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

WND ^ | June 4, 2001 | Jack Cashill

[U S Army EOD]

Once the electricity from the lighting strike got into the aircraft, it too became an internal source. How else did it get inside the fuel tank?

NTSB reproduced this at least twice. Once when they were trying to do it in the first place and once when they were measuring potential damage. There are numerous references to other fuel tank explosions on this thread. Read them and also read the NTSB report.

[finnigan2]

The SA7a and SA7b are Chinese missiles and as you can see from the technical manual extract below, the 7b has the higher range, some 2300 metres or about 7,400 feet. According to tests done on the planes flight path and radar records the plane was at 8,000 feet when the fuel tank explosion occurred. The front of the plane broke off and angled up for hundreds of metres before angling back down to crash. During this angle up phase the front part left a fiery trail which people on the ground could have easily mistaken as the flight trajectory of a missile.

". The SA-7a had a slant range of 3.6 km and a kill zone between 15 and 1500 meters in altitude, with a speed of about 430 meters per second (Mach 1.4). The SA-7b has a slant range of about 4.2 km, a ceiling of about 2300 meters, and a speed of about 500 meters per second (Mach 1.75). Both the SA-7a and SA-7b are tail-chase missile systems, and its effectiveness depends on its ability to lock onto the heat source of low-flying fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft targets."

[U S Army EOD]

Yep, however the SA7's they used on us in Vietnam during the Easter Offensive of 72 were Russian. The Chinese probably had the exact copy with the same performance.

NTSB showed where the nose section opened on the bottom and basically hedged or folded back exactly how you describe. Just a guess on my part, but this would have acted like a Cunard and forced a nose up attitude which would contribute to climb. Once the nose did break off, there would have been a radical shift in CG causing even more of a nose up attitude. Once the aircraft loss speed and pitched over, sloshing fuel could have contributed to more explosions.

[defenderSD]

"No I want you to explain to us how something like this could be covered up."

I think you already know the answer to that question. It's not difficult to figure it out. You seem to be asking me a lot of questions as if you're trying to find out how much people know about how the Clinton administration operated. I think you know the answer to this particular question and you don't need to hear it again from me.

[defenderSD]

I disagree with you guys that all the eyewitnesses thought that a burning airplane looks like a missile, flare, or fireworks. IMO, a kerosene fire does not look like a missile, flare or fireworks, which give off a much brighter, more intense kind of light. It's just not plausible that all the witnesses are wrong. The CIA's preposterous simulation showing the plane making a huge climb after a massive explosion is much less plausible than the eyewitness accounts of a missile, flare, or fireworks.

I've seen no evidence of mass hysteria or people just seeking attention and I've read a lot of the testimony. A modified shoulder-fired missile with extended range could have reached that airplane at 13,700 feet of altitude. Heck, even Rokke agrees on that point. A group with extensive financial resources and technical knowledge would not have difficulty developing a missile that could reach an airplane at that altitude.

[U S Army EOD]

No, I do not know the answer, I would like for you to explain it to us.

[U S Army EOD]

OK.

[defenderSD]

Well just spend a few minutes thinking about how bureaucratic hierarchies operate, and you'll see how a cover-up is possible. You were in the Army, so you know all about bureaucratic hierarchies. The MSM always backs up democrat administrations, which makes cover-ups much easier for democRATs (just ask G. Gordon Liddy about that one.) I'm not trying to irritate you, I just don't want to get into this particular subject too specifically.

[defenderSD]

You know, if a sizeable percentage of eyewitnesses, say 25% of them, said they saw something that looked like "burning kerosene" or "burning gasoline" in the air before the big explosion, THEN I would be more inclined to believe the fuel tank theory. Even if the other 75% said they saw a missile, flare, or fireworks, if 25% thought they saw burning kerosene then the fuel tank explosion theory would be more plausible. But I don't recall reading one eyewitness account that sounds like that. Maybe I missed something here, but everything I've read describes a "missile", "flare", or "fireworks" moving up towards the airplane.

[U S Army EOD]

Everything I read indicated people saw a streak of light. If you can get to a high place and get a jar of gasoline even with a wick on it, have some one toss it off and view it from a mile or two and tell me what you see. You can also take road flares and drop them. From a mile or so distant see if you can tell the difference.

[U S Army EOD]

I wouldn't ask G Gorden anything. I have heard rumors in the military, they get more distorted everytime you hear them. Just for fun, I used to make them up and spread them just to see how screwed up they could get.

[radialenginefan]

Twa 800 was destroyed by one or two missiles, these military "grunts" on here defending the cover-up are only doing so to deflect the blame from members of their brotherhood...in essence, they feel you and I are attacking them pesonally.

Some may actually have inside knowledge and are Pentagon agents of sorts.

There is absolutely no excuse for that CIA video, or the follow-up, slightly less silly NTSB version.

