Posted on 11/16/2007 10:04:18 PM PST by Sioux-san
On the Sunday morning of July 3, 1988, at the tail end of the Iran-Iraq War, an Aegis cruiser, the USS Vincennes, fired two Standard Missiles at a commercial Iranian Airbus, IR655.
The first missile struck the tail and right wing and broke the aircraft in half. All 290 people aboard were killed. Misunderstanding America, the Iranians claimed that our Navy had intentionally destroyed the plane.
The Navy did no such thing.
(Excerpt) Read more at cashill.com ...
“The Vincennes was in a hostile area. EW’s were picking up AWG-9 emissions on the same bearing as the Airbus. They thought the Airbus was an Iranian F-14.”
Didn’t someone say that there was something weird about the “squawk” from the plane’s transponder too?
“The one thing that bothers this pilot is that the “official” explaination of what brought TWA800 down is that jet fuel vapors exploded in the center fuel tank. Jet fuel is essentially kerosene and the vapors are not at all explosive unless they are compressed. That’s what a jet engine is, a big compressor. It’s hard enough to get jet fuel to burn at sea level, much less get the vapors to burn explosively at somewhere between 12,000-17,000’ agl. That one has never been explained satisfactorily, regardless of what anyone thinks was the cause of the crash. They always tapdance around that little ditty......”
I agree and if it were an “exploding fuel tank” airliners would be dropping like flies wouldn’t they?
“There was at least one book written about this incident, speculating that it could have been a navy training (inert) missle”
Just one problem with that, “inert” missiles are just that inert. They can’t fly, they don’t go BOOM either.
1. Unknown air track
2. Same bearing, EW evaluates AWG-9 (F-14 radar)
3. Same bearing, IFF from an Iranian F-14
Navy people I knew that were in the area at the time theorized the Iranians set up the COM AIR to be shot down by Vincennes.
“I’m betting it was a shoulder-fired missile that some islamokazi was packing.”
I’ve looked around and it wasn’t a russian or American made MANPADS since they can only engage targets up to a max altitude of 14,000 feet....And Flight 800 was at around 17,000 feet
They each have a slant range between 1000 to 8000 meters but slant range doesn’t equate altitude.
I think it may have been something jury rigged using a AAM or maybe some sort of modified MANPADS with a bigger booster to increase the engagement envelope of the missile.
“I never heard of a live firing of any kind north of the Virginia capes. And the reason why no live firings of any kind are done north of there should be obvious, you have the most densely travelled air corridors in the world between DC and Boston.”
And north of there you also start getting into the trans-Atlantic air corridors.
“Ok fine. so this one goes unexplained.... But what about the other two planes, in the same area, think from even the same airport, around the same time, that also had everyone lost? Swiss Air, Egypt Air?
3 planes, same area, each with mysterious inconclusiveness...
I’ve never been a fan of coincidence.”
Swiss Air Flight 111 had a fire in the cockpit. The Canadian equivelant of our NTSB has proven that.
There was unusual burns and other damage in the area just above and behind where the co-pilot sat.
IIRC it was traced to faulty wiring for the entertainment system.
Egypt Air was a deliberate act by a mentally unstable pilot.
“The type of operation and the details didn’t need to be revealed. The presence of assetts in the area should have been declassified and made clear.”
Not when they involve submarines especially an Ohio Class “Boomer”
FWIW...
The MANPADS Menace: Combating the Threat to Global Aviation from Man-Portable Air Defense Systems:
MANPADS can strike aircraft flying at altitudes up to approximately 15,000 feet (4572 meters) at a range of up to 3 miles (4.82 kilometers).
MANPAD Protection for Commercial Aircraft:
Scroll down to page 4 for a chart describing zone of susceptibility. (A box 25 miles long, 6 miles wide and 15,000' high)
FWIW, TWA 800 was at 13,800', not 17,000'.
Jack you lose me right here. There is no proof anyone except for maybe a pilot was alive on the fight before the missile hit. In fact knowledgeable people have stated that the bodies looked to be days dead upon retrieval. IMO it was a set-up all along.
The conspiracy crowd have gone from terrorists in a motor boat to US subs to a destroyer firing to shoulder launched from a canoe with a trolling motor. I do not doubt that some witnesses believe they saw a missile nor do I doubt the ones that do not.
In any case the number of people involved would be enough to guarantee the leak of a death bed confession which are always suspect.
“Did mythbusters put the fuel tank in an artificial environment so that it matched the environment TWA 800’s tank would have been in at 17,000 feet?”
Mythbusters did this?
Funny it must be some clintonian conspiracy because it’s not listed in their “Results Page”
That year of Toyota van was the subject of many engine fires. I remember a story some years later blaming the Roger’s “explosion” on a fuel system defect.
“BTW, there were many eyewitnesses who DIDN’T see a “missile.” How about them?”
You said in an earlier post that eyewitness accounts are not credible.
Or did you mean only the eyewitness accounts that disagree with your opinion?
You have made the case that we should not explain where certain of our assets were that night. I would submit that it is somewhat readily appearant why it should have been revealed.
As a general rule, I would agree with you. And even in this instance I might if it is the case that some form of live action was underway for which revealing any information whatsoever might tip a third party as to some sensitive intel. Baring that, it think we should.
You would respond that even the location is of prime importance, and we should not reveal it. I have stated on this thread that we already reveal locations when these types of assets come to port. Revealing a location after the fact would not generally be a problem.
Let’s say the location was revealed six months to a year later. Would that really be problematic? I find that opinion hard to imagine being supportable.
I appreciate your comments.
Well someone else was stating that they did. At least that was their premise.
I appreciate your mention of what you discovered here.
“After it got blasted apart, and started it’s downward trajectory, it attracted the attention of a missile being fired at a TEST TARGET DRONE. It re-tracked and went after the BOEING AIRLINER because it suddenly became a better source of ‘heat’.”
Nope wouldn’t happen.
1.) Even IF it was one of our own missiles, a SAM fired from a ship is radar guided not IR (heat seeking)
2.) IF it were a IR missile, they have filters that allow the seeker to “see through” IR countermeasures such as flares and “dazzlers”. And a flare would be more likely to attract a heat seeker than a fireball.
Yeah the Navy was probably doing an exercise and based on the fact that submarines and P-3 patrol planes and ASW helicopters were involved it was an ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) exercise. Since one of the submarines involved was one of the Ohio Fleet Ballistic Missile submarines (Boomers) the Navy wasn’t going to come right out and say who or what was there and what was going on because the assets involved had NOTHING to do with TWA800
Dan, upthread it was mentioned that some folks thought the altitude more like 7,500 feet. This was due to observations of pilots in the area. I’m not hawking this view, but you may want to check it out.
One of the places where this was mentioned, was the testimony of a pilot who wintessed the event. That testimony was linked up thread. Comparing his altitude with the TWA 800, he was certain the event took place at around 7,500 feet.
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.