Replies

I think the naval hypothesis is almost impossible.

I do not agree.

The U.S. Navy denied, for months, it even had ships in the area that night. Then, the Navy finally admitted that there were a number of ships in the area which steamed away from the area just after the downing of TWA 800.

I have two questions:

1. Why would the Navy deny it had ships present?

2. Why would ships of the U.S. Navy depart the scene of an incredible air disaster when it could have at least assisted with the aftermath?

The ships were, of course, ordered to depart the scene to hide their role in the airliner's crash.

I subscribe to the theory there was a secret missile test to see if a missile intercept could distinguish between friend or foe in the busy airspace. It failed and a horrible tragedy resulted. The White House ordered the cover-up of that August fiasco as Clinton was running for reelection in November and would surely have been blamed for the reckless murder of innocents aboard TWA 800 at his authorizing the secret test.

I have done a lot of research on TWA 800.

The FBI completely commandeered the investigation of the crash in violation of federal law which requires the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) to conduct such investigations.

The laughable animation purporting to show the noseless aircraft climbing is a violation of all laws of physics and no serious scientist could agree with the conclusions of the presentation.

The computer animation was created by the CIA, of all the craziest agencies to get involved! It was not NASA or another real scientific agency that created the preposterous animation being foisted upon the public.

Why would the CIA be enlisted to make a scientific case if there was true science, and not propaganda, behind the explanation?

It's not entirely impossible. But it's hard to see how they could manage to shut that many people up.

"Then, the Navy finally admitted that there were a number of ships in the area which steamed away from the area just after the downing of TWA 800."

Really?! Please elaborate on that detail. What ships and what area?

You think it was a friend or foe test? You are seriously a nutcase.

I do not agree.

Don't think much of the military, do you?

The U.S. Navy denied, for months, it even had ships in the area that night.

OK, this is a factual accusation. What is your source? The NAVY was conducting a submarine exercise many, many miles away from the accident scene.

Then, the Navy finally admitted that there were a number of ships in the area which steamed away from the area just after the downing of TWA 800.

Where and when? You are accusing the Navy of murder. You made the charge. Back it up.

The ships were, of course, ordered to depart the scene to hide their role in the airliner's crash.

Once again, you are making an extremely inflammatory charge with nothing but your attitude to back it up. In classical logic, and in court, the one making the allegation has to prove it.

I subscribe to the theory there was a secret missile test to see if a missile intercept could distinguish between friend or foe in the busy airspace.

Your "theory" has several problems. The most serious of them:

There's no such missile intercept device, period. While some specific capabilities are classified for sensible reasons, the broad capabilities of antimissile systems are well publicised, because (a) the technology and its reliability has been at the center of a contentious national debate for 20+ years and (b) all such systems require approval of Congress, including members of both parties.
There is absolutely no pathway by which a missile or missile fragment could have gotten from outside the aircraft skin to inside the tank where the explosion began, that contains any evidence of a missile or fragment strike (you know, like a hole), or is missing. So what you postulate is a missile that comes from outside the airplane to inside the airplane without penetrating the airplane. In Newtonian physics this is impossible. (The interesting thing is that the scientists who calculated this were working to test a pet theory that some of you nutballs had, that a meteorite did the plane. But proving that a meteorite had no pathway in proves that nothing else did either -- and yes, once they started their analysis they went through all three dimensions in 360º. It's in the report, I want to say appendix XVII).
The operators of 747s (the legal and FAA term for the airlines that fly them) have been stuck with bills that run literally into the billions of dollars for remediation of fuel-tank risks. These lines employ battalions of sharkshin-suited legal sharks. Do you think for a New York minute that they would let the Navy stick them with this bill, if there was any way on God's green earth that they could shift these costs? Do you think that they would accept these ADs quietly, if there was, not even proof, but enough evidence to support even a marginally credible charge that these weaknesses in Boeing transport aircraft design were not responsible for TWA800 and didn't have to be remediated? (The same goes double for Boeing, which had to eat both the costs of designing and manufacturing some of the materials for AD compliance, but also loss of sales to Airbus, whose planes are less susceptible to fuel tank explosions for technical reasons).

It failed and a horrible tragedy resulted.

Once again you are making what a judge would call "an assertion without evidence" and order stricken from the record. A less judicious temperament would call it a lie.

The White House ordered the cover-up of that August fiasco as Clinton was running for reelection in November and would surely have been blamed for the reckless murder of innocents aboard TWA 800 at his authorizing the secret test.

Not only is there no evidence for this loopy belief on your part, it's not even logical. The Clinton crowd would have absolutely no problem blaming such an event, if it occurred, on the military. His civilian oversight appointees to the DOD included people like Les "cut Special Forces, they'll just get us into a war" Aspin and Sara "Marines are all extremists" Lister.

