Of course, it's all okay since Jim Kallstrom assures everyone that they counted the missiles and nothing is missing or unaccounted for, which sort of begs the question doesn't it. But Honest Jim previously told folks that there were no military assets in the area, so he lied. OK, you want to question it then let's question it. What missiles were there? Well, you have the 24 Tridents on the Wyoming, of course. They're ICBMs, about 45 feet long and about 7 feet wide and weigh about 30 tons. Even if the Wyoming let one off by accident, and assuming that brought down the 747, it would be kind of hard to miss. It would leave a plume of water about 75 feet high as it left the water and ignited and would look a lot like a telephone pole leaving a stream of fire about 300 feet behind. It's a three stage missile, but at the 15,000 foot altitude the plane was at all three stages would still be connected. Given all that I think we can agree that the missile that brought down the 747 could not be from the Wyoming?
So that leaves the harpoons on the Trepang and the Albequerque. A much smaller missile, the Harpoon is 15 feet long, 13 inches wide, powered by a turbojet engine aided by a solid rocket booster at launch. The Harpoon is smaller, wouldn't leave much of a smoke trail, so it might look a little like the missiles you've described. But there are two problems with the Harpoon. The first is the range, which for the submarine launched version is about 75 or 80 nautical miles. According to your newspaper story the closest sub was 70 miles away so that would put it at the outer edge of the range, assuming that it wasn't the Wyoming. The second problem is the missile itself. The Harpoon is used against surface targets. It's a sea-skimer, cruising only about 50 feet off the surface. The reason for that is obvious - lower down, harder to detect, hard to hit - and would put the missile thousands of feet below TWA 747 when it exploded. New bear in mind that I haven't even gotten into the steps it would take to load a missile into a tube and fire it. So I don't see how it could be a Harpoon either.
OK I give up. Three subs? No way to shoot down the airplane? Now what?
The reason I say that is because the radar picked up three targets on the surface that had very short tracks. They all disappeared when the plane went down.
Here we go again. What radar?
And there was another vessel a mile away. (Maybe that's why W-105 was "active," huh?)
No. Didn't you read the newspaper story? "One of the attack submarines was engaging in war games in which an unarmed Orion P-3 Navy plane flying out of Maine was trying to locate it, according to the Navy sources." That's why W 105 was active. The P-3 would be maneuvering at low altitudes as it tried to track the submarine. The warning is for aircraft, you even said so yourself. A warning wouldn't be issued just because a ship was in it.
Why is there so much disinformation here? I'll tell you why: it is to obscure the truth. The only explanation for TWA 800 that I have seen that is consistent with all the facts is an accidental shoot-down by our own military.
OK, which ship did it?
What missiles were there? Something you and I don't know about. Something that they were testing that night. Something that could produce the the data shown in the original NTSB BlackBox listing. New stuff is being developed all the time. Testing is necessary. No it wasn't a Trident. Are you a disinformationalist too?
According to your newspaper story the closest sub was 70 miles
I guess you start typing before you read everything; or maybe you don't understand; or wish to understand. That story was disinformation. According to Reed's witnesses the distance was closer to zero. And no, I don't think it was a Harpoon either. Like I said, it was something new.
Your prattling about the P-3 is a bit much too. You seem to think it was flying around "70 to 200 miles" away from the subs it was "chasing."
Here we go again. What radar?
Why don't you Google "TWA 800 radar," and have a look around. You'll find stuff like this:
Do you think the people who present this made it up or merely misinterpret it?
ML/NJ