Posted on 11/16/2007 10:04:18 PM PST by Sioux-san
“Yes.
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.”
Thanks.
As far as the unknown airtrack, I would venture to guess that means it’s transponder was for all intents and purposes “off”?
Swissair 111 also crashed hundreds of miles away off Nova Scotia.
“FWIW, TWA 800 was at 13,800’, not 17,000’.”
Ok, I was going off what was said in an earlier post
I believe the CIA report. There was a spark. It blew up. Over 259 eyewitnesses who saw a missile down 800 were on drugs.
“I have stated on this thread that we already reveal locations when these types of assets come to port.”
Surface ships are one thing, but our subs for all intents and purposes “don’t exist” when they’re submerged especially a SSBN. We know they exist, they know they exist but the location if known (by us) is a closely held secret. And our subs do not make any port calls such as what the surface fleet does that I know of.
Those subs could have been testing new hardware (sonars, or new screw configuration, etc) and info about such “tests” are a secret.
If you look at a map, the sub base at New London isn’t that far away, and I would assume that the waters in the general area of the crash is sufficiantly deep enough for the subs to go out and “play” without fear of hitting anything.
You also have the Naval Underwater Systems Center on Fishers Island which is only 2 or 3 miles off the coast of CT.
So my bet is that the Navy was testing a new submarine system and didn’t want to divulge that the test was going on hence the “foot dragging” on the part of the Navy to mention what was in the area.
“Swissair 111 also crashed hundreds of miles away off Nova Scotia.”
Yeah that too.
They knew it was not a friendly air.
Thanks for the additional comments. I’m sympathetic to your views on this. I do have to admit that when an airliner is downed it does put a little different light on things for me. Take care.
Sandia Labs did a second 1/4 scale test with heated Jet A, the full report can be read here, and stated that:
behavior. This study was not sufficient to establish a fundamental understanding of the mechanism of quench behavior. In light of the small number of experiments, modeling of the full scale has to be regarded with a great deal of uncertainty. At its current state, modeling can not provide a definitive tool in determining the location of the ignition in the CWT. The combustion behavior of actual jet fuel mixtures is far more complex than originally envisioned. The lack of definitive initial conditions and the weak basis of the current understanding of combustion behavior in multicomponent fuel-air mixtures lead to much uncertainty in the modeling.
In other words, they couldn't replicate the CWT explosion of TWA 800.
Sandia is the one I think I saw video of. Of course they could reproduce the test if they made a 747 into UAV and recreated the conditions - but of course we really do not want to know the truth - what ever it may be. /s
Why did attention focus on a Test Missile? Initially, it was claimed that there was virtually no explosive residue on the 747 wreckage. In normal practice, missiles being tested or used for training have dummy warheads; inert packages which are the same size and weight of real warheads but which do not explode. In many cases, such practice munitions are recovered and reused. An Associated Press Article on March 10, 1997 reported the following: The report said "compelling testimony" indicated a missile hit the plane on the right side, forward of the wing, passing through the fuselage without exploding. This is consistent with a test missile with a dummy warhead. Of course, it was not known at the time that evidence of explosive residue was even then being concealed from the public, but by that time, the claimed lack of explosive residue had suggested a test missile to most observers, and attention began to focus on the Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability system, which had been undergoing tests, including live missile firings, along the Atlantic seaboard all that summer. When it was finally revealed that there was explosive residue on the remains of the Boeing 747, the mainstream media tried to explain it away as contamination from a bomb sniffing dog training exercise that ultimately turned out to have taken place on a different aircraft entirely. Had it been true, remnants from a training exercise did not explain a swath of residue ten rows long and three seats wide reaching from an obvious perforation in the forward section trailing back to where the forward section broke away from the rest of the 747.
Thanks. I'm familiar with Sven Faret's account.
Good. Take care.
Still dodging the missile questions. My point is, you can’t trust eyewitnesses on either side. Now, back to the missiles . . . .
As I recall the “Mythbusters” test, they used not only the conditions there, but LESSER conditions (pressure/simulated altitutde) and still got a massive explosion).
If I read the altitudes right, 800 was higher than that. But NO ONE “saw” a trail zig-zagging from miles away-—according to the “reliable” eyewitnesses, it went straight up, meaning a boat right under the plane.
Whatever they saw, no missile terrorists could get could have done it. Only a Standard. Only our Navy has that, and you don’t even grab one off the rack because of the extensive radar/fire controls needed to fire one. In short, only a Standard-armed warship could have fired a missile (which no one traced) DIRECTLY at 800. Remember, again, a drone (”pass-through”) won’t latch onto a plane. But wait! The only stuff even remotely resembling anything to do with a missile was the “red residue.” But that only comes from a drone-type pass through missile, NOT an explosion. More problems for the conspiracy lobby.
"recreated this incident exactly. In fact, they got a MORE powerful explosion using a wire spark and fuel tank vapors heated to the levels present in TWA 800."
I have found myths where they tried to explosively decompress an aircraft by shooting out a window, where they have tried to explode a car's gas tank by shooting at it with rifles and tracer rounds, and where they have exploded a toilet inside of a blast chamber.
However, I cannot find one episode where they even came close to trying to recreate the TWA 800 CWT explosion, let alone "recreated this incident exactly." Only Sandia Labs and Cal Tech (referenced in my post #209) attempted to recreate the CWT explosion, using a 1/4 scale model of the CWT. You can read the entire reports in the links provided in #209
If you can't get that right, then one has to question your other assertions as well. Our Navy was in the area that night, airman's warnings were issued for the live fire exclusion area just outside of the corridor TWA800 was flying, and it has been speculated that the exercise was testing submarine VLS anti-aircraft missiles at a target drone.
Nobody in the Navy has confirmed that beyond confirming the presense of an Aegis, a P-3, and three submarines in the area at the time, and that an exercise of some sort was underway.
When weighing the possibilities, an inert missile is just as possible as a ten second, 3,200 foot zoom climb of a 747-100 missing its entire fuselage forward of the windbox, with said wingbox compromised by an explosion so severe that it caused the fuselage to separate.
I'm no tinfoil nut, but to me a radar guided missile, with no warhead, passing through the center of mass where the wings meet the fuselage (a perfect corner reflector for radar returns) makes just as much sense as an errant short somewhere in the 747's wiring causing a spark to be produced inside of the CWT through the fuel quantity sensor. A spark that could not be precisely recreated in tests, causing an explosion that could not be precisely recreated in tests.
According the NTSB, the DFDR stopped recording at 13,800'.
Where are you reading that the altitude was higher than that?
Do you remember what episode or at least what season Mythbusters did this?
The only thing I can find on their results page dealing with something similar was the rapid or “explosive” decompression show where they fired a bullet through the skin.
They only were able to recreate the explosive decompression by using explosives and even then the results were not like that typically shown in the movies.
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.