8 years later, TWA 800 case just heating up!

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, July 16, 2004 | Jack Cashill

[OESY]

This is an important story. It is consistent with other known information regarding spill patterns showing the cockpit separated before the center fuel tank blew, how people died with necks broken in the same direction, positive missile fuel residue tests, Iranian terrorist claims of responsibility, secret storage of key aircraft salvage, removal of whistleblower protections from naval rescue squads by Clinton's executive order, prosecution of dissenters, press complicity in a reelection year, etc. This glove fits.

[JohnHuang2]

Michael Moore is working on a powerful documentary about this -- trust me!

/sarcasm.

[pctech]

My question about all this is stuff is this: Can a stinger missile reach 13,500 feet? or even 18,000 feet?

[1rudeboy]

Where is Michael Rivero when we really need him?

[Rokke]

Any credible article on this topic wouldn't rely on this lie...

"Its agents did so to negate the stubborn testimony of the hundreds of eyewitnesses who had sworn they saw a flaming, smoke-trailing, zigzagging object destroy TWA Flight 800."

...for support. That is, unless someone can find evidence that "hundreds" of eyewitnesses ever said any such thing. To date, that has NEVER happened.

[G.Mason]

Good morning to you, my ever vigilant Freeper!

[Atlantic Friend]

Where would those "hundreds of witnesses" have been ? I thought the TWA 800 happened over the ocean ?

[jwpjr]

re: "accidental shootdown of an airliner leaving Iran"

This was not an accidental shoot down. The crew of the navy ship that fired on the aircraft intended to bring it down and was very accurate and efficient in the accomplishment of that mission. The airliner refused to identify itself, would not activate it IFF system, flew directly at the navy ship at a higher than normal rate of speed and did so at at time when several surface vessels were harassing the ship. The crew of the ship had but a minute or so to make a decision as to the intentions of the approaching aircraft. Remember, they had no visual contact with the target, just a radar contact that was displaying many, if not all, of the aspects observed when an attack is in progress. As I recall the Iranians had steadfastly refused to have that airline flight leave at its designated time and often flew off course just to fly directly at warships in the area. I remember at the time how frustrating it was that the crew of the aircraft did almost everything they could to present a hostile profile to an American warship and then Iran bitched and moaned when the ship responded in a very appropriate manner. I know that you did not intend to imply that the airliner was innocent of any wrongdoing and was accidentally downed by trigger-happy Americans, but anytime this incident is mentioned I like to remind those who might have missed it originally that the guided mussel frigate was responding to what it thought was an attack by enemy forces. Thanks for reminding me of this unfortunate event. Also remember, our ships were in that area because Iran was trying to block the shipment of oil from the mideast by blockading the straits through which every oil-laden ship had to pass. An oil tanker sunken in that narrow area would have stopped all oil from being shipped out of the area. Remember all the mines they laid in the channel, and the number of times their miniature gun boats fired on unarmed oil tankers?

[Ken in Denver]

Two strong reasons why this incident was not an attack by some terrorist group:
1) No one took "credit" for it, which a terrorist group would certainly do to maximize the terror effect.
2) It hasn't been repeated.

These reasons alone, of course, do not rule out some other explanation such as a military accident or an attack by someone else with criminal intent, such as eliminating a specific person on the plane, although that would seem to be a highly difficult and improbable way to get rid of someone.

[NeonKnight]

Michael Moore is working on a powerful documentary about this -- trust me!

Just as soon as he finds the "It's Bushs' fault" angle, he'll get right on it.

[jwpjr]

"Has there ever been a "real documentary" done on this horrible event?"

I saw a two hour program on one of the educational channels a couple of years ago that went into GREAT detail showing why the conclusion was reached that it was an explosion in the center fuel tank. They took you inside the reconstructed tank and showed how it bulged outward and forward and even showed where it had made contact with some of the structural members of the aircraft just forward of the tank itself. All in all it was a compelling presentation that certainly seemed to support the exploding fuel tank explanation. The only thing lacking was an absolute cause for the ignition in the first place. They showed several possible scenarios that would have explained it, but could not say for certain which one might have done it. That having been said, let me hasten to say that I STILL think it was deliberate, either a bomb planted in the fuel tank or a missile. All they really proved was that the tank exploded, that could easily have happened after a missile strike or as the result of a bomb inside the tank.

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

The olympic park bombing can be added to that list.

Did anyone every claim responsibility?

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

Ah, his memory lives on.

[jwpjr]

I remember news interviews with several people the night of the crash saying they had seen something climbing toward the aircraft and then an explosion when the object reached it. This was in that time period when the news people were desperate for anything to fill the air time and no one would have had an opportunity to change their stories a lot.

[FreedomPoster]

>>My question about all this is stuff is this: Can a stinger missile reach 13,500 feet? or even 18,000 feet?

My take is "probably" to "maybe, likely marginal" over that range.

From here:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stinger.htm

Advertized range is 1-8 km (3000-25,000 ft), and height is 10,000 feet.

I would expect that actual performance is likely better than advertized performance.

[jwpjr]

Many of them were in boats near the crash site. It was only about 15 miles offshore as I recall, certainly close enough to see an aircraft the size of a 747.

[Vigilantcitizen]

Did anyone every claim responsibility?

If they did, would we be told?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

If Bill Xlinton had not covered up the fact that a terrorist missile took out TWA Flight 800 the war on terror would have started five years before 9/11, meaning 9/11 never would have occurred.

[FreedomPoster]

This event happened very close to Long Island.

http://flight800.org/witness_evidence.htm

[Red Badger]

I thought the original theory of bundled high voltage wires arcing inside the fuel tank was bogus from the get-go. I'm no expert, and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but, there would probably not been enough oxygen inside the tank to sustain an explosion. Jet fuel, I believe, is primarily kerosene, not gasoline....