Posted on 07/16/2004 4:53:39 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/16/2004 4:55:29 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
I must have missed your alternative source.
I have no idea. I've never participated in Naval salvage. Maybe they were trying to wash the mud off to avoid fouling the decks.
If it could be done, it would be. There are small navy's all over the world (like Iran) that would love to have shipborne, radar guided SAM systems. Many of them operate systems like the SA-6 from the ground. Don't you think that if you could just bolt one to a ship and employ it, they would?
"If all the sheet metal in the aircraft's vital areas, such as the fuel tank, had been recovered and was available for independent inspection"
98% of the aircraft was recovered. I'm sure you aren't really going to argue that all the fragments of an exploding SAM warhead managed to limit themselves to the 2% that wasn't. Considering NO agency (including Boeing, TWA, ALPA, IAMS, FBI etc) could find any tangible evidence missile or bomb fragments hit any part of the aircraft, I'd say it's a safe bet that none did.
With all the quasi logic in your previous posts, this is all you got?
Sorry, you have no support from me. You just blew yourself out of the water.
Unless I said "Because the evil Navy was clearly involved at every level in a giant government conspiracy, and was washing away all signs of a missile impact with that great covering agent known as common saltwater (which incidently the wreckage had been soaking in for a couple weeks already)" you probably wouldn't be satisfied, and frankly, I don't care whether you like my answer or not.
Who is to say it was a stinger? Maybe it was something larger launched from a truck? Maybe a SAM 2 or something--or maybe something launched from an airplane miles away? Or maybe something from a boat or ship? We need to look into possible weapons and launch sites.
Since I am relating nothing more than an experience living on the line of sight of a rather powerful microwave running between Naval Weapons Research Lab (formerly at Whiteflint MD) and the Marine base at Quantico, there are a lot of items you mention I simply can't comment on.
However, regarding the device "on top" of that plane, I ran into that when seeing if that model of plane had devices that had been "hardened" against cosmic rays.
It hadn't been and had a rather definite ceiling.
Here's the idea on microwave transmission ~ this DOD operation was very powerful obviously. Further, we have to presume it had the ability to toke up in response to any signal interference, so the more interference the more toking.
The conditions in the vicinity of National Airport that day were incredible. At the top of the stack there was a supercold layer of air. At the bottom of the stack there was a moderately cold, but dry layer of air. In between we had a supersaturated layer of warmer air.
Can you say "ICE"?"
I think the ceiling for this activity was just a few hundred feet. When we got to 14th Street bridge to cross from DC to Virginia we were encountering snowflakes as big as baseballs! I'd never seen anything like it. Although there was negligible wind at ground level, the moist air was rising into the super cold region like it was being heated.
Recalling those conditions, I had gone on a search for just how much power you could pump into a bank of supersaturated moist air with any microwave transmission system. This was to see if we had an engineered accident rather than an accident accident, with the communication system turning up the signal strength to compensate for the increasing volume of ice being created in the rising column of moist air.
You really can't talk to DOD about such things, and I don't mean turning the power up. I suppose we'll never know if that particular microwave beam was the cause of the ice. On the other hand, the computer controller in our building that failed was immediately adjacent to the airshaft to the subway where the electronic controls for the rail switches were housed. Microwave frequencies are reflected by concrete rather like visible light is reflected by mirrors. If the beam was powerful enough, we could have had energy bleeding from it into the shaft.
At the same time folks in office buildings and apartments immediately along the line of sight would be regularly exposed to excess microwave energy and might well suffer injuries associated with overexposure. Brain tumors happen to be one of those things.
Plus, all of the folks affected were housed on the 8th floor. We were able to determine that the center of the beam was parallel to the 8/9th floor junction, and about 12 feet away from the Westernmost wall.
The next year an untended computer printer sitting in a room on the 9th floor at the Westernmost wall burst into flames and gutted the 9th floor.
Gotta' watch those untended computer printers FUR SHUR. This one cost $35,000,000 before everything was back to normal. But, no doubt, the subway wreck and the airplane crash had nothing to do with each other ~ or maybe they did.
Since I am relating nothing more than an experience living on the line of sight of a rather powerful microwave running between Naval Weapons Research Lab (formerly at Whiteflint MD) and the Marine base at Quantico, there are a lot of items you mention I simply can't comment on.
However, regarding the device "on top" of that plane, I ran into that when seeing if that model of plane had devices that had been "hardened" against cosmic rays.
It hadn't been and had a rather definite ceiling.
Here's the idea on microwave transmission ~ this DOD operation was very powerful obviously. Further, we have to presume it had the ability to toke up in response to any signal interference, so the more interference the more toking.
The conditions in the vicinity of National Airport that day were incredible. At the top of the stack there was a supercold layer of air. At the bottom of the stack there was a moderately cold, but dry layer of air. In between we had a supersaturated layer of warmer air.
