One Secret The Times Has Kept

WorldNetDaily ^ | 6 July 2006 | Jack Cashill

[true_blue_texican]

bttt

[Clovis_Skeptic]

Here is a good link all about TWA 800

[AmishDude]

Whatever might have been on the plane is one thing, but the whole "eyewitnesses saw a missle" doesn't hold water with me. Show the average person an X-ray and they wouldn't be able to spot the fracture.

[djwright]

The reports I heard form eyewitnesses said that those with military experience described it as a missile. Those without described it as a rising fireball or something similar. They also talked about how it rose and hunched over. That sounds like a guided missile to me and not a piece of falling debris.

[AmishDude]

When we see things we don't understand, we make them into things that we do understand.

[djwright]

So you are saying the military people who saw it and described it as a missile didn't know what they were seeing.

Can you explain why the CIA after more than a year of analysis released a computer generated movie with their definitive explanation and then within 24 hours changed it and then changed it again? Maybe they didn't know what they were looking at, or that people familiar with aviation would be able to debunk the official explanation as impossible.

[AmishDude]

They explained it in terms they understood.

Can you explain why the CIA after more than a year of analysis released a computer generated movie with their definitive explanation and then within 24 hours changed it and then changed it again?

No. Of course, computer-generated movies are time-consuming and expensive and so, I call BS.

[djwright]

So the CIA released a BS video to give the official explanation but you still don't doubt the explanation they gave. That leaves you with no explanation. So ask yourself why they did release it?

[AmishDude]

No, I call BS on the conspiratorial switching of the explanations. I'd love to see the video, though. Got a link?

[ChinaThreat]

Forget about the "official causes" for a second and let me pose a statistical anamoly. I find it statistically amazing that such a large number of jumbo jets could be involved in major disaster in a short period of time; all originating from New York, all very large aircraft, all involving major loss of life. If you look back at statistical history regarding large passenger aircraft, sharing the same origination point, completely fatal in nature, and official causes sharing such unprovable explanations, this is more than unprecedented. It is damn near statisticaly impossible.

American Airlines Flight 587 - November 12, 2001)
Airbus A300 - 255 dead
Official Cause: Overuse of the rudder to counter wake turbulence. The fire was the result of fuel leakage as the engines separated from the wings, or engine compressor surges.


(Egypt Air Flight 990 - October 31, 1999)
Boeing 767 - 217 Dead
Official Cause: Intentional - co-pilot suicide/murder.


(Swiss Air Flight 111 September 2, 1998)
MD-11 - 229 Dead
Official Cause: Flight data recorders stop recording. Offical cause of crash - faulty wiring and failure of a circuit breaker.


(TWA Flight 800 - July 17, 1996)
Boeing 747-131, 230 Dead
Official Cause: Faulty wiring in centerline fuel tank.


Neither of NYC's major airports carry as much traffic as Hartsfield ATL, Ohaire (ORD) or Dallas (DFW) and this has never occurred in the NTSB history.

I can see obvious reasons why the downing of a series of commercial aircraft from our largest city would be supressed by the people in charge. I'm not necessarily saying I am proving this. But if you were an astronomer or physicsts studying data, this would stand out like a pink elephant.

I find it very intersting that 9/11 was perpetrated very intentionally for the world to see. I personally don't think our own government had anything to do with the loss of any of this aircraft, but i can see many reasons why it would be very convenient to NOT really know why.

[ChinaThreat]

In addition to the incidents already stated, you have to go back to 1979 to find any air disaster in the US involving a higher fatality count.

[MarkL]

Huh... I figured that this would detail the one secret that the New York Times has kept perfectly for decades now, the one they and Walter Durante won a Pulitzer prize for...

Mark

[djwright]

Here is a link to a page with a lot of the history.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/CIAVIDEO/ciavideo.html

They changed it almost immediately after having months to prepare it and then the FBI tried to change it again.

[AmishDude]

Gee, why did I think I was going to get a link to a site

THAT POSTS LINKS IN THIS FONT?

Now, I don't want to hear from you again until you provide a link to the CIA video. Not to a site with "a lot of the history", a cite with the actual video.

I'll wait.

[djwright]

Oh sorry if I didn't get close enough for you. You have to realize these versions were changed immediately so they aren't sitting on a CIA server so you can see their error. So they exist on "sites". Here is a link from the page I posted before. I can't preview this video as my stinking Norton that I uninstalled is still blocking stuff.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/CIAVIDEO/CIA_TWA.rm

[djwright]

another one:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/CIAVIDEO/1118twa.mov

and another one form the same day:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/CIAVIDEO/twa_animation.mov

[Hal1950]

"So you are saying the military people who saw it and described it as a missile didn't know what they were seeing."

I am. Tell us who they are and I'll prove it.

[AmishDude]

A single missle theory, eh? I love it. Eyewitnesses, who could see the missle, but not the plane, from the ground, witnessed a missle, presumably shoulder-fired, that was able to reach and hit a commercial airliner flying thousands of miles above and at full speed?

Son, if it were possible to do that, then North Korea should pose no threat at all!

If the eyewitnesses were so sure it was a missle, what kind of missle was it?

[djwright]

Do I need to fact check your post? No airplane flies thousands of miles above the ground. In fact the airplane was around 10,000 feet or 2 miles high. And full speed during climb out isn't the same as full speed at cruise.

So yes this is within the capability of a shoulder launched missile. Like one of the many unaccounted for stinger missiles we gave the Markdown (sp?) in Afghanistan. That they used to bring down a Soviet gunship helicopter which until then had never suffered a loss.

I also hear there is a Chinese version of that missile.

Also these planes are on very predictable flight paths. In fact you could just about set your watch by them so you could easily predict how high they would be and where you would need to be. (In a boat under the flight path).


Specifications
Primary function To provide close-in, surface-to-air weapons for the defense of forward combat areas, vital areas and installations against low altitude air attacks.
Manufacturer Prime - Hughes Missile System Company
Missile - General Dynamics /Raytheon Corporation
Propulsion Dual thrust solid fuel rocket motor
Length 5 feet (1.5 meters)
Width 5.5 inches (13.96 centimeters)
Weight 12.5 pounds (5.68 kilograms)
Weight fully armed 34.5 pounds (15.66 kg)
Maximum system span 3.6 inches (9.14 cm)
Range 1 to 8 kilometers
Sight ring 10 mils
Fuzing Penetration, impact, self destruct
Ceiling 10,000 feet (3.046 kilometers)
Speed Supersonic in flight
USMC Units Low-Altitude Air Defense (LAAD) Battalions: 3 active duty, 2 reserve
Crew 2 enlisted
Guidance system Fire-and-forget passive infrared seeker
Warheads High explosive
Rate of fire 1 missile every 3 to 7 seconds
Type of fire "Fire-and-Forget"
Sensors Passive infrared
Introduction date 1987
Full-rate production 3QFY94
Unit Replacement Cost $38,000

[djwright]

markdown = Mujahadeen (thanks spell check)