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 ...
I seem to remember that there was a navy firing exercise happening near the flight path. There was also a radar track of a drone (target) crossing the path of TWA800. If the transponder on TWA800 was tampered with then it would have looked like a target to the navy missile.
As to the Navy witnesses You really only have to account for a handful. The guys down in the engine room do not see what goes on above decks. People spend their time doing their jobs and never see the results of the missile launch. They would be told that they had a successful test and that would be all they knew. It’s relatively easy to keep ten or twelve guys silent, especially when they couldn’t see that it was a jetliner they shot down.
While there were multiple navy ships in the area, there was also a fast mover of some sort (again from the radar track) which (IIRC) was the likely shooter.
We need to find the Freeper research project again.
“jackscrew” not ‘jakesrew.’
DSL is here -https://web.archive.org/web/20010501152258/http://www.alamo-girl.com/
Looks like it Has not been updated since 2003.
No knowledge of what happened to Alamo-Girl.
Spilling the Beans:
Then there was that trip to the grocery store when your brakes did not fail in traffic ... but, had you said anything in that scenario, they would have. There is always a way to disappear those without families that are inconvenient or know too much - ask Jimmy H.
Other odd information:
There was a naval presence in the Sound that night, but according to the transponder (or whatever), the ships were too far away to hit the plane had they wanted to do so; some say it was a man-pad, but they things did not have the altitude range at the time; there was also a picture of a cop near the the shore on long Island standing next to a white 10 foot missile in a launcher; according to several stories there was a residue on some of the seats which could only have come from an HE detonation or rocket fuel residue.
None of those ship types you mentioned were present at the time - ships were small and from other classes AIR
Sorry, 1996, not 1986.
That type of aircraft had sat on tarmacs in the
Middle-Eastern region in 120 plus temperatures
with no problems. The idea it’s air-conditioning units
had become over heated is nothing if not silly.
Those mechanisms that reportedly failed were swapped
out and inspected. I don’t believe any could be found
that were on the verge of failing.
Then you have all the witnesses, some of them ex-military
that knew what missiles look like, and swore they observed
a missile.
I’m not an airline employee. My thoughts are my own
personal opinions that I have to justify to myself, not
just others.
I looked at who agreed with me, to see if I was out-there
or not. Witnesses, airline pilots, industry insiders, and
one person with aircraft investigation experience, found
the explanation provided to be absolutely absurd.
I’ve never been tempted by that explanation. I never will
be.
It may have been at one time, but when I went in the USAF in 1987, the classified nature of my required a lifetime "no talk" agreement. That was for legitimately classified material. Not cover-ups.
Hell, even flying level, losing a significant amount of weight would allow for rapid altitude gain. Back in 1957, a B-36 carrying a Mark 17 nuke dropped it a few miles southeast of Albuquerque. It was on approach to Kirtland AFB (an airport/field now shared jointly with the Albuquerque Sunport). It was flying at 1,600 feet and immediately gained 1,000 feet in altitude after the accidental release of the 42,000 lb bomb. The bomb actually broke through the closed bomb bay doors. The explosives blew things apart and killed a few cattle, left debris. But it didn't go boom cuz there was no firing mechanism for the nuclear part of the bomb.
It’s not that the air conditioning units themselves over heat. It’s that they are a source of heat for the fuel in the center tank, and it is capable of heating the fuel above the flash point of jet-A.
And that alone of course is not enough to ignite the fuel. The pilot is heard on the flight recorder mentioning faulty center tank readings, and there was evidence of wire chafing in the cable bundle which contains the fuel quantity instrumentation wiring. Also contained in that cable bundle are high voltage wires.
I work in an old power plant and it is quite common that older wiring chafes and signals get crossed. Just yesterday we had a breaker that indicates open and closed at the same time when the pump is running. The two cross connected circuits were both 48vdc, but had it mixed with 125vdc, damage would likely have resulted to the equipment receiving the signal. I don’t see why aircraft wiring would be exempt from this type of failure.
And don’t forget, flight 800 wasn’t the first or last Boeing plane to be destroyed due to a center tank explosion.
You know there was this one time where my steering gear box detached from the frame of my truck while driving along the north shore of Hawaii. I had just negotiated the somewhat curvy and high up area of Waimea Bay and then pulled into an ACE hardware. Pulling out of the parking log quickly to beat a line of cars, I nearly drove into the bank across the street. (Good thing I was across the street from the hardware store... was able to buy replacement bolts for the bent bolts and the missing bolts on the steering gear box and go on my merry way.) But man, imagine if it fell off on the winding cliff!
Wonder what I said at the bar the night before...
I don’t honestly trust the findings related to the center
fuel tank theory.
In one of my posts I touched on the damage these agencies
did to themselves. After watching their actions in this
case I don’t believe much of anything they say. Other
people far better informed than I am on these matters, felt
the same way I did about it.
