What really happened to AA Flight 612

WorldNetDaily ^ | 09 December 2005 | Jack Cashill

[RunningWolf]

Well I bet some of the AA guys were 'Dogs' too

Thanks for your exemplary service.

What do you think about LAIRCM on civil jet transport? And maybe not the systems themselves but publics expectation of the things.

Wolf

[GSHastings]

My own pet theory for flt 800 is the cargo door failure ala UAL flt 811, as TWA 800 was an old series 747 also.

From the information I saw, including the pieces of the airplane recovered (an incredible amount), it looked pretty convincing to me that there was an explosion in the fuel tank where they say there was. You could easily see the way the various pieces around the thank were distorted outwards, and also violently forced into adjacent structures by the event.

[RunningWolf]

I saw much of what I think you looked at also. I don't reject the center tank explosion scenario because it had been documented on 737 aircraft prior to this event.

On TWA flt 800, certainly any missile theory (small one, large one) can be ruled out by looking at the aircraft evidence.

Agree?

Wolf

[Pukin Dog]

An insane waste of money.

[Rokke]

"Two AA pilots see something they describe as a missile track. During the same time there is radar data showng some unknown object in the vicinity of the aircraft."

RW, both those statements are incorrect. I have seen nothing that states the pilots described "a missile track". And there is no radar data that shows "an unknown object." The only "radar" data I've seen is from the PASSUR system which can only show secondary data or occasionally a false "ghost image". Furthermore, you will need to explain why the pilots described what they saw as appearing halfway between their position and the coastline when the ghost image that some people want to believe is an actual object, is essentially superimposed on their aircraft.

[RunningWolf]

Thats how I described it here is what the pilots said

was pilots radioed air-traffic controllers saying what appeared to be a rocket had been fired at the aircraft and missed as American Airlines Flight 612

The article also refer to TRACON radar sweeps. I think this is more than PASSUR system.

Afterwards it was the FBI that described it as a bottle rocket or flare, not the pilots. Is it routine for the FBI to give a statement in lieu of the pilots?

I don't need to believe or not believe a missile was launched against this particular aircraft.

My point is we have have enough of a real world threat to civilian jet transports from MANPAD to not just dismiss speculation as tin foil kookery.

Wolf

[GOP_1900AD]

RE: And stop assuming that government agents are hiding behind every story to pull the wool over your eyes.

I don't assume that. Why did you write that?

[GOP_1900AD]

The simple number of posts you are making requires time and effort. You have much more passion on this topic than I ever could. Do you have a conflict of interest? Is there some financial interest you have in shutting this down? Is there some can of worms that might cause you personal pain? You certainly exhibit the signs of someone with a very personal interest in making sure that folks don't "go there."

No I don't think you are government. I think it's personal and private interests on your part. Maybe you have some legal exposure or financial exposure in some way, that if there was a broad concern about MANPADs impacting domestic airspace, you'd lose money, credibility or something else you care about. Again, your behavior tells me these things. If it were only academic interest and not personal pain level or downside, you would not invest so much energy into discrediting this thread.

[Rokke]

"What appeared to be a rocket" and "something they describe as a missile track" are two very different things. And frankly, to state that the pilots saw something "they describe as a missile track" is tantamount to lying. Especially considering their actual words have been recorded as "it looked more like a rocket" than a flare.

"The article also refer to TRACON radar sweeps. I think this is more than PASSUR system."

The article (written by Jack Cashill) says this..."The unidentified target appears for 12 to 13 sweeps of the FAA LAX TRACON radar rotating at a 4.7-second sweep rate." The problem with taking anything from WND or Jack Cashill is that they don't really have any idea what they are talking about. They have one objective, and that is to make money. The fact of the matter is, there is no "FAA LAX TRACON" radar. The TRACON for the LAX area is in Southern California (San Diego) and is known as SoCal. If Jack somehow got a copy of radar data from somewhere other than the PASSUR system, he sure isn't sharing his info. Neither is anyone else, as there is no mention of such radar data in any source I've seen.

"Is it routine for the FBI to give a statement in lieu of the pilots?"

The FBI conducted the investigation. Who else should release a statement regarding their investigation? Incidentally, American Airlines also released information on the incident. They reported the following...

- Flight #612 was at 13,000 feet altitude - 7-10 miles offshore.
- Cloud ceiling was at 4-5,000 feet (someone on the ground or on a boat wouldn't have been able to see the aircraft)
- Captain saw straight vertical rocket contrail up to about 6,000 feet
- Rocket was approximately 3-4 miles away from flight #612
- That equals a horizontal separation of about 4 miles and a vertical separation of well over a mile.
- The captain never used the word "missile" and never believed the aircraft was a target of the rocket.

"My point is we have have enough of a real world threat to civilian jet transports from MANPAD to not just dismiss speculation as tin foil kookery."

I agree, but it becomes tin foil kookery when people start making stuff up (literally) and attribute "damning evidence" to information that reveals nothing of the sort.

[RunningWolf]

I did not know the term missile as opposed to rocket would be such a loaded thing here.

If by the difference of rocket to missile you mean unguided as opposed to some sort of guidance system, optical thermal, whatever then I see your point.

The term missile then came my interpretation of all the information in the article and that the pilots thought something perhaps a rocket had been launched at their aircraft.

Maybe what they meant by FAA LAX TRACON, is the LAX ASR which would be in the SOCAL TRACON, and also the LAX TRACON ASR data

If you go here to Pg5 paragraph 3 for another incident, you see the NTSB described this data as LAX TRACON ASR data. So maybe this J. Cashill has a little bit of credibility

Wolf

[GSHastings]

On TWA flt 800, certainly any missile theory (small one, large one) can be ruled out by looking at the aircraft evidence.

Agree?

Agreed. The documentary I watched discussed in detail the evidence which would typically be found if the cause were a missile, or a bomb on board. And none of it was present.

[RunningWolf]

Right,

The aircraft was already out of range for a manpad (unless the aircraft was static at that altitude). A manpad would not have tracked to that part of the airframe, and even if it did track to that part of the airframe it would have impacted & detonated on the fairings or the heat exchangers and all of that hardware attached to the bottom of the wing box.

Where as the larger SAM (such as a Standard) would have had a large rocket plume to follow perhaps a definite radar track, and would have obliterated the jet liner (as happened in the Gulf). Either scenario would not have the investigators scratching head trying to piece it together that this is what happened.

Wolf

[JoeGar]

When I saw that this was a World Net Daily article, I reached for my tinfoil hat. WND is almost as bad as Coast to Coast AM.