Posted on 07/23/2004 12:03:52 PM PDT by philosofy123
I know it is late afternoon on Friday for me to get a good response to this posting, however, I am constantly thinking that the US government should come clean, and admit that they lied to us about the shoulder to air missile that hit the TWA flight 800 in the NYC harbor.
I do appreciate that they lied to protect the flying public from panicking, however, after 9/11, and after the wall to wall public education regarding fanatic Islam, it would not be harmful to day to admit the truth.
Please let me know your views?
The "heat source" isn't all that relevant to the discussion, if my theory is correct. The missile didn't hone in on a heat source -- it honed in on Flight 800's radio signature.
Think of this plausible sequence of events:
1. Naval vessel/vessels are conducting exercises off the south shore of Long Island that night (Grid W-105, from all accounts I've read).
2. TWA Flight 800 takes off from JFK International Airport and heads east over the Atlantic, off the south shore of Long Island.
3. Naval exercise involves a new type of rolling-airframe missile (RAM) and a target drone. The drone is fired -- and the missile is fired at it. This explains a key point in the eyewitness accounts . . . there was some discrepancy in the accounts of the missile's path -- but every eyewitness account was narrowed down to two distinct missile tracks, which indicates that there were TWO objects in the sky, not one.
4. Flight 800 is ordered to descend several thousand feet, to make way for a northbound US Air flight en route to Providence that is running behind schedule that night.
5. Flight 800 descends toward the path of the drone, and the missile mistakenly starts tracking the aircraft instead of the drone.
I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, but this sounds more reasonable than the idiotic charade that the NTSB and FBI staged, doesn't it?
"my brother in law, who is a pilot for a major airline, belives to this day that flight was shot down... he said the very next day, a missle shot it down."
That was what was heard undercurrent here, inside the beltway, where all the alphabet agencies live.
We've had this discussion for years now. Every time this subject comes up, we spend a good part of the time hashing out the shoulder fired missile angle. I don't think any of us has the full answer to this mystery. What is certain is that our government covered up the real cause of this flight going down.
Don't you think it's far more productive to address issues like the federal government stating that there were no military surfact ships within something like 135 miles of N.Y. at the time of the event, only to find out months later that there was indeed an exercise going on almost, if not directly under the crash site on the night of the crash?
Now, back to hissing and moaning about shoulder fired missles vs non-shoulder fired missiles, something that people vehemently disagree about to the point that the issue of a surface fired missile taking out the plane goes almost undiscussed over and over again.
Who really gives a blank about the source at this point? It was a missile, it left the surface and it hit TWA 800. End of story. Maybe we should switch to surface water temperature. I'm sure we could work up a good sweat over that.
I think that's the best missile theory. I really don't see a bunch of Islamist nutbars having the means or the training to fire a radio or radar guided missile. And if they had a Stinger, they would have positioned themselves where they had a good chance of hitting their targeting instead of an infintessimal one.
D1, you've been around long enough to know that the other side will latch onto the smallest inconsistency or error to discredit any points we make. Not only that, but trying to promote a shoulder-fired SAM takes attention away from the Naval angle that IMO is the most likely scenario.
And this RAM came from????
Except in this case many of the witnesses weren't even interviewed. Some called the FBI a number of times, only to be brushed off.
In this case you have witnesses from a wide angle of views, each saying basicly the same thing, each locating the object in the right perspective. I don't think these witnesses are as easy as all that to discount conclisively. I just don't buy into that.
you know, if it was anyone BUT him saying that, I would tend to agree with you... but my brother in law is not that type of a thinker. He is a risk taker, and nothing scares him (other than holding a baby) He said it matter of fact, and it didnt even bother him. He was ready to start flying right after 9/11.... life goes on till you die type of guy
It's a long time until November. Truth is just starting to bubble up about a lot of things.
Yes, the evidential tape was ordered released by President Bush
a few days after it was no longer needed as such.
I'm familiar with the Rolling Air Frame missile, and as you say, the physical damage to TWA 800 is consistent with the fragmentation warhead that the RAM carries, not to mention that it was a center-of-mass impact.
I have a hard time believing that the NAVY would not be using a remote testing range for something like this. This theory is one that I would be willing to look at since the physical evidence supports it.
The U.S. Navy had several ships in the area of the crash site that night, and if there was even one chance in a thousand that a terrorist missile had brought down TWA 800, they would have done their damndest to find the source of that missile.
From everything I've read, they didn't. Which can only mean one of two things: 1) there was no missile, or 2) they knew exactly where the missile came from, and it wasn't from a terrorist.
I know what you mean ... sadly, however, there really are such things as coverups, even when witnesses talk freely. It all depends on whether editors (not reporters) believe them and feel it safe or worthwhile to publicize. Radio and TV may report it, but such reports are fleeting and quickly disappear, no record. Print is permanent. I can recall an incident that should have made national news (it was at a major amusement park nightclub in Orlando), yet never did. It was pooh-poohed as "rumor" by "sensible" people. The truth is that it really happened and should have gone national. Here is the truth: If the national print media doesn't report it, it didn't happen, even if it did. Same thing here. So these days, I am sad to say that I know government and media can keep secrets no matter how many people talk -- because I've seen it done.
Fair enough...you know your brother-in-law...I was just speculating on the nature of "the job" and making an assumption about "mindset."
I'm with you on the surface ship angle. I must say though, that the idea of a rogue group bringing in a 'Hail Mary' effort to take down a U.S. ship, doesn't seem out of the question.
We take that 13,000 feet claim pretty serious, considering we don't believe much else that the feds told us. I'm not convinced it's out of the question that flight wasn't lower. I also think it's possible for some equipment to perform at or more importantly above their specs on occassion.
Did some camel-jokey just get lucky? Who knows? I think it suffices to say that we don't know exactly what happened, but that something involving a missile did happen. Then go from there. Obviously the shoulder missile theory is somewhat of a long-shot, but I can't say conculsively that a shoulder missile wasn't involved.
I must go now. You guys take care.
A remote testing range has one serious flaw when it comes to this kind of weapon. If the weapon that is being tested is a missile that tracks a target's radio signature, then the ideal location of the test would be an area with a lot of random background radio "noise" -- in other words, a major metropolitan area.
Most people would probably be quite disturbed if they knew how many weapons tests are done off the coasts of major cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, New York, etc. -- tests that are done there precisely for this reason.
Here's the problem - they could have simply sat in a boat out in Jamaica Bay and had a much better shot. Why position yourself where it was almost impossible to bring down what you're aiming at?
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.