Posted on 06/20/2016 11:33:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
When I see former FBI New York honcho Jim Kallstrom appear on Fox News, I see a tortured soul. As boldly honest as he has been on the subject of Islamic terrorism, this once honorable man has lived a lie for the last twenty years on the subject of TWA Flight 800. Others have lived the lie as well, but none so personally.
It was Kallstrom who spoke to the press, Kallstrom who testified at congressional hearings, Kallstrom who consoled the families of the 230 dead with the assurance he would leave “no stone unturned” in his pursuit of the truth.
When Kallstrom arrived on the scene in Long Island the day after the crash in July 1996, the truth was indeed what he was seeking. By July 30, 1996 -- less than two weeks after the 747 blew up -- FBI agents had interviewed 144 “excellent” witnesses to a missile strike. As revealed in a recently unearthed CIA memo, the evidence was “overwhelming” and the witness testimony “too consistent” for the cause of the plane’s destruction to be anything other than a missile.
1996 being an election year, however a missile strike on an American airliner involved far too much political risk for the Clinton White House. Working through the CIA, its operatives took effective control of the investigation. For reasons only he knows, Kallstrom knuckled under.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I should noted that 2 seconds was too much. One would have to have removed the nose of the plane in the video , which probably (due to friction) would have limited the ‘time’ it could ‘climb’ (continue on the same path due to momentum) to about 1 second or less.
At the aircraft's documented rate of climb, how many feet could it climb in 2 seconds?
There is your 'definitive answer' for how much it could have possibly climbed continued on an upward path due to momentum.
“those presenting it on TV seemed to me to be embarrassed by it. “
Yes, they were embarrassed. I notice they didn’t keep harping on it past Clinton’s reign. As a ground and spaced based sensor systems engineer and as a Boeing avionics engineer for the 787/777/767 programs, I know that myself and my colleagues were stunned by the video and the fact that the CIA created it. We have all worked for the NSA/NRO/DIA/CIA/SC/NID and others and knew this was out of bounds for the CIA to be involved and the NTSB to be ordered to take a back seat to the FBI.
I think you will find within the next 10 years enough dead guys to allow the living to say what happened. Yes, they do know, but the living will suffer if they told.
This is why I want Trump; because Trump is not beholden to the politics of such situations and things can be said that right now are too dangerous to the livelihoods of those living and the relatives of some now dead.
Kallstrom was never qualified to lead an investigation into aircraft incidents, yet, he made claims teat were outrageous and with dictatorial authority that went unchallenged. He was a liar and a political stooge.
I know exactly what you mean.
“My point was that a plane can gain altitude even after a rear shift in the center of gravity.”
No, it cannot; especially not thousands of feet in altitude at 13,000 feet.
P.S. I am sure you remember Clinton’s reign of terror. He was a tyrant and destroyed anyone and anything that even remotely threatened him. As bad as Obama is, Clinton was every bit as bad. Clinton tore through the military and intelligence services like a raging monster. He fired everyone that even remotely challenged him. He destroyed long standing military careers. He gave away entire agent lists to foreign nations (main reason I left the services).
“I was very influenced by Rush standing up for Kallstrom back then. Rush said he was a fine man. “
This was the primary reason I lost faith in Rush and stopped listening to him. No one remotely connected to this incident believed anything but that Kallstrom was a talking head and political hatchet man for Clinton.
I happened to be home that day, taking a 'mental health day' from work.
The news that it happened broke on MSNBC (that is back in the days when it was a reasonable news station, not a propaganda branch of the White House).
Within MINUTES of the breaking news, a graphic came on explaining how it was a center fuel tank explosion and *definitely* not a missile.
The watermark on the graphic was ‘Property of the CIA’.
Wait, what?
I read it again.
‘Property of the CIA’.
I got right up close to the television, a 46" CRT model.
‘Property of the CIA’.
Later, I saw that same graphic repeatedly used, but NOW it said, “Property of the FAA’.
