Posted on 06/07/2005 5:04:39 PM PDT by CHARLITE
From the radar images, it looks like it was an attempt to test shooting down a designated target amid civilian traffic.
But the missile lost track of the drone and locked in on 800...
You risked your life? And why would anyone arrest you for safeguarding scientific evidence? When will you reveal what you uncovered? This sounds very exciting.
FALSE, absolutly FALSE!
Are we talking about a contrail of smoke?
Greetings!
Char :)
But the missile lost track of the drone and locked in on 800..."
Rconawa, as a fellow military pilot, you can read the above and appreciate why I asked you what your experience in this topic is. When some people believe ATC radars can pick up targets as small as a SAM missile, that the military conducts weapons systems tests amid civilian traffic, and that semi-active radar guided missiles can lock on to targets other than what their fire control radars are guiding them to explains in part how conspiracy theories like this one continue to exist.
No, because again, almost none of the 755 witnesses described any smoke trail at all, nevermind one resembling a SAM in flight. The closest description given to a missile was a "streak of light". But only 40 described a streak of light ascending from the ocean. And many of those statements were taken over a week after the event, and after much media speculation about a terrorist missile strike.
I have read in several posts SAM that implies suface fired missile. What about AAM (air to air) fired from an aircraft?
Read " The Third Terrorist" .
Why would the destruction of TWA 800 require "live ordinance" to create a massive failure of the structural integrity of the aircraft?
We all know that the central fuel tank exploded, but we also know that aviation fuel is not explosive unless it has the proper fuel-air mixture. Something atomized the fuel in the aircraft's tank, mixed it with the air, and created the correct mixture.
That is what a carburetor in a car does. Without the proper fuel-air mixture, your engine simply does not go bang.
You have placed logical blinders upon yourself, that may or may not be supported.
There were some witnesses who reported seeing a missile-like object looking like "cheap fireworks" rising from near the shore of Long Island up towards TWA 800. There's no way the fuel tank exploded spontaneously. Military labs made numerous attempts to get commercial jet fuel to explode at operating temperatures using sparking devices and other means, but they were unable to make the fuel explode. This is because the fuel is carefully manufactured so that it cannot explode in fight. If there was even the slightest chance that a 747 could exploded spontaneously, do you think the Air Force would still be using a 747 as Air Force One ?
This disaster was most likely a missile shootdown and the next most likely scenario is an on-board bombing. The successful cover-up of TWA 800 is sad testimony to the continuing refusal of the MSM to investigate and report on the scandals of Democrat politicians.
This is because the fuel is carefully manufactured so that it cannot explode in fight. If there was even the slightest chance that a 747 could exploded spontaneously, do you think the Air Force would still be using a 747 as Air Force One?
Of course, one person that I know pointed out that Air Force One and TWA 800 were both of the same 747-200 series. He was questioned by the Secret Service because of this factual comment.
Pressurization also has a lot to do with it. Just about anything is explosive in the right conditions. Especially in dust or vapor form. Anyone who lives in the Midwest has no doubt heard of grain elevator explosions. And you only have to stick your head in an aircraft fuel tank to know fuel vapor exists inside that tank. It is almost always completely safe. So safe, in fact, that the 747 (and many other aircraft) are designed to use their fuel tanks as heat sinks for cooling electrical equipment. The jet I fly is actually one giant fuel tank full of wiring and other plumbing. Part of that design includes insuring there isn't a source that could introduce a spark into that space. But like anything designed by people, mistakes (including design errors) are made. Just because it doesn't happen often, does not mean the problem doesn't exist. It only has to happen once at just the wrong time. Recently, I blew out a hydraulic actuator on a speedbrake that had never failed in the history of F-16 operations. It drained one of my hydraulic systems in a matter of seconds. After I landed, the factory sent out representatives to take pictures and analyze the part that failed. It had never happened before...until that day. But on that day, all the right conditions occurred to cause the failure. No conspiracy, no cover up, no trend item, and at least in this case no disaster. Just a failure of a system that up until that point had never failed.
That is not true. In fact, one of the findings of the TWA 800 investigation was that the military had already identified there was a problem regarding high temperatures in the fuel tanks of its E-4B (747) aircraft. The military adjusted its procedures to minimize the potential hazard. Boeing did not pass that info to the civilian world. It may have made a difference.
Maybe they just wanted to give him more accurate information. To start with, TWA 800 was a 747-100. Not a 200. And it was built almost 20 years before the 747's used to transport the President. Air Force one is such a highly modified 747-200 it is essentially a unique airframe.
I didn't know the passenger list was ever released. I always thought that some investigative reporter should follow up on the passenger list for clues. Is the list available?
Can you present the thermodynamic data showing the explosive limits -- air / fuel/temperature/pressure ?
That was a mechanical failure -- not a chemical explosion that had never happened before.
The scariest point about her is that she seems to have put her finger to the wind and felt the massive breeze of those who feel there is something that must be done about illegal immigration. She seems to be joining in on some tough discussions about the invasion and by 2008, as it becomes a boiling point issue in our political spectrum, the Republican candidate may avoid the issue or be on the other side of it to counter Hitlary and she may win with it. She won't do anything, but she'll campaign on it and then blame "obstructionist Republicans" for blocking any efforts to do something about it. To try to get Democrap control of Congress by 2010.
Don't think so? Look at the last few days since Hitlary found out that 80-85% of the American people want something done and decided to join up on the right side of the issue. The NYT has been writing articles slamming Illegal Immigration. Before Her Lowness decided to take it on as an issue, they had never met an Illegal they didn't love.
Paul
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.