Posted on 07/09/2025 4:16:16 AM PDT by MtnClimber
If what you are saying is true, it’s not silly, and you deserve to be insulted for being part of the cover up.
But I don’t think it is true, so it is silly when you think about it.
Have you ever been on board a submarine? Black programs would absolutely need to ask permission.
The entire submarine fleet is run by nuclear propulsion engineers, not weapons experts. American sub captains are criticized for being overly cautious and predictable when compared to captains for British subs.
Every single USN submarine CO starts out in the same naval nuclear power school I went to (although on the officer side), then they start out as division officers in one of the four nuclear divisions in the engineering department. They first qualify as Engineering Officer of the Watch. After about a year or so, they will move up front and run a coner division and then qualify as Diving Officer and Officer of the Deck.
If they stay in, after their land base rotation, they will return for their department head tour. Typically, if they don’t make Engineering Officer, their carrier will be over afterward. It’s very rare for a Navigator or Weapons Officer to be promoted further. Almost every single USN submarine CO was previously the Engineer.
Why am I saying this? Because I know the culture. It all came from Admiral Rickover who was famously cautious and protective of his reactor plants. Want to talk black ops? When an admiral senior to Rickover wouldn’t tell him what mission they were sending a particular nuclear powered submarine on, Rickover sent Naval Reactors down to that boat before it could leave for a surprise inspection. He failed the boat and took the keys away from the control rod drive mechanisms. They could not take that nuclear submarine out on the black op until they briefed Admiral Rickover to get their keys to the reactor back. That culture existed in the late 90’s, and probably does to this day.
So your story is BS. Would never happen on a US Navy submarine.
OA, thanks for your service. Got my engineering degree at Th Hudson Trade School for Wayward Boys.
. After grad school I ended up working mostly Star Wars weapon systems at Rockwell
I worked on classified programs and started three based on things I discovered.
The Challenger story is not a theory. I met personally with the United Technologies engineer who disclosed the mistake to the accident commission.
He was told, “We already had a press conference blaming O rings. If we admit a mistake NASA and these famous scientists will lose credibility. We will not change the findings”.
I only report on things where I have personal knowledge. I know about the sub launched missiles because I was in in the briefings.
Did we really land on Luna? Despite popular theories I can tell you that I worked with thousands and Apollo veterans. One of my bosses was a CapCom on Apollo. We hunted deer and drank whiskey together. He was an extreme straight arrow who would have told me.
Ref the FBI, one of the most interesting data points is that the terrorist story was out there for a few days.
Suddenly, all media switched to the exploding fuel tank. They clearly received orders.
Aviation Week had many letters from retired Boeing engineers calling BS on the fuel tank story.
Then, you have the retired NTSB guy’s telling about the tampering with the wreckage.
The culture on nuke subs is only relevant if someone comes forward.
BTW, the sub may not have been an operational nuke boat.
You have heard of the Electric Boat company?
They were located near the scene of the disaster. Yup. Same company makes missiles right?
To make something perfectly clear, I am not blaming the Navy or armed forces for this tragedy.
In this case, I can understand a coverup.
There are enemies both foreign and domestic who want to uncover black programs. They hate secrecy and our advanced capabilities.
What bothered me most about this incident was that foreign intelligence was not fooled for a moment. They saw the reports of missiles rising without a surface vessel and knew what we had.
The propaganda coverup was to fool our people.
Never trust the media
That we can agree on. The rest, we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I was long skeptical about flight 800, as was my father who worked at JFK and was something of an expert on the 747. His airline was a launch customer for the 747-100 and he worked his way up in that company from mechanic to aircraft maintenance manager. We didn't buy the fuel tank spontaneously exploding theory.
I thought it was a bomb. Ruled out a missile from the navy immediately. I was in at the time as I've stated, and I'm telling you, we didn't operate like that. Definitely didn't operate submarines the way you described. The surface fleet had shot down an airliner before, but there was no cover up.
But there's just no evidence of a bomb. And the NTSB did quite a bit of testing the CFT spontaneously exploding theory that make sense to me. We know the air conditioning packs were below the tank, we know it was a hot day, we know the plane was delayed a few hours with the AC packs running.
