Posted on 11/06/2007 9:21:21 AM PST by neverdem
More than six years after retired United Airline captain Ray Lahr launched his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) petition into the fate of TWA Flight 800, the FBI has shown himlikely by accidentone seriously smoking gun.
The Boeing 747 blew up off the coast of Long Island on July 17, 1996. One of the FBI documents received recently by Lahr and his attorney, John Clarke of Washington DC, details a communication that took place six days after the crash:
"On Tuesday, July 23, 1996, a representative from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) advised [the FBI] that after a visual analysis of both the videotape as well as a number of still photographs taken from various portions of the tape, the phenomenon captured by [name redacted] appeared to be consistent with the exhaust plume from a MANPAD [Man-portable air-defense] missile."
The FBI guy who looked at this must not have read it, or not have realized what it would reveal, says Lahr. Otherwise he would have redacted most of it as before.
Adding a new level of intrigue to the investigation is the fact that the video in question appears to have been shot on July 12, 1996, five days before the crash.
The earlier, unedited FBI document reports that a fellow and his friend on Long Island were attempting to videotape the sunrise when they saw and recorded a grey trail of smoke ascending from the horizon at an angle of approximately 75 [degrees].
So compelling was the visual that the fellow made a comment to his friend, heard on the tape, They must be testing a rocket. The fellow calculated that object was heading towards the Atlantic Ocean.
On the document Lahr first received, the story of the video ends right there. The next two paragraphs had...
(Excerpt) Read more at cashill.com ...
My point is that the flight to Paris was only 3/4ths as long as the flight the aircraft had completed earlier in the day so it isn't surprising that they didn't fill all the fuel tanks.
If Gorelick, Clarke and Clinton had been completely HONEST
to the American public about the Islamic-crashed airplanes, like TWA800, in the 90's
or the other Islamic terror attacks, then Americans WOULD have been on alert on 911
and would have had the opportunity to prevent the 911 Atrocities.
Instead,
PARTIAL LIST OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IGNORED BY HILLARY and BJ CLINTON
1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr., April 14,1993
1993 First World Trade Center bombing, February 26th, 7 Killed, Hundreds injured,
1995 Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan, Mar 8,1995
1996 Khobar Towers attack
1998 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Peru, Jan 15, 1998
1998 U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1998 U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1999 Plot to blow up Space Needle (thwarted)
2000 USS Cole attacked, many U.S. Navy sailors murdered
Any terrorist who bases all his plans on a aircraft leaving JFK right on time either has never flown out of New York or else is a mighty stupid terrorist.
Ms. Gorelick is a partner in the wilmerhale law firm. Interesting law firm, see their previous cases.!
http://www.wilmerhale.com/jamie_gorelick/
LOL, don’t worry I am not the spelling police. Though I know many who have nothing better to do that pick on others grammar.
I hope we find out what happened someday.
I fear that if we even get close to a clue, Bubb&Co. will have the people with the scoop rubbed out.
The second launch was taped on radar displays and even broadcast the night after the TWA 800 attack by a local channel, though it seems problematic to obtain that tape today.
Furthermore, the 2nd launch left explosive residue on the seats of TWA 800 (contrary to the public report).
But most importantly, center fuel tanks filled with kerosense (civilian jet fuel) or empty do not just explode. You can toss a lighted match into a gallon of kerosene and it won’t explode. You can toss a lighted match into an empty kerosene container and it won’t explode.
Heck, it takes effort to light a kerosene lamp with wick fully exposed and properly soaked.
Even the more volatile gasoline fuel tanks...both empty and filled...tend to not self-explode in junk yards across the country.
Me too stonewall, it was so topical that I couldn’t put it down.
I knew what was coming at the end due to all the foreshadowing.
Demille is great.
Have you read Wildfire yet?
A rare book where I actually root for the bad guy...LOL.
I hear ya...
No I haven’t, but I just looked at the reviews on Amazon.com and it looks wonderful. I guess I’ll have to add it to the list of books and movies I need to pick up in the near future.
Definitely do so as you WILL NOT be disappointed.
Same Cop/Fed Wife characters from Nightfall.
Amazing how none of the planes with these supposed faulty fuel tanks were ever grounded. The news media following the refitting of these planes would be a major media event. Interviews with passengers complaining of increased air fares due to higher demand for the fewer remaining seats while these planes are out of service would have been plastered on the tube for months.
Never happened. Not a fuel tank problem.
Me too.
I just checked the Barnes&Noble website, and my local store has it in stock. I guess I know what I'm going to spend some of my entertainment money on this payday.
Sound good, enjoy!
I love to read current non-fiction, so if you ever have recommendations....I’m all ears :)
I don’t know large commercial fuel systems all that well. But from smaller regional jet size systems...
The center tank is usually the last one emptied. Actually the fuel comes OUT of the center tank to go the the engines. There are several reasons for this, one is that really cold fuel does not burn so good. They have to preheat it if it gets too cold out in the wings. The center tank is getting bleed over heat from the fuselage of the plane (has to be heated to keep people warm and the heat gets around). So using fuel from the center tank all the time acts as a preheat. The fuel from the wing tanks is continuously drained (mainly gravity) into the center tank so the center stays full and the wings empty out first. Again, this is based on what I know of smaller commercial jets, not 747 size ones. I use to have a 747 manual on shelf but I seem to have tossed it at some point.
My point is not that this is for certain the way a 747 works, but that what 'makes sense' from layman's logic is often not the case because of other variables.
Remember how Pierre Salinger was lambasted for suggesting the “missile angle?”
Jail? I couldn't tell ya.
Hell? Abso-freakin-lutely.
In the Clinton wing.
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.