cargo bay breaking the rear bulkhead, and along with it the hydraulic lines and data cables to the 'black box" data recorders. Even so, it was still under lift for a VERY short time before stalling because they had power to their engines (I was wrong, the recording from the windshield camera did pick up a faint engine sound under enhancement according to the NTSB report).
The entire flight, according to the NTSB record, from time the wheels left the ground through stall, and crash was a mere 33 seconds. From what I have been able to learn about that take off, it is quite normal for planes to use a very quick, steep take off after roll out from Bagram due to the very real threat of ground-to-air missiles. What was shown was a normal Bagram climb out take off until the initiating event and an almost instantaneous stall condition as the plane lost pitch. proper angle of attack, and hence lift. After the aircraft stalled, it did not fly. If fell like a rock. No lift occurred at all.
Not you, definitely not you!
Yes, I very much recall that reign of error and terror. He also took credit for things he was not entitled to which he did not earn. . . and, as always, the Democrat propaganda arm looked the other way.
You still have no evidence of a timeline of the weight and balance shift, no one can know that not even the NTSB. At what point did the weight shift overcome the ability of the wing to provide lift and the stall occur? No on can precisely tell, no one knows how the weight shift occurred in relation to time. I’m done with this discussion.
All one can say to that is "WOW!"
“No on can precisely tell, no one knows how the weight shift occurred in relation to time. I’m done with this discussion.”
You were done when you asked such a bad question. If you knew what you were asking you’d know how ridiculous it is.
“ballistic fall, a parabolic arc:”
A Inverse Cosecant arc, actually. Not being picky, just informative.
Because, unlike other investigations, the NTSB refuses to release their calculations claiming they are proprietary to Boeing, yet Boeing says they are not.
There are some who did their jobs with honor and still do.
I will accept the correction. Thanks. I appreciate it. As I outlined in the timeline, it would be altered with some occasional lift from the wings applying forces in random directions as the aircraft fell.
No you are being deliberately obtuse. There is a difference between “flying” and merely “hurtling: i.e., being airborne in an uncontrolled, unsupported manner.”
...
If you don’t like “flying,” gaining altitude is sufficient. Obviously, the plane gained altitude.
If you read the entire NTSB report then you would know that the plane could have kept flying normally if they they hadn’t lost pitch control due to the hydraulic damage.
In other words, the aircraft would have been capable of flight in spite of a large shift in the center of gravity to the rear. That was my original point.
If you are talking about the Bagram 747-400, it did because it was under power until it stalled when the aircraft could no longer maintain a proper angle of attack to maintain lift. Then it fell like a rock.
First of all, a wing doesn’t provide lift once it stalls. We probably agree on that.
My original point to Swordmaker is that a plane can fly even when it’s unbalanced with a rearward shift to the center of gravity. The accident report said the Bagram 747 could have flown without crashing in spite of the rearward cargo shift if the hydraulics hadn’t been damaged.
I don’t know if it is fielded yet, but in fact subs can now launch AA missiles, though generally not to the altitude of TWA800:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDAS_(missile)
The US system is more advanced, though I vaguely recall it is ejected out of somewhere extremely unlikely, like the garbage ejector.
Follow up:
Those sub AAM systems were not operational at the time of TWA800.
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.