Can you say "ICE"?"
I think the ceiling for this activity was just a few hundred feet. When we got to 14th Street bridge to cross from DC to Virginia we were encountering snowflakes as big as baseballs! I'd never seen anything like it. Although there was negligible wind at ground level, the moist air was rising into the super cold region like it was being heated.
Recalling those conditions, I had gone on a search for just how much power you could pump into a bank of supersaturated moist air with any microwave transmission system. This was to see if we had an engineered accident rather than an accident accident, with the communication system turning up the signal strength to compensate for the increasing volume of ice being created in the rising column of moist air.
You really can't talk to DOD about such things, and I don't mean turning the power up. I suppose we'll never know if that particular microwave beam was the cause of the ice. On the other hand, the computer controller in our building that failed was immediately adjacent to the airshaft to the subway where the electronic controls for the rail switches were housed. Microwave frequencies are reflected by concrete rather like visible light is reflected by mirrors. If the beam was powerful enough, we could have had energy bleeding from it into the shaft.
At the same time folks in office buildings and apartments immediately along the line of sight would be regularly exposed to excess microwave energy and might well suffer injuries associated with overexposure. Brain tumors happen to be one of those things.
Plus, all of the folks affected were housed on the 8th floor. We were able to determine that the center of the beam was parallel to the 8/9th floor junction, and about 12 feet away from the Westernmost wall.
The next year an untended computer printer sitting in a room on the 9th floor at the Westernmost wall burst into flames and gutted the 9th floor.
Gotta' watch those untended computer printers FUR SHUR. This one cost $35,000,000 before everything was back to normal. But, no doubt, the subway wreck and the airplane crash had nothing to do with each other ~ or maybe they did.
Anybody going?
Oh...hit a sore spot.
I need to be shown proof that a jumbo jet in a stall situation and frontal area removed can climb a couple more thousand feet. The AA Simulators in Fort Worth will be fine.
I need to be shown ALL the videos that were taken into evidence that counter independent witnesses, to see this stream of flaming Jet-A.
I need to be told about changes in protocol to prevent evidence tampering that instead hindered the process.
Let's hear from the NG pilots that were witness to the event. One as a civilian works out of Hicks Airport in Saginaw, Texas.
Let's rescind Clinton's EO to the military to keep quiet.
I need quiet a bit more than what's being given, to be convinced either way.
I lost you on the first sentence? I didn't even write the post... read it. it is very worthwhile.
BTTT
Thank you .. but I have no interest in reading it.
That's Clintonisque. Many eyewitnesses did not want to draw conclusions, they reported what they saw - but what many eyewitnesses described can be summrized by concluding that they saw a missile.
No, it can't. In fact, most are quoted as saying they thought it was a flare. Shoulder launched missiles leave a very distinctive corkscrew smoke trail. Larger missiles leave an even more obvious arcing smoke trail. It is all you usually see of the missile as the flame from the rocket motor is relatively small compared to the smoke trail it leaves. The smoke is exhaust from the rocket motor. When the motor burns out, there is no more smoke. Anyone who witnessed a "streak of light" with no smoke was not witnessing a missile.
-- Lisa Perry
"After work on July 17, 1996, I went to our ocean-front summer rental house to have dinner with my wife and one-year-old son before putting him to bed, so I decided to go to the ocean-side deck to enjoy the view. As I walked thought the sliding doors to the deck, a red phosphorescent object in the sky caught my attention. The object was quite high in the sky (about 50 to 60 degrees) and slightly to the west and off-shore of my position. At first it appeared to be moving slowly, almost hanging and descending, and was leaving a white smoke trail. The smoke trail was short, and the top of the smoke trail had a clockwise, parabolic-shaped hook towards the shore. My first reaction was that I was looking at a marine distress flare that had been fired from a boat. I said to myself, someone must be in trouble."
-- Paul Angelides
"Bilodeau and McBride state that on 7-17-96 at 2045 they were at the Moriches Inlet, South Shore, facing south to southeast. Bilodeau and McBride observed a reddish glowing flare ascend skyward from due east, but they could not tell if from land or water. [The] flare was tight, corkscrew shapes, with even but fast speed. [They] did not see what [the] flare struck, but it exploded in air into a large orange fireball. Two large flaming chunks of debris fell from the fireball. Both recall hearing a deep, thunderous rumble during the explosion."
-- Vincent Bilodeau and Joseph McBride
Lots of other eyewitnesses saw similar things, at the same time. Many described the ascending object as a flare or fireworks, something they might be 'familiar' with - but of course these things don't go to 13000 feet and blow up aircraft. So, lets see, a few hundred people from the region coincidentally say they saw a 'flare' launch to blow up an airplane, and really they didn't see anything because they called it a flare... Is that what you think? Clintonesque!
