Posted on 03/29/2007 11:25:45 AM PDT by Hal1950
___________________________________________
So, you know that that's what it was? Please show us all your proof.
I think Ron Brown was already eliminated when his plane hit a hillside in Yugoslavia causing a .45 sized hole to appear in his skull, but then if he had been alive, he might have been distraught to learn that his business partner was on TWA flight 800.
And our Navy, which just happened to have a number of assets in the area, cut and ran instead of engaging them?
ML/NJ
There was a small boat rented for cash by 3 men and the boat apparently was returned that same night because the owner found it returned the next morning.
Thanks for the correction...
Obviously not.
Care to join me in a copyright filing and subsequent script development?
I'm thinking Surnow ("24") might be interested...or Oliver Stone!
There have been two other aircraft that have suffered spontaneous explosions in their center fuel tank. Both were Boeing 737's (the design of the center fuel tank on early model 737's [100-500] is identical to the early 747's) but they were both on the ground when it occurred so few people died and the incidents are largely unknown. TWA-800 conspiracy theorists simply ignore them since it doesn't fit their theory.
The first was a 737-3Y0 belonging to Philippine Airlines. The second was a Boeing 737-4D7 of Thai Airways International.
I'm not a aeronautical engineer, so I can't answer that question. What I can say is that the explanation provided by the NTSB better fits the facts than the missile theory.
No USN ship or plane would fire a missile of any sort (dummy or not) into commercial airlanes, especially when there was the possibility of an airliner blundering into the exercise area. But even if they had gone ahead and shot the missile and accidentally hit the TWA 800, they would have come out and said that there had been a tragic accident instead of trying to cover it up. But even if they had tried to cover it up, there would be literally hundreds if not thousands of people who knew what had really happened. One of those people would have come forward and blown the lid off of the cover up by now.
The other scenario, that it was a terrorist missile, is even less likely. Shoulder-launched missiles of the type that a terrorist could acquire are heat seekers meant to shoot down hot-running jet fighters, not cool-running commercial aircraft. There's no way that a terrorist standing on Long Island could hit an aircraft 10 miles out and 13,000 feet in the air. Even if he were standing in a boat (a very small boat that was invisible to radar 10 miles out in the ocean) directly underneath the plane, the missile would almost certainly miss a target traveling at 650 mph almost two miles in the air. And even if he, by some miracle, managed to hit the plane, it would have exploded near the hottest part of the plane, the engines, and not under the center fuselage.
But why would a terrorist go to all of that trouble when he had a hundred times the chance of hitting the airplane when it was taking off? Why not just wait across the highway and shoot at the plane when it's hotter from boosting and 1,000 feet in the air instead of 13,000?
Nothing about the missile theory tracks. No part of it makes any sense whatsoever.
The emphasis here is on the "Tomahawk missile", not the drone. How about the drone itself hitting the plane? One class of drones widely used was a former missile (can't remember the name).
Maybe. But you can rest assured that Slick Willy sure as heck does.
Much more likely IMO that it was a terrorist bomb planted under one of the seats over the main fuel tank.
Yeap both incidents their fuel tank exploded while still in the ground. It didn't break the airplane into three pieces.
That would have left scoring marks from superheated chemicals on the surrounding metal, nothing like that was ever found.
As usual you're twisting facts. Both aircraft were destroyed in the explosions. The only reason they didn't break up instantly is because they were on the ground. If they had been in the sky, they would have broken up just like N93119.
Didn't anyone tell you that is against the rules? These threads are reserved for the arm chair aviation excepts and their X-Files type conspiracy theories.
I had read a copy of the NOTAM the area was cordoned due to military exercise. They picked the area to simulate interfences, radar returns, etc., from different airports in the surrounding area.
Have you seen the test of what the explosion does to the main fuel tank?
Heat the fuel tanks up and put a spark in it and it will blow up.
That doesn't change the fact that they wouldn't have shot a missile with commercial airliners around. Radar tests are one thing, firing a missile in an area thick with civilian traffic is totally different. That's the kind of negligence that doesn't just get you cashiered; it gets you cashiered, beaten with broomhandles, and mauled by dogs before they even drag your sorry carcass before the courts martial.
There is no way that the USN would have shot down TWA 800 and then tried to cover it up. No way. The world and the Navy just don't work that way.
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.