Posted on 07/06/2006 4:55:42 PM PDT by Hal1950
That is also my understanding. I still think someone could have inserted a small incindiary device directly into the fuel tank. The device would have a trigger that dissolved at a set rate in the fuel and sometime later, viola! No explosive residue, no shrapnel because it was a fuel fire.
Feet, I meant feet.
First, I am not saying a shoulder-fired missle cannot reach that far, I am saying that a single-shot, one, no others, a single, solitary shot brought down a single, solitary plane. No weaponry was found anywhere and a similar incident has never been found again.
Do you realize what this means? You could sit there and pick off commercial airliners like sitting ducks.
I'm going to take a stab, but your comparison to the Soviet gunship is nonsense because (1) helicopters are slow, they don't have that whole jet engine thing going for them, (2) gunships fly particularly low because of what they do, strafing and (3) helicopters can hover in place.
Moreover, I don't think they did it with a single shot.
If what you say is true, forget TWA800, no plane is safe at any time anywhere. You ain't shooting skeet here with a "predictable flight pattern". If the eyewitnesses had "seen" 10 missles, what you say might make sense, but if terrorists could pick a plane out of the sky with a SINGLE SHOT, then they would have done it at least twice, don't you think?
If they could do this, no plane would be safe anywhere.
Yes I do.
So this "none was ever found" is not such a convincing statement.
Well, my statement regarding no evidence of a missle still stands. A MANPAD such as a Stinger with its small warhead is not capable of bringing down a 747 the way TWA-800 came down. A larger SAM is needed. Such SAM wouldn't use the old style scored casing to produce shrapnel, it would use ball bearings.
Ball bearings will produce irrefutable damage evidence that couldn't be covered up. Remember that chartered Israeli flight the Ukrainians accidentally shot down over the Caspian a few years ago? Remember how riddled its skin was with what looked like bullet holes? Those were shrapnel (ball bearing) holes from the SAM.
Why did they immediately change security at airports which they never removed?
I'm not saying TWA-800 didn't have help coming down. I'm just saying it wasn't a SAM that did it.
No group ever claimed credit for a bombing, so far as I know.
Wow. A cartoon.
Now maybe you can explain why the FBI and CIA hijacked the investigation from the NTSB and FAA...
As for conspiracy theories, those come into existence when the "official" version doesn't fill in the gaps or connect the dots.
What proof is there that the 200+ witnesses who said they saw something going up before the plane came down were wrong?
The idea that that many people would step forward and independantly claim to have seen something going up (NOT DOWN) before the plane came down and all be wrong (not know up from down) just doesn't wash. That the compass azimuths to what they saw from their locations roughly converge is just a coincidence, right?
Ultimately, there will not be irrefutable evidence of anything. Wasn't that Janet Reno's favorite line? "There is no evidence which exists..."
I, for one took that to mean that they had eliminated all of it, to the best of their abilities.
Conspiracy theorists have been "putting up" since the plane went down. Unfortunately, eyewitness testimony is about like a WMD in Iraq-- ignored. Ignored, that is, uneless it happens to fit the official scenario.
Keeping in mind that the MSM, the same MSM who ignore WMDs in Iraq, were unapologetic schills for the CLintons, (and in fact still talk about taking back their White House and their Congress,) I really can't see any reason why they wouldn't play footsie with the Clinton Administration in a cover up.
I am only amazed that they haven't found some convoluted way to blame Bush. Maybe they aren't as creative as we thought.
And what else can they do? Do they have a magical green energy ring?
747's, hell! Private commercial aircraft, gulfstreams, if there exists barely detectable weaponry that can do this, stuff that's that mobile enough to never have been found. (BTW, they saw the missle in the sky, why did nobody see/hear it launched? I already know, a boat waaaaaaaaay out at sea.) I'm not sure what your motive is, maybe that there should be force-fields around all 747's, but that won't help. As I said, you could pick off private aircraft or those little commuter planes. There are airports in much more remote locations than Long Island.
Basic common sense: If it's a terrorist attack, what's the motive? Nobody's taking credit and it wasn't a dry run because it HAS NEVER HAPPENED AGAIN, EVER, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.
They have supersonic speed so the difference between a relatively slow helicopter and a faster 747 is still no big deal.
Are you INSANE? Let's not just talk maximum speed, 'kay. Let's talk minimum speed. If the Afghanis with their super-duper missles shot down a gunship, isn't it possible, just possible, that the thing was hovering in mid-air at the time?
In which case, your analogy is stupid.
Yet, it's the missile(s) shootdown conspiracy theorists like you that try to ignore this detailed report of Faret & Wendell.
There's no irrefutable evidence of anything. That's the problem.
Eyewitness accounts may be all manner of inaccurate, but the NTSB's conclusion was based on their inability to prove any specific cause, so it must have been the center tank.
Bad science.
20 sig226
Worse than bad science, -- it's lousy logic to conclude that anyone questioning a 'report' with so many holes in it is automatically a "conspiracy theorist".
There's no irrefutable evidence of anything. That's the problem.
Eyewitness accounts may be all manner of inaccurate, but the NTSB's conclusion was based on their inability to prove any specific cause, so it must have been the center tank.
Bad science.
20 sig226
Worse than bad science, -- it's lousy logic to conclude that anyone questioning a 'report' with so many holes in it is automatically a "conspiracy theorist".
Sorry I meant unlike RPGs. Smart weapons not dumb weapons. The specs you can find online for the Stingers talk about the "Fire and Forget" nature of it.
So if you were a guy in a boat everybody would be looking up while you were getting away.