I knew within 10 minutes of the reporting of the plane being downed that it was an enemy missile, just by how the authorities were acting.
Nobody knows how the weight shift proceeded, the vehicle may have had the parking brake set, the tie downs may have let go at varying rates, cargo stacking could have affected the weight transfer, lots of variables. To assume the weight transfer was instantaneous thus the plane went immediately into a stall and continued to climb through the stall defies logic.
There likely would have been an immediate pitch up and tumble in a ballistic arc, all while coming apart as airspeed lost its short battle with opposing forces.
But, no appreciable gain in altitude, at least not as seen by anything other than radar.
In that time frame, no one on the ground would have seen anything other than the explosion(s) when the missile hit. Not B747 at altitude suddenly climbing, just a BOOM!
The only humans capable of seeing said climb would be those who were at more or less the same altitude as TWA 800 was when the missile hit it, as the horizon would have given them the perspective to see/judge altitude change.
The only way to account for what the multiple witnesses observed from multiple vantage points is they all saw the streak of a launched missile climbing up to target for as long as it had fuel to burn, followed by a pause and then the explosion.
If the center fuel tank exploded, as shown in the video, it's only because a missile's warhead and/or it's hot engine gave it an irresistibly good reason to explode.
That's what the reconstruction pictures show and what the multiple witnesses say they saw and, as an added bonus, that explanation is blessed with the K.I.S.S. of Occam's Razor.
And...we are talking about the King of Coverups, Bill Clinton, in a re-election campaign, after all, so you almost have to assume then, and especially so now, that the CIA video is BS.
Then and now, the question is the same: Who you gonna believe? Bill Clinton or the witnesses' lyin' eyes?
Believe what you will, but my mind's made up:
Missile went up, TWA 800 came down and LOTS of people saw it happen.
He’s a good man - he’s suffered enough. Time to let him come home.
Thanks for saying you saw it. Sometimes I think I’m making it up but why would I remember the exchange so perfectly? I see in my mind that the men are sitting at a table. Most debates are standing at a podium so how could I have made it up? The camera was on Keyes as he says Obama wasn’t born here, and then on Obama as he says “we’re talking about the senate here, not the presidency.”
And yet “it never happened.” Keyes was asked publicly about the exchange and he has no recollection.., suuuuuuure...
Nobody knows how the weight shift proceeded, the vehicle may have had the parking brake set, the tie downs may have let go at varying rates, cargo stacking could have affected the weight transfer, lots of variables.
...
Did you read the NTSB report? Parts from damage to the aircraft from the shifting vehicles was found on the runway near the rotation point. There was also a plume of liquid seen on video that was probably hydraulic fluid released by damage from the vehicles.
Sure it still ‘flew’. Like a rock flies when you throw it up in the air.
....
The NTSB consulted with Boeing for data and ran multiple flight simulations that matched radar data and the area where the wreckage impacted the water. They found that the most important variable was the exact time when the nose separated. Engine thrust, whether full or non-existent made no significant difference in the flight path. The other important event was when the left wing separated.
What have you done? Why should I believe you rather than the NTSB?
To put it a simpler way, the stall speed of an aircraft that has the middle section in front of the wings blasted out sideways, while the nose arcs in a path to the ocean, and the rest of the fuselage and wings tilt upwards at an extreme angle is.... INFINITY. Wouldn’t matter how fast or slow it was going, it was no longer ‘flying’ in the aeronautical meaning of the word.
...
Then show your work mathematically.
“My point was that a plane can gain altitude even after a rear shift in the center of gravity.”
No, it cannot; especially not thousands of feet in altitude at 13,000 feet.
...
Why not?
Go get an education in physics and engineering and we’ll talk. Not my job to educate you on all your ignorant comments. It gets tiring to do that.
Sheesh! Don't you read what was posted? it was look like a ballistic fall, a parabolic arc:
"The captain of the NOAA research ship Rude entered Flight 800's last secondary radar position, speed