Silenced: Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice, Part 1 [10th Anniv. Warm-up]

WND ^ | June 4, 2001 | Jack Cashill

[canuck_conservative]

Editor's note: On the evening of July 17, 1996, at 8:19 p.m., TWA Flight 800, a Boeing 747, took off from Kennedy Airport, bound for Paris. At 8:31 p.m., over 730 people watched Flight 800 explode, killing all 230 of the people aboard.

Not long afterwards, millions of Americans watched their televisions in fascinated horror as search and rescue crews looked for survivors among the flaming debris. Only dead bodies were recovered.

Flight 800 is mostly an ugly memory for people these days. The U.S. government issued an explanation that a fuel tank had somehow exploded. Yet, they flatly denied any evidence existed of foul play, including the possibility that Flight 800 had been blown out of the air by a missile.

All but a few journalists accepted the government's version of events. Few bothered to investigate the numerous eyewitnesses, the radar records and the physical evidence that all suggested a strikingly different explanation of Flight 800's untimely demise. And those few who did question the government's version were made to look like fools or, worse, thrown in jail and prosecuted as criminals for meddling in an official investigation.

What really happened to Flight 800? ....

[Dan(9698)]

The findings are correct.

And you voted for Clinton both times.

It figures.

[tpaine]

You've used your military status to belittle those people who saw the tape as 'conspirators'. "

Baloney. I explained my status at the time to illustrate why such a story would be of interest to me, and why I would pay particular attention to it. I included the fact that we did not receive any intelligence briefings on the matter because even folks who aren't in "upper echelons" of military intelligence receive current intelligence briefings on real time terrorist attacks. That no briefings were given, offers some insight into the matter.

The fact remains, you called those of us who saw a rising streak "conspiracy theorists".

Now, I want you to quote me on where I called you or anyone else on this thread a liar for saying they saw a video on TV that showed a missile launch. Good luck. Although I won't call you a liar for making yet another false accusation. Your understanding of "honor" is already clear.

I have two examples of your duplicity:

Your ignorance about our military and your willingness to believe a pack of lies are no excuse for you to defame the most honorable profession our nation can offer. You are disgusting.
290 posted on 06/23/2006 8:55:44 AM PDT by Rokke

I'm not accusing you of lying. I am saying that you are repeating a common lie pushed by TWA 800 conspiracy theorists.
273 posted on 06/23/2006 8:10:30 AM PDT by Rokke

Had enough? -- Or do you want to keep digging that 'honor' hole?

Should I post a service Academies honor oath?

[RunningWolf]

Yes I have heard of that. I have also heard of the magnetic hypervelocity railgun.

Do you want to elaborate? Are you suggesting yet another scenario? Are you suggesting that a stinger(manpad) is a weapon in this class of weapons?

W.

[U S Army EOD]

Are you serious?

[Rokke]

The article you referenced was written by Pat Milton of the Associated Press. It was originally published under the title "Video may show Missile near TWA" and was printed in the Washington Post on 3 March 1997. It was posted on FreeRepublic before folks were required to post articles under their original title. The tape in question was a supposedly a video of a radar scope showing an object merging with TWA 800. Obviously, that is not the video people on this thread recall viewing. Read here for more info...

Discussion of Russel Tape

Incidentally the author of that AP article also wrote a book about the TWA 800 investigation called "In the Blink of an Eye", which carefully followed and greatly praised the FBI investigation of the TWA 800 incident. Believe me, nothing this reporter has published is going to help your case.

[Rokke]

"However, all the passengers suffered broken necks and facial injuries, and there is simply no way I can visualize that uniformity even after falling from 13,700'."

I'm not certain that is accurate concerning "all" the passengers. But even if it was a large majority of them, the fact remains the aircraft suffered from an extremely violent post explosion maneuver that ended up ripping the wings off the aircraft. Boeing, TWA and ALPA all concur with the break up sequence of the aircraft. It involved a dramatic pitch up, rapid change of momentum, and airspeed. All of which is consistent with the injuries the passengers suffered. Conversely, if they did actually suffer something like "hitting a brick wall" in an aircraft traveling 350 knots, they would be obliterated.

[Flightdeck]

Ha! Based on a Discovery Channel (or History Channel, you can't quite remember), you offer the conclusion: "The findings are correct" and then ridicule others for needing more education. I haven't read the whole thread, but have they "educated" you on the numerous admissions by politicians with the higher security clearances that it was in fact a terrorist attack?

[Flightdeck]

"Anybody figured out why the NG helicopter that was flying under the 747 never saw any evidense at all of a missile launch. If there was one, no way they could have missed it."

As a pilot, I can tell you if there is one place I wouldn't see a missile from, it would be below. And of course, you failed to mention the other helicopter with retired military pilots in it that actually did see the missile. What say you?

[U S Army EOD]

No the test I saw educated me.

[U S Army EOD]

Bovine Feces.

[Flightdeck]

"PETN is not a missile fuel, it is an explosive. It is usually a part of an explosive train. The main use is in Det Chord."

Is it also used in manufacturing airplanes?

[KoRn]

"I still suspect that a missile strike caused the crash. The accepted argument does not hold water."

If Bush would have been in office, rather than Clinton, do you think the media would have so easily accepted the explanation? I doubt it.

[U S Army EOD]

It can be in CAD devices or explosive cutters.

[Flightdeck]

"Bovine Feces."

What, exactly is bovine feces? (other than every rebuttal to solid arguments you have posted thus far)

[U S Army EOD]

You are from Texas and don't know what Bovine Feces is?

[Flightdeck]

Jesus, this might explain your failure to comprehend. What LED YOU TO POST "Bovine feces"??? Was it the very true and verifiable fact that military pilots in a civilian helicopter witnessed a missile hitting TWA 800?

[U S Army EOD]

Could you give me the performance specs on an SA 7 or a Stinger?

[Flightdeck]

Maybe you should concentrate more on the range of the AIM Sparrow-7. It is radar-guided surface to air and has a range of 44 miles. It also happened to be used on the US
Navy warships conducting exercises in the area at the moment of TWA 800's explosion.

NEVERTHELESS, your failure to answer or even address the question is a hilarious indicator of your intellectual honesty. I come to FR for intelligent debate and condemnation of the left. I apparently won't be able to find the former on this thread, so enjoy your weekend.

[Constantine XIII]

Well, if you are going to wander onto his playground, you should at least take care not to break the equipment. :P

[U S Army EOD]

The AIM 7 was an air to air missile converted for ground or surface launch. It is radar guided and the firing element has to illuminate the target with radar. It has a range of approximately six miles.

So you are saying that a Navy ship, locked its radar on to a civilian aircraft approximately 6 miles away (6 miles distance, not horizontal, or just vertical but straight line), hit the aircraft and brought it down and none of the crew talked. Nor did anyone report seeing a launch from a Navy ship which would have its running lights on. The Sparrow was around during Vietnam, Most aircraft carried Falcons, Sidewinders, and Sparrows. If you can show me a Sparrow that has a range of over 40 miles, I will be glad to look at it.