I haven't seen/heard/read (alot of threads here in fact)enough that satisfies me that this was an " accident"...it may have well been, but there are too many unanswered questions and people who were never asked.
I don't think that OKC was a two-man deal inspired by "Right-Wing Radio" either so if this makes me a conspiracy theorist so be it. I'd just like some satifactory answers is all.
Really?
Until we supplied these to the fighters in Afghanistan none of the soviet gunships had ever been shot down.
Ohhhhhhh.....now I know what your point is. Yes, now I know...
A super-sonic missile designed to hit aircraft would have to be able to hit moving aircraft.
Well I can "design" a super death ray that's supposed to take out Kim Jong Il from Denver, but that doesn't mean it will do so.
Do you think the Soviets just hovered at low altitude and waited to be shot down?
Do you think they used a helicopter just because they wanted to go as fast as possible?
BTW AQ is not in the habit of taking credit for their attacks. Did they take credit for 9/11?
Uh, yes.
My initial thoughts were "who's shooting fireworks tonight. " The magnitude of the fire ball, and altitude, quickly (less than a second) ruled that out.
Immediately thereafter a large fire ball emerged from the bottom of the initial fireball, accelerating straight down, as if it had just started to fall. Like a teardrop it drew with it a tail of fire down to the water surface.
We watched intently as the descending fire fell closer to the water. Sven was awaiting the fire to illuminate the water surface as it fell.
At the same moment a pilot reported it to the controller on 118.00. A second pilot responded and then we reported it. We saw it hit the water, lighting up the surrounding surface very well. Large splashes could be seen all around the fire.
The fire on the surface was relatively small, but was spreading quickly. I asked Ken " What was that!?... It's probably the National Guard boys losing a C130 or something...Maybe they shot down one of their own planes."
We proceeded to fly over to the smoke cloud. As we crossed over the shore line I looked down and saw 3 boats enroute to the fire, about 25% of the way. I estimated the flames to be 6-7 miles off shore. We watched intently seeing a flashing light at the SE edge of the flames, but it soon stopped. We observed a steady blinking light drifting SW away from the scene. Ken said it appeared to be a helicopter just west of the flames. Sven thought it could have been a marker beacon on a life raft. This was about 5+ minutes after the explosion.
We approached the black-gray smoke cloud on the west side. We were at 7700 feet and were at the top edge of the cloud. The cloud center was at 7500 feet. There were 2 small bumps atop it. There was no smoke or smoke trails above it. It was still lit up a little by the sun, clear above. There was a tornado like tail leaving the bottom of it leading down to the flames. It had a small arc in it as the winds gently moved the cloud NNW. I said to Ken " I have an eery feeling about this place, what ever stung this thing could sting us too. Let's bolt out-a-here." We swung north. As we were turning, we saw twin engine commuter traffic above us at 8000+ traveling NW.
We called Flight service on 122.6 and reported what we saw. We flew back to Riverhead and East. Over Mattituck Airport we decided that the event had to be enough of a finale for the evening. We called approach on 132.25 for clearance back to Islip. We also told that controller what we saw.
Now, I don't see how this fits with the CIA nose falls off and the remainder of the plane continues to climb 3000 ft.
Maybe I missed something there that you can point out to me...
Why would they have the impression that "Maybe they shot down one of their own planes."?
Note: "A short "pin flash of light " appeared on the ground (perhaps water). Very shortly thereafter the white light exploded instantaneously into a huge red-orange ball."
There is nothing inconsistent there with what the ground observers noted except perspective--they saw a white light go up, and an orange fireball come down.
THe altitude is inconsistent (5000 ft. lower) with the 'official' version, but that places the plane closer to being in the envelope for a smaller SAM than the official version as well.
So maybe you should point out (specifically, please) where in their original report they refute the observations of the people on the ground.
I'm not the one trying to ignore data, I have no dog in this fight per se, but I am wondering why so much data and so many witnesses' accounts were flat-out squelched by the MS Media and the Government.
Now, if that curiosity makes me a "Conspiracy Theorist", then I wear the badge proudly.
It sure beats kicking back and eating the pablum or whatever sheep-feed the Clinton's were doling out--on this and so many other events. From Vince Foster's death to Jeremy Bourda's, to Waco, to OK City, to the WTC bombing, embassy bombings, etc., no American administration in history has had so many events occur under questionable circumstances where the evidence was buldozed, burned, lost, "inadvertently" destroyed, possibly fabricated, or just ignored.
Of course, the universal theoricide to apply on such fertile ground is to label anyone who does not march in lockstep repeating the official version of events like a mantra as a "crackpot", "Radical Right-winger", or, in extremis, a "domestic terrorist".
That ought to shut those nosy people up, right?
What I mean is, there is a signal to noise ratio. The signal is what really happened. The noise is the various groups claiming that the Iraqis did it, the French did it, Bill Clinton did it, the Army did it, Islamic Jihad did it, the Navy did it, the CIA did it, Aunt Becky was smoking a joint in Amity and a wicked seed popped out and did it, etc.
No 747 has had an accident like this before or since. The lead investigator, the Clinton administration in an election year, is suspect at best.
IMO, we will never truly know what happened. And all those people died.
Mocking me by saying things like "super death ray" in response to me pointing out things that are within the realm of the real world. Real world weapons, real world capabilities within their published capabilities (which are often understated BTW).
What is it about a Stinger Missile that you don't think makes it capable of taking out a jetliner?
Why do military airplanes have systems that fire flares from their wing tips?
So please try to clarify your point.
Please provide a link to any major newsource that reported AQ claiming credit for 9/11, article should be dated pretty close to 9/11.
That ought to be easy for you to find, I am sure it was in all the papers.
I am waiting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.