Further, the military has absolutely no compunction about investigating its own. During the Clinton years, the Navy actually did strike a Japanese research vessel with a sub. Not only did they hang the captain out to dry when it was over, but the captain crash-surfaced and rendered what assistance he could. Remember the scores of Naval Aviators hosed by Tailhook during the Clinton years?

In more recent years, we've seen thorough investigations of Abu Ghraib (Army), prisoner abuses in Afghanistan (Army/CIA), various shootings (Marines and Army), and several service academy rape charges (which have, in some cases, led to courts-martial and acquittals, and have, in all cases of which I am aware, turned out to be based on false accusations. Yet the military investigates).

In every case, the investigation got underway because a service member with a conscience came forward to commanders or to other command authorities (CID, chaplains). there are many routes by which a military member with concerns can circumvent the chain of command and elevate his or her concerns to a higher level (including, FWIW, direct contact with members of Congress). I have been personally involved in the three types of investigation that military authorities conduct (accident, preliminary (art 15-6) and criminal. I can say with confidence that these investigations are independent and have never even heard of one that had a charge from commanders other than, "get me the truth and let the chips fall where they may."

In other words, even assuming that the Clinton White House was so morally bankrupt that they would conceal the murder of hundreds to avoid dealing with a political problem that they could easily have dealt with, they would never have been able to sell a cover-up to the uniformed military. Not. Gonna. Happen.

I have done a lot of research on TWA 800.

You need to expand your research resources beyond The National Enquirer and equivalent websites, and books from the scam-the-widows industry. Start by getting a pilot's licence and an education in aeronautical engineering, and call me back when you catch up.

The FBI completely commandeered the investigation of the crash in violation of federal law which requires the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) to conduct such investigations.

Here, you are making an absolutely false statement. NTSB investigates accidents but has always ceded authority in criminal cases since before there was an NTSB (for example, the CAB accident board ceded authority to the FBI In a 1955 bomb case which turned out to be a guy killing his mother for the insurance). NTSB resources are made available to FBI as required. If the FBI discovers that a crash was not, after all, criminal, they should cede authority back. In this case there was some disagreement between FBI and NTSB over the case, and since then they've modified their procedures for working together, but the law is what the law was. See NTSB reg 830 among others. (Every pilot has a copy on his shelf... it's in his FAR/AIM book).

The laughable animation... a violation of all laws of physics and no serious scientist could agree with the conclusions of the presentation.... animation was created by the CIA

It's been well documented that a CIA expert volunteered to do the animation because he had the computer tools and expertise to do so. Conspiracy tools love the "CIA animation," because in their small TV-stunted brains they hate and fear the CIA, and they think the animation is weak science. The NTSB ultimately did not use the animation.

As far as the laws of physics are concerned, most of the "dropped like a rock" theories don't take into account two things: the ultimate resting places of the parts of wreckage, which have been GPS plotted to within a couple meters, and (rather critically) the inertia of the main body of aircraft wreckage. Lahr attempts to do this when he says the loss of forward structure would produce a CG shift that would produce an instant stall. In fact, inertia can delay stalls, as any sportsman-level acro pilot can show you. An aircraft can be completely stalled, out of control, and still go up... just not indefinitely. A 747 has significantly more inertia than an Extra 300 or Pitts.

Finally, the burden of proof rests on the individual (or tool, in this case) making the accusation. Ray Lahr and his happy band of widow-soaking tools have been making accusations for over ten years. The burden of proof is, as it has ever been, on them. Yet all they can do is drum, drum, drum on tangential imperfections in the data (this whole court case in this thread is about the input data that were used in the computer animation, that looms large in loon-dom but was not used in the official findings of cause).

All in service of a theory which postulates a cover-up of mass murder going from the President through the lowliest $40k/year investigator at NTSB, including just about the whole Navy (400,000 officers and men), and the whole FBI, and everyone at Boeing and all the airlines that operate and have operated the Boeing 747 since 1970.

Dude, you are in no position to toss the word "laughable" around. Believing in this loopy theory requires a two-year-old's command of logic.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

I agree with you about the curious CIA involvement. But I don't think the navy was responsible. Clinton controlled his stooges in the CIA and the FBI, and they in turn used their positions to control the agencies. In these agencies, generally when your boss says "jump," you jump, and there is better security to cover up than there would be on a naval ship with all sorts of crew having left the service since this happened.

Even an ex-CIA agent, however, knows better than to cross the clintonoids in the Agency.

I'm a little surprised that over 24 hours after I asked you to elaborate on your comments regarding "a number of" Navy ships departing "the area" the night TWA 800 went down that you have failed to respond. As someone who has "done a lot of research on TWA 800" I expected you would be able to back up your own claims. In this case, however, I believe your silence speaks volumes.