Posted on 06/07/2005 5:04:39 PM PDT by CHARLITE
"For all I know, you are an army nurse."
Nope, just a pilot like you. I have read the reports and found them lacking and with too many un-explained details (rocket fuel residue on the seats has always been an issue with me that was never properly explained). Also, the selfrightous comment is because you have not backed up anything with any facts. I wold like to change my opinion, it would make me feel better about things. I would really like to hear why you think something else happened and what do you think it was?
By the way what do you have against Army Nurses?
Oh yeah, why isn't my opinion worth much consideration? Is yours that much more valuable? If so why? If you are angry about my "self-rightous pilot" comment, I thought you would take it in the proper vein - all of us who wear the wings tend to fit that description.
Since you are a pilot, you should understand my initial argument with the theory presented in this article. If there was rocket fuel residue on aircraft seats than the following must be true 1. the rocket motor was still burning when the missile impacted the aircraft, 2. There is almost no evidence that describes the VERY noticeable and memorable smoke trail of every Navy SAM employed by our Navy and therefore the motor must have been smokeless. 3. The warhead did not function. 4. the missile must have struck the aircraft in an almost perpendicular flightpath. I repeat, show me a missile that meets those criteria, and all consider this article something other than Cashill's continued effort to line his wallet with money made from a tragedy.
You think the U.S. Navy shot down TWA 800 and successfully covered it up for almost 20 years. As a 25 year Colonel, you must have some familiarity with the military's ability to cover up an incident as significant as that. We can't even put panties on the heads of terrorists in a roach infested prison in a combat zone without creating the biggest news story in decades. As a 25 year Colonel you must be fully aware of how much the Clinton administration LOATHED the military. Do you really think they would help the Navy hide a mistake as big as shooting down a civilian airliner off the coast of Long Island?
With regard to the "self-righteous" comment...there was no indication from your post that you were including yourself in that description. You were more concerned with telling me you were a Colonel than what your experience was. I asked you some simple questions regarding your practical experience in matters such as "classic shoot downs". I provided mine. You still really haven't offered any.
"1. the rocket motor was still burning when the missile impacted the aircraft, 2. There is almost no evidence that describes the VERY noticeable and memorable smoke trail of every Navy SAM employed by our Navy and therefore the motor must have been smokeless. 3. The warhead did not function. 4. the missile must have struck the aircraft in an almost perpendicular flightpath."
First of all I am not following which ever person you are referring to. As for your issues: 1) Highly likely given range of missiles that could have been used and the altitude of the aircraft that the motor was still burning when it hit (even without that there would still be residue), 2) at night the smoke trail would not have been as noticable (but I concede this point more towards your argument - but not entirely), 3) The warhead did not malfuntion and since it worked as advertised it most likely was the cause of the center fuel tank explosion, 4) the perpendicular flight issue I fail to understand why you think it had to be near perpendicular, from the photo's and the eyewitness accounts the plane was struck from the bottom near center of mass with an object travelling at a high rate up speed upward - again very consistent with the path a radar guided missile would take if fired from a surface ship at an overhead target. Early reports did mention the solid rocket motor residue and then went quiet on that subject (if I remember right, some people changed at that time too)
Waited for your reply, but it is very late here on the east coast and us old guys cant stay up too late. I will look for your thoughts again tomorrow.
"As for the C-130 and the P-3 being in the area that means nothing to me as that is a busy area for air traffic. "
Since lived on Long Island for many years, P-3 traffic was extremely rare if ever. The Coast Guard operates a small base (not an airfield) on LI and their aircraft are routinely seen.
Jack Cashill is the author of this article and of several books on this topic. He makes his money writing books concerning various conspiracy theories.
With regard to your responses to my points...
1. If the rocket motor was still burning, it was smoking. Big time. Anyone who has witnessed a SAM launch knows that the smoke trail of a burning SAM is unmistakable, unforgettable, and far more prominent than even the flame from the rocket. Yet almost no evidence of that trail is described anywhere near TWA 800.
2. When TWA 800 went down it was still daylight.
3. SAM warheads are proximity or contact fuses. They are not designed to penetrate an aircraft and then explode. They are designed to explode just outside an aircraft to shower that aircraft with thousands of pieces of shrapnel to sever electrical, hydraulic and fuel lines. Not a single piece of evidence was found in TWA 800 to support that.
4. This article states the missile residue was found in rows 17-19. The aircraft was moving at roughly 350kias when it was hit. If the missile hit it in anything other than a perpendicular flight path, the "residue" would have been spread through the length of the fuselage. Not just two rows. If the missile hit the aircraft from the bottom, than it must have been fired from almost directly below it, because no SAM flies a profile that would cause it to intercept an aircraft from a vertical climb. If the missile had been fired from almost directly below, than everyone would have seen a large column of smoke connecting TWA 800 with the source of the missile launch. Nobody did.
Exactly what caused the destruction of TWA flight 800 will probably never be known.
The major question will always be: Why did the government feel that it must lie to the American public, about the crash of TWA flight 800?
AS always, BTTT
Cheers,
knews hound
http://knewshound.blogspot.com/
It does not matter what your current theory may be about the destruction of this aircraft. The fact of the matter is; the government lied to us.
After almost 10 years now, I was hoping that the Bush administration would open up the raw data. Unfortunately, that has not happened.
We must live with that standard of scientific disclosure today and accept that nothing will change.
However, when something like this happens once again, American citizens will immediately get involved and document the facts, before our government can smother them.
What specifically are you talking about?
Didn't TWA 800 go down around dusk? If I remember correctly the whole scene was viewed from Fire Island. I also remember that the aircraft was sent to an empty hanger in Calverton, Long Island, NY. Sort of remember that the dive team were Navy personnel. Somewhere in the recesses of my gray matter is that a reporter was arrested for having fabric tested for explosive residue. Jim Kalstrom was in charge of the investigation.
reference for later.
Simple statement of fact and you have had almost 10 years to understand why.
It no longer matters how TWA 800 was destroyed. Today, that is no longer the problem that must be addressed.
I think you are correct on all counts.
I really don't understand what you are trying to say.
If I recall correctly, about 260 people reported seeing a missle strike TWA800. These people are all nuts and liars? ( A few of these were pilots).
I honestly do not care what your theories are.
Those of us who have risked ourselves to obtain and preserve the raw data, know what I am talking about.
Why TWA 800 was destroyed in mid-air will never be fully solved.
The danger to all Americans, is what happened after...
That is factually incorrect. Of 755 recognized and interviewed witnesses, ALMOST NONE described seeing a missile strike TWA800.
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.