"The object came over the dunes of Fire Island. It was shiny, like a new dime; it looked like a plane without wings. It had no windows. It was as if there was a flame at the back of it, like a Bunsen burner. It was like a silver bullet. It was moving much faster than the plane. The silver object took a left turn, and went up to the plane."
There isn't a SAM in existance that follows that flightpath. And the "missile" was close enough for her to tell it had "no windows", yet her description of its most obvious feature (if it had been a missile) is..."It was as if there was a flame at the back of it, like a Bunsen burner." Are you kidding me? And no mention of smoke. I have no idea what this lady is describing, but it isn't a SAM missile.
Now take a look at Paul Angelides. He observes a descending (started 50-60 degrees above the horizon and descended to 10 degrees above the horizon) red light that resolves into a series of explosions. Sounds a lot what TWA 800 did as it came apart in midair. He goes on to mention he immediately called the Coast Guard and was told "oh, thats the Air National Guard they are firing flares tonight". Interesting that little tidbit never makes it onto TWA 800 conspiracy sites. Do you suppose there is any chance that might explain what people were seeing before TWA 800 blew up, or was the Coast Guard operator already immersed in a massive government cover-up.
Vincent and Mcbride saw a red flare, but didn't report seeing any smoke. That, despite it being light enough to determine the color of an aircraft flying by just 15 minutes earlier.
Your final point is legitimate. People do describe things based on what they are familiar with. But then again, these people living on Long Island were all very familiar with flares, and a SAM launch is significantly different than a flare launch. You would think many of them would have said something along the lines of "it was like a flare, but different in that....". And this statement of yours..."a few hundred people from the region coincidentally say they saw a 'flare' launch to blow up an airplane" is an outright lie. You can't possibly provide evidence to back that up, because the evidence does not exist. If you want to talk Clintonesque, why don't you start by examining your need to at best exaggerate, and at worst lie, to try to support your point.
Keep up the good work.
Here’s what Accuracy in Media's courageous Reed Irvine wrote last week:"The recently released FBI reports of their interviews of eyewitnesses to the downing of TWA Flight 800 contain enough dynamite to blow the lid off the FBI-NTSB-CIA-DOD cover-up of the cause of the crash of TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996. The FBI wouldn't even let the NTSB investigators see these reports for a long time. When they finally sent copies of 756 eyewitness reports to the NTSB, they were in great disarray, causing a further delay in their release to the public. The NTSB recently made them available, together with related documents, on a CD-ROM. These can now be found on Cmdr. William S. Donaldson's web site, www.TWA800.com. This is a treasure trove for anyone interested in getting the truth about the TWA 800 crash.
"Hundreds of eyewitnesses saw TWA Flight 800 crash off the southern coast of Long Island, and what they saw was widely reported by the print and electronic media at the time. The FBI took control of the investigation and refused to let the NTSB interview eyewitnesses. No eyewitnesses were permitted to testify at the NTSB public hearing on the TWA crash in Dec. 1997, and the FBI would not permit any discussion of the 244 eyewitness reports it had shared with the CIA. The CIA used them to produce a video simulation of the crash. James Kallstrom, who headed the FBI investigation, said the questioning of eyewitnesses "would have the unintentional effect of undermining the CIA's work." [In other words, don't let the facts interfere with their conclusions.]
If it is a lie that hundreds of eyewitnesses saw something like a missile rise up and strike TWA800, it is not my lie or exaggeration.
They did think it was a missile. That's why they were there in the first place. The whole event was being investigated on the assumption it was a criminal act. But as the investigation continued, it became quite clear that there was no overt criminal act. On the topic of Lisa Perry's recollection of the evening, here is some other things she claims to have seen...
"Then a moment later there was another explosion, and the plane broke jaggedly in the sky," says Perry. "The nose is continuing to go forward; the left wing is gliding off in its own direction, drifting in an arc gracefully down; the right wing and passenger window are doing the same in their direction out to the right; and the tail with its fireball leaps up and then promptly into the water below. The sounds were a huge BOOM! – then another BOOM!"
This description came from a person who was no closer than 15 miles from the crash site. I've been a professional pilot for the last 15 years. I will tell you without even a reasonable shadow of a doubt that someone 15 miles away from a 747 cannot descern the nose from the tail, nevermind the left wing from the right. Passenger window?!?! Not a chance. This lady is a liar. Plain and simple. She is absolutely not a credible witness to support any theory.
If your quote from the "courageous" Reed Irvine is really only a week old than he is about 2 or 3 years out of date. The NTSB eyewitness data has been available for years.
Finally, if you repeat something you know is not true, you are lying. It doesn't matter where the lie originated from. You don't have to believe me. Read the eyewitness testimonies yourself.
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.