As for other aircraft, I don’t believe an aircraft of that
same type of aircraft ever blew up due to a center fuel
tank explosion. There may have been one.
You have far too much to explain away for the center fuel
tank theory to hold water.
If the center fuel tank explodes, parts of the aircraft will
spread equally from the flight path. They didn’t.
The debris was heavily tossed off center. I forget the side
now, but it wasn’t even close to even disbursement.
That is just one more reason why a missile was deemed to
be likely.
Please allow me to take part in your interesting conversation.
“the “static electricity” theory”
If I may say, this can never happen in a nitrogen-padded fuel tank, in inert atmosphere (no oxygen.) I wrote to Boeing at the time inquiring about the subject, I got no answer, however, I still assume that a nitrogen pad is in place.
With no oxygen in the tank, fuel vapor/nitrogen mixture will never ignite unless the tank ruptures and available sparks through static electricity or faulty wires or any other source.
“Still, I definitely buy the overheated fuel from two hours of running the AC unit (located under the tank) and the spark from the chaffing wires “
The low pressure nitrogen pad, say at a few inches of WC will prevent any sparks from igniting, as I mentioned above.
Flying the plane will cause very cool air (in the summer) at a high velocity to cool the A/C unit and the fuel tank almost immediately when the plain is gaining altitude. Heat input will have no effect on a huge amount of fuel, in a small heat transfer area of the tank.
Oh, really? Could you please tell me what naval live fire range is located in the - checks notes - Long Island Sound, one of the most heavily trafficked marine and flight corridors?
You think a Ticonderoga-class cruiser is sailing along the northern shore of the Hamptons or off the coast of Connecticut or Rhode Island and the skipper looks at his XO and says, 'Hey, I got an idea: Why don't we fire a missile? That should be swell.."
Do you really think that's how it works?
"As to the Navy witnesses You really only have to account for a handful."
Is something that is so laughably stupid the only person who could believe such drivel must be a person whose only experience in the military is watching a Michael Bay movie. Missile tests are planed weeks, even months in advance. Everyone - literally every swinging 'd' on the ship - hears the captain bring the ship to general quarters and then hears the commands to ready the missiles and launchers. This isn't a surprise to anyone as they've all been briefed that the ship is going to have a live fire exercise that day and probably when they left port. Fire control teams muster at their stations in complete fire control gear and then everyone awaits to hear the launch command, the launch status and then the command to secure from general quarters.
Honestly, I cannot believe some of the idiocy people believe. It's insane.
There have been no other 747s, but there have been two 737s, a 727 and at least one 707. One of the 737s was on the ground. Definitely no missile there. I suppose I should look these incidents up and find links.
You have far too much to explain away for the center fuel tank theory to hold water.
I would say there is far more to explain away for the navy shoot down theory. The center tank explosion is relatively simple. A nearly empty tank heated to above the flash point of the fuel, and then a spark from chafed wires. I wouldn't think the explosion would tear pieces off the aircraft like in the movies. I would think it just has to compromise a few bulkheads and that would be enough for the fuselage section in front to rip off. But what do I know?
Still seems more plausible than the navy shooting it down. Can you explain the step by step sequence of what a room full of sailors would have to do to shoot down an airliner with a live missile and then how to cover it up?
Then explain the debris pattern if it’s so simple.
Matter of fact, you can’t.
I found that information you just mentioned about different
aircraft
No need for links.
Commercial aircraft do not have nitrogen inerting systems installed. They’re too costly and heavy to be practical from what I understand.
The AC units are below the center tank, which would prevent a direct heat exchange of the airflow against the bottom of the aircraft and the center tank.
The only thing I know about debris patterns is what I learn from that Smithsonian Channel’s “Air Disasters” show.
So obviously that makes me an expert.
Kidding. You’re right. I would not be able to explain what it should look like or what it did look like. That’s not in my scope of knowledge.
Not to mention just how fast word travels on a ship. I had a friend who was an Air Force captain, he was deployed onto a Navy vessel for a joint exercise. First night dinner at the Captain’s Table the ship captain said “a ship can only have one captain, for the duration of your stay here you’re a major, sorry I can’t give you a raise”. Dinner finishes my friend goes to one of the designated smoking areas, encounters an ensign who greats him “evening Major”. If a Navy vessel shot down TWA 800 EVERYBODY on board knew within 5 minutes.
Only one thing travels faster than fire aboard a ship: Scuttlebutt (rumor, gossip).
Well I don’t think it’s quite as mysterious a your quip infers.
If an explosion occurs in the middle of an object, debris is
jettisoned in all directions.
If an explosion takes place on the side of an object, debris
would be blown toward the opposite side.
The problems with this incident, are these, as it relates to
debris.
Somewhere around 80-95% of the debris was blown to one side
of the flight path.
The prevailing wind that night was blowing toward the side
with the least amount of debris.
The center tank explosion theory is not credible.
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.