Boeing and the NTSB conducted tests with instruments on a similar 747 and discovered that the AC packs (which get to as high as 300 deg F) can indeed heat the fuel to above the flash point. I think it was nearly 30 degrees above the flash point.
We know an enclosed tank like that can explode with the amount of residual fuel in the tank that flight 800 had. The NTSB blew up a tank to prove that it exceeded Boeing's 25psig tank structural limit.
And the thing that I think most people were hung up on, including myself and my father: the ignition source. Early on it was reported as static electricity. We called BS. But then the NTSB discovered that Boeing mixed high and low voltage wiring in cable bundles. The fuel level instruments were 5 volt systems but in the cable bundles were 300 volt systems. The NTSB also found the cables to be chafed and in some places cracked. I worked in a power plant and finding stray voltage was common. It happens. It's crazy that Boeing mixes high and low voltage in the same cable bundles though. We don't do that in power plants.
Anyway. That's that. Time for dinner and drinks. Have a good night.
That's the problem. No known missile makes any sense.
If it was an experimental missile, then it is unlikely so many have kept quiet for 30 years. As well as no one trying anything similar for the same time. And if it was a missile, then it had to be a missile and how that missile works, not "it was a missile" "it was the (name of missile) missile", end of story.
If what people think they saw was a missile, and what they saw cannot realistically be a missile, they didn't see a missile. Night, planes far away in a busy commercial air traffic area, and only a few second window to see and make sense of what happened by surprise. Planes in the line of sight behind TWA 800 on ascent, either leaving or approaching New York, could get mistaken for a missile.
Totally agree.
I am familiar with only two types of kerosene heaters. One type I think is sometimes called a "bullet heater", which has an electric blower blowing through the tube and an electric arc ignition system. It is made to heat large areas, such as warehouses. This heater atomizes the fuel by spraying it through a nozzle.
The other type of kerosene heater I am familiar with is a camping stove, which you pressurize by pumping up the tank. It then sprays fuel out of a tiny orifice, atomizing it. You can light this type of heater with a match.
In both cases the fuel is turned into a spray before it is lit. How do the kerosene heaters you used to light work?
BTW, the definitive website for all the gathered data is twa800.com.
Thanks.
“How do the kerosene heaters you used to light work?”
It was over 70 years ago. I looked on the internet but can’t find a similar.
As I remember, there was a reservoir that had to be heated. I had to fill the reservoir and warm it up by burning newspapers. Once warm, it could be lit.
“And why do you believe there is a cover up?”
There has to be a cover up.
Without a cover up there is no conspiracy!
Did it ever explode when you lit it?
“Did it ever explode when you lit it?”
If you understood the physics you would not have asked the question.
If you understood that it was a joke, you wouldn't have tried to invoke "Physics."
Just poking a bit of fun at you and your position that a teeny tiny ity bity fuel gauge sensor could ignite liquid jet fuel and make it explode.
“Just poking a bit of fun at you and your position that a teeny tiny ity bity fuel gauge sensor could ignite liquid jet fuel and make it explode.”
LOL!
It wasn’t the fuel Guage sensor that caused the spark.
Wrong, Cahill proved in a lab explosion residue on setbacks! And the God’s jailed the married couple that smuggled it out of the warehouse... Ymmv
alominoGuy wrote: “Wrong, Cahill proved in a lab explosion residue on setbacks! And the God’s jailed the married couple that smuggled it out of the warehouse... Ymmv”
Why is that relevant to my comment in #97?
PalominoGuy wrote: “Wrong, Cahill proved in a lab explosion residue on setbacks! And the God’s jailed the married couple that smuggled it out of the warehouse... Ymmv”
The NTSB determined the locations and appearance of the substance found on the seatbacks was consistent with adhesive used in the construction of the seats, and additional laboratory testing by NASA identified the substance as being consistent with those adhesives (results which Sanders disputed)
BTW, that couple were found guilty of theft of government property. Even so, their theft broke the chain of custody invalidating any claims they might have made.
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.