Posted on 07/14/2021 3:11:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
On July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800, a Paris-bound 747 out of JFK, blew up off the coast of Long Island. It seemed somehow fitting that James Kallstrom, the public face of the FBI investigation into the plane's destruction, would die two weeks before the 25th anniversary. As a patriot, a Vietnam vet, and an outspoken critic of all things Clinton, Kallstrom once held promise as the insider most likely to come clean. He never did.
As to my own involvement with this story, until the evening of February 23, 2000, I was as naïve as a CNN anchor. Before that evening, I would have dismissed out of hand anyone who dared suggest that elements of the FBI and CIA would conspire with the White House and the New York Times to cover-up the cause of so public a disaster.
February 23, 2000 was the night my education began.
Earlier that evening I had listened with some interest at a Kansas City country club as investigative reporter James Sanders spoke about his inquiry into the 747's fate. At a dinner afterwards, I found myself sitting next to James's wife, Elizabeth. A sweet and soft-spoken woman of Philippine descent, she filled me in on the personal details. At the time of the disaster, she was a trainer for TWA. She had been a flight attendant for some years before that.
Of the 230 people killed on that ill-fated flight, 53 were TWA employees, many of them Elizabeth's friends. At one of the numerous memorial services, Elizabeth introduced James to Terry Stacey, a 747 manager and pilot who was working on the investigation.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
How many MD-11s were grounded after the Swissair crash in 1998? How many Airbus 300s were grounded after American Airlines Flight 587 in 2001? Or 767s after Lauda Air Flight 004 in 1991? Or Airbus 340s after the Air France Flight 447 in 2009?
FBI intimidation re TWA800 (24 second video)
ML/NJ
For a Stinger fired from the ground, yes, no way.
Could a Stinger be fired at altitude from an ultralight?
Is the Stinger the only light weight Man-Portable Air Defense System?
And what left the powdery red residue on the seats behind the foot diameter hole with the edged bent inward on the left(?) side at the point of the explosion? There has been speculation that it was soot from the rocket motor, that the proximity fuse set the warhead off before impact and the main body of the missile rammed the fuselage.
We'll never know. It wasn't officially analyzed, and IIRC think the man who smuggled out a few square inch samples for independent analysis was arrested and for all I know may still be in prison...
There’s a whole shipful of sailors who could come forward.
I would have thought so, until someone pointed out the following to me:
1. Some of the testing that is done for weapons with advanced electronic systems MUST be done close to populated areas -- to ensure that the electronics will work despite interference from background "noise" from non-military communication systems (mobile phones, radio communications, etc.).
2. If the civilian aircraft in that area are usually flying at altitudes above 30,000 feet, is the eastern end of Long Island any less safe than any other place in U.S. territorial waters when it comes to this sort of danger? I mean -- at any given time of day there could be aircraft flying at that altitude over almost any spot on the globe.
Agreed, I believe at the time the only “enemy” of the US who had the AA capability to do this was Russia, and maybe Iran. Unfortunately the deep state is the real enemy!
I always believed the terrorist angle and even now think it is possible.
A year before this disaster, I was with a group of travel agents taking TWA800 from JFK to Paris.
At that time, the final destination of TWA800 was Tel Aviv with a stopover in Paris.
There were many Orthodox Jews on that flight and prior to the evening take off, many were standing at the windows of the airport bobbing their heads praying.
Coincidence that flight was the only one ever to blow up spontaneously? No.
All of that can be simulated or, at worst, tested without having to fire anything.
2. If the civilian aircraft in that area are usually flying at altitudes above 30,000 feet, is the eastern end of Long Island any less safe than any other place in U.S. territorial waters when it comes to this sort of danger?
Very much so. The U.S. Navy has missile test ranges for live fire shoots. They are all in areas where commercial air corridors are a safe distance away. No military in their right mind shoots into commercial air corridors. For reasons which should be apparent.
Interesting thoughts. I believe the U.S. Navy was one of the few orgs that had the capability to do what happened. Since they were doing exercises in the vicinity at the time, I say 100% it was a Navy missile. Why would over 700 people lie? I saw the video before that hid it!
Three options:
1. Terrorist attack - no crowing about their incredible success, so unlikely.
2. Navy screw-up - they always try to cover these up, but you can’t. Too many loose lips.
3. Intentional hit. Very high-tech weaponry says Deep State.
The question is, who or what was on the plane, or supposed to be on the plane?
The problem was that Clinton’s explanation did not fool anyone who knew. Only the fools and idiots believed it. But does this Nation have an abundance of fools and idiots. Proof of this is that they elected Clinton two times and obama two times. Biden could not even be elected by the fools and idiots. So the Democrats, with the help and blessing of the Republican Party including Mike, A/k/A , Judas Iscariot, Pence, etal.
The problem with the exploding gas tank explanation is how do you explain all the witness testimonies about the missile trails?
My first reaction to the 9-11 Terrorist attack was what you described.
When I saw the footage of the first plane hitting the building and saw the clear blue sky, I felt the pilots were trying unsuccessfully to get off autopilot and hit the building.
That theory didn't last long, when shortly thereafter the second plane hit the other building.-Tom
The list is endless on the silliness of the deep state and their pawns.
But why would a stinger missile enter the fuselage? It’s a heat seeking missile, so I would think it would target an engine. And with the warhead forward of the rocket motor, wouldn’t the explosion blow the unused rocket fuel away from the plane and not inside and onto some seats?
Also, it only has a little over two pounds of explosives. I don’t think it would do such immediate catastrophic damage to a giant 747. Bet that big old beast would lumber on for quite some time.
The precise instant I knew we were at war.
The Deep State managed to screw that up...
I'm not sure if this fits the damage pattern on the Flight 800 aircraft, but it does explain why an engine was not the primary point of contact.
The Navy doesn’t run live-fire exercises in one of the most traveled shipping channels and commercial and general aviation areas in the country that is the Long Island Sound.
The vast majority of Navy missile tests that are conducted in (contiguous) US territorial and adjacent waters are in Point Magu on the west coast and White Sands, also on the west coast. I believe the only active missile test range on the east coast is located in Florida, the Eastern Test Range which is at Cape Canaveral. The Atlantic Test Range, located off the coast of Virginia, was once used as a missile test range. But, I’m not sure if it still is an active missile range (although it certainly hosts other live-fire tests).
I’m not sure if it was all generations of 747s. Some of the later variants may have not had that design flaw (I’m not sure). But yes, I believe the other 747s of the same generation of TWA 800 were grounded pending inspections and maybe even modifications.
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.