You trust the Pentagon, CIA & FBI to behave better than this, and not bend to cheap face saving tactics as we as citizens were arrogantly fed on a daily basis with TWA800.

But what has the track record shown us, look at the Iowa turrent blast....was it a queer love affair gone bad like the Navy Brass touted?

I suggest the "grunts" on this thread would not be worthy of shining the shoes of most witness they've sullied here on this thread...especially Jim and Liz Sanders!

And now the release of the FOIA that shows the victims blasted with shrapnel (missile fragments) prior to being exposed to brief but neck snapping ride.

But still, we have military people on the thread defending Clinton and his worms.....unbeleivable.

This is my country?

[Hal1950]

Maybe I missed something here, but everything I've read describes a "missile", "flare", or "fireworks" moving up towards the airplane.

But that huge fireball wasn't at 13,800 feet where the 747 was flying at the time of the initial event (at about 8:31:12) - and that huge fireball exploded no higher (and quite possibly much lower) than about 7500 feet about 8:31:45 +/- a few seconds - and the streak ended where and when that huge fireball exploded.

Not all of the witnesses saw the streak but most if not all of the streak witnesses also saw the huge fireball explode. Yet, it appears that few of the streak/fireball witnesses saw any other unusual event before they saw the streak, which appears to have lasted only several seconds before it ended in the huge fireball explosion which then fell to the ocean.

As some others have said for years, it looks like the streak must have been descending and was most likely fire in the falling wreckage.

[radialenginefan]

1.18.3 Eyewitness Statements

Early attempts by the Board’s Witness Group to assemble, review and analyze eyewitness accounts of the accident were entirely pre-empted by the FBI’s criminal investigation. The Board’s initial Witness Group disbanded after it became apparent that the FBI would not cede authority to the NTSB to conduct interviews of eyewitnesses to the accident. Further, the Group’s preliminary, draft report, as well as all other eyewitness data, were purposefully omitted from the Board’s discussion and presentation at the December 1997 public hearing, at the insistence of the FBI.

[radialenginefan]

At the FIRO hearing in July 2001, eight witnesses were given the opportunity to compare their observations with the CIA animation. The accounts of two of the witnesses testifying were featured in the CIA animation. The animation contained the vantage points of Dwight Brumley and Mike Wire, from a window seat on a nearby aircraft and on a bridge respectively.

The CIA alleged that both witnesses saw only a flaming aircraft climbing from 13,800 feet to approximately 17,000 feet after a spontaneous explosion caused the airliner to break in two.[2] Brumley and Wire commented on the animation's portrayal of their testimony.

Dwight Brumley: "That's totally, almost perpendicular to the direction I saw...It doesn't even get close to what I saw, not even close..."

Panel member Tom Stalcup: "But Dwight, they're saying this is what you saw. Now surely they must have contacted you to ask you ..."

Brumley: "No, the CIA never contacted me. The FBI never re-contacted me...nobody with any aviation expertise...went through it with me to try to really understand, you know, to get down in black and white--a diagram or whatever--what I had seen."

Mike Wire commented on the relevant portion of the CIA animation while it was paused at the initial portion his CIA-interpreted observation. Onscreen was a point of light above some distant rooftops.

Wire: "What they should show at this time is back behind the houses on the beach...It should have been coming up and across this way [near the rooftops], not starting up there in the sky..."

Panel member Stalcup: "Now the CIA used you as a key eyewitness in their animation. Surely they must have contacted you to help create this animation. Did the CIA ever contact you?"

Wire: "I never knew that the CIA was involved in anything about the case at all. No, they did not contact [me] at all...or the NTSB for that matter."

[GarySpFc]

You figured wrong. The 12th was USAR, not NG. I initially joined with the 12th, and after going on active duty stayed for a long time.

[GarySpFc]

Then you know Q course is active duty training, NOT USAR or NG.

[GarySpFc]

I agree with you regarding PETNs use in primacord, but you will find it is one of the main ingredents in Semtex, which is not used by our armed forces. More is used there than in primacord.

[GarySpFc]

Everything I read indicated people saw a streak of light. If you can get to a high place and get a jar of gasoline even with a wick on it, have some one toss it off and view it from a mile or two and tell me what you see. You can also take road flares and drop them. From a mile or so distant see if you can tell the difference.

There is a MAJOR problem with your scenario. The plane was going from the witnesses right to their left, whereas the streak of light was going from their left to their right. There is no way burning kerosene could have done that.

[Rokke]

"Miss this part?"

When the military makes small purchases of civilian aircraft, it does not change major systems like fuel and hydraulics. That's not to say the planes are identical to their civilian counterparts. The military E-4B is completely full of electronic communications equipment. But its fuel system is essentially the same as its civilian 747 counterparts, with the exception of the ability to refuel in flight. That is why the Boeing rep said the configuration of the aircraft is different. But the heating in the CWT was applicable to both.