Posted on 06/09/2016 11:39:58 AM PDT by Kaslin
TWA 800 was destroyed twenty years ago this July off the coast of Long Island. Mike Wire was one of the 258 FBI witnesses who reported an apparent missile strike. The New York Times, which owned the story, interviewed not a single one of them. In the absence of real information, the CIA and FBI collaborated to discredit the eyewitnesses and advance an exploding fuel tank theory. Wire’s case is just one shocking example out of many. To learn more, see Jack Cashill’s introductory article in this series or his book, TWA 800: The Crash, The Cover-Up, The Conspiracy (Regnery: July 5).
Recently the CIA released documents pertaining to the tragic destruction of TWA 800. During review of those documents, I have learned that the CIA had designated me as Witness #1 to the heartbreaking events of that day. For the FBI, I was only Witness #571. How the CIA came to decide upon me is at the heart of this miscarriage of justice.
On July 17, 1996, I was working to get the new Beach Lane Bridge in Westhampton ready to open. The bridge crosses the narrow inland waterway and connects the mainland with a small strip of beach beyond.
As a millwright tradesman, I had been working all day in the mechanical room of the bridge. A little before 8:30 p.m. that night, I surfaced to get some air. I was talking to one of the many men working with me when I saw what looked like a cheap firework rising from beyond the houses along the beach. This wasn’t out of the ordinary for a summer weekday so close to the 4th of July.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I suspect stupid decisions are still possible among some extremely smart people. Could be that the waters off Long Island were very convenient to their research facility and the project manager assumed that nothing unexpected could go wrong.
The technology that darth mentions seems to have been capable of reaching the plane if it locked onto it instead of the target drone.
They're the military, they don't need a "basis." Something you see is now suddenly classified top secret, they don't have to tell you why, and they don't need your agreement. It's now top secret, and they tell you to shut up. If they're in a good mood, they make up a story about a new weapon system that is crucial but malfunctioned and has to be protected from bad press. If they're not in a good mood, they don't tell you anything. The point is that once it goes into the classified system, if you violate it, your trial will be classified, too. It all depends on how serious they want to be, but yes indeed they can do it to as many people as they want, and they do keep a database on who's been warned.
The cover up is and was real.
The motives are speculative.
Great in theory, but will never happen. If some retired sailor goes to CNN and says, “hey, I think i know what happened to flight 800”, there is no WAY the military would take away his pension. They’d basically be admitting what he said was true.
Trust me the government can keep people quiet if they want to. With the military pensions are withdrawn or “accidents” occur. I don’t know how they deal with civilians but nothing would surprise me.
Stingers made in the 80’s could be fired from MANPAD and reach 17,000. Plenty left over after Afghanistan too.
1. Normally the National Transportation Safety Board is required to investigate airline disasters. However, in the event of a criminal aviation disaster, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has the lead in the investigation.
So if no criminal activity was found, why did the FBI continue to run the investigation?
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/victim_assistance/cid_aviation
2. It took two years to issue an Airworthiness Directive to address the center fuel tank 'problem' which was the 'cause' of the plane loss. Why so long if the problem killed 230 people. Was it not a priority to prevent another accident? Also no other 747-100 had a center fuel tank issue.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/0C2E04C90BC78C66862569840048978C?OpenDocument&Highlight=747-100%20fuel%20tank
I did not say it was.
IIRC, the tests were being done to prove that the missiles could take out the drone in crowded commercial airspace without hitting commercial traffic.
I was talking to one of the many men working with me when I saw what looked like a cheap firework rising from beyond the houses along the beach. This wasn’t out of the ordinary for a summer weekday so close to the 4th of July.
...
Which means he wasn’t paying much attention to what he saw.
And what he saw was flight 800 climbing from about 13,000 feet to almost 30,000 feet after the front of the aircraft was separated by the center tank exploding.
It’s less likely that the tank exploded, unfortunately. From an engineering point of view, a tank explosion is massively, massively improbable.
That incident was the beginning of the end of TWA as an airline. I used to fly the 800/801 flights to and from Paris on a regular basis.
The explanation doesn’t hold water, which is why people are still debating it.
There is something here that may or may not be moot. If the Navy did it, something I find unlikely as some old CPO would have coughed it up by now on his deathbed, it would have leaked.
It didn’t have to be a shoulder fired missile. It’s been an operating assumption that terrorists would need something shoulder fired to be effective.
Could have been a vehicle mounted system, and would not have had to have been all that large either.
If it were cased in something metal, then pieces of the body or the motor could have been recovered, however, and none were that we know of.
The only pattern TWA800 fit at the time was that the Clinton Admin was downplaying one major causis belli event after another. Embassy bombings, etc.
TWA looked like an escalation, and it likely was.
I doubt we’ll ever know the truth about it.
Clinton re-election was at stake. Of course he had to cover up this attack.
The first report I heard was on CBS. Their broadcast said that the Pentagon has just announced............
Why did they get an initial report from the Pentagon?
And the purpose or need for such a missile would be what exactly? And how would it work?
I wish I could remember the Freeper who really convinced me back in 2000 or so. He clearly had an aviation engineering background. He DIDN’T say it was a tank, but something to do with a door malfunction that then led to an explosion.
Too foggy now, only I recall the evidence did not stack up to an explosive missile, but COULD be interpreted to be a “pass through” missile that seemingly didn’t expect an airliner to be there, like a target drone. Except where there is a target, there is a hunter, and no missile parts were recovered. Extremely odd.
Maybe to shoot down airliners that had been hijacked ? I am sure there are many reasons having to do with defending an attack on a coastal city.
And how would it work?
I could give you all kinds of guesses, but the truth is I don't know. But... then I don't know exactly how most military grade missile tracking systems work. I could probably list the various types if you want. The differences seem to be in what is used for targeting, how accurate that is, and when and how any 'explosive charge' is released.
How do you know that ?
Just because they didn't display them for the media, to the public, to anyone else on the planet but the Navy divers who brought up the remains and about a dozen FBI guys who were in charge of ensuring the evidence would be kept from the public?
One should ponder why the Navy was there to instantly be involved in kicking everyone out and having only Navy divers on scene. Especially the single, isolated group of divers who had a sealed and guarded dock area for 'special' recovery.
I admit I can't think of any. Why would you shoot down hijacked airliners? Why wouldn't you use aircraft to intercept them?
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.