Pilot Reports 'Missile' Fired at Jetliner Near LAX

KYW News ^ | December 2, 2005

[NCjim]

FBI agents and Homeland Security officials spent the weekend investigating the report of a possible missile fired at an American Airlines plane taking off from Los Angeles International Airport.

Sources tell ABC News the pilot of American Airlines Flight 621, en route to Chicago, radioed air traffic controllers after takeoff from LAX. He told them a missile had been fired at the aircraft and missed.

The plane was over water when the pilot said he saw a smoke trail pass by the cockpit.

FBI agents believe it was a flare or a bottle rocket, but say they may never know if that's what it actually was.

[U S Army EOD]

If it was, my guess it had just ran out of juice and coasted under the aircraft. I don't remember what type of signature an SA 7 has and if it will leave much smoke. I doubt if it was unguided such as some type of RPG round. I hope the pilot was seeing things.

[Old Flat Toad]

I wish I knew how to put video on the web. My son and I put a four foot/15 oz model rocket waaaaay over a quarter mile up. Made out of materials and prepackaged engines available at the local hobby shop. The high power rocketry hobbyists routinely put stuff up between 20,000-40'000 ft. Scary

[U S Army EOD]

Try lighting kerosene with a spark some time.

[operation clinton cleanup]

A spark near any fuel hose that is leaking or other source could most certainly ignite a plane.

Agreed, was there any evidence of leaking fuel on TWA 800?

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, it could be a problem if people could add a homing component and some ordinance. Not a very comforting thought at all...

[CindyDawg]

THe other thread is almost done anyway.

[A CA Guy]

"Try lighting kerosene with a spark some time."

No thanks. I think that would be like trying to listen to a Yoko Ono album.

Matter of fact, that could have me exit the plane without a parachute.

[COEXERJ145]

Try lighting kerosene with a spark some time.

A match into a bucket of jet fuel, kerosene or even diesel and the match will go out. (I always love watching this demonstraton to new recruits at the fire school.)

However, a match into a vapor of the same substances and it will go BOOM.

[Techster]

Agree, little fact that is know by very few. This is the primary reason I can't go with the 'official' line. Also, how is it that hundreds of witnesses were wrong and didn't see something go from surface to air?

[A CA Guy]

Well, I'm not sure what is knowable and not burnt up after that kind of case.

It could be that the fuel lines are a combination of metal lines with gaskets and some very durable high density hose material.
I think if there is something ignitable, it would be seeping out of bad gaskets more than anything else.

In 800 though, weren't there a dozen eye witnesses from all angles that saw what they thought was a missile launched from the ground at the plane just as it blew?

I know it has been ignored, but if you have a lot of reputable people saying they saw stuff from many different positions, then something suspicious more than likely happened IMO.

[BobS]

We just can't arm civ aircraft with PAC-3 ABM systems. Sorry to say it, but if another airliner is brought down, the border will be closed faster than you can flush a toilet.

[concretebob]

There is a DVD available from WorldNetDaily called Mega-Fix.
It was put together by Jack Cashill..very interesting theory on the Flight 800 cover-up.
Who and why..

[Techster]

The last I had read, the explosion that supposedly happened on TWA 800 could not be duplicated. Jet A, kerosene, and diesel not easy to make explode. Consider the temperature and pressure in a diesel engine if you want to get in the ball park. And the fuel/air ratio has to be within a certain range for that to occur.

[Lloyd227]

"Next thing you know they'll hire 'The Agency' to do an up-to-date computer simulation showing exactly how that bottle rocket did that...."

My boys and I are pretty good with Photoshop, Flash, 3DStudio and a few others. Wonder if we could set up shop producing these "custom" graphics the F.B.I. seems to need on a more and more regular basis lately?

Hmmmmm... interesting business opportunity.....

[manwiththehands]

Thanks for posting this. I didn't see the ones previously.

At face value I think something really did happen. And I'm not above thinking the FBI wants to make it go away. It would not be the first time a plane was fired upon by a missle and the FBI told us it "didn't happen".

[operation clinton cleanup]

In 800 though, weren't there a dozen eye witnesses from all angles that saw what they thought was a missile launched from the ground at the plane just as it blew?

Yes, but a manpad (shoulder launched missile) would attract a lot more attention in a dark sky than in broad daylight.

[COEXERJ145]

Well until I see proof of a missile, I am not going to believe all the conspiracy theories.

As for the witnesses, they are notoriously unreliable when it comes to aviation accidents. As an example, these are just some of the eyewitness reports of American Airlines Flight 587.

"The left engine was on fire."

"The right engine was on fire."

"Both engines were on fire."

"Neither engine was on fire."

"The left engine separated from the aircraft."

"The right engine separated from the aircraft."

"Both engines separated from the aircraft."

"The aircraft broke up before impact."

"The aircraft crashed intact."

"The fuselage was on fire."

"The was no fire visible."

The only eyewitness that doesn't get its facts wrong is the camera be it still or video.

[RetiredArmy]

What was the flight number of this flight? 800 maybe? Strange.

[tertiary01]

Ping to another thread and to Burbank Karl's audio of George Noory's interview with Dan Hagmann last night (regarding this topic)in post #645.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1529700/posts?q=1&&page=645

[A CA Guy]

Bottom line is, if there were more than a handful thinking they saw something, then why didn't they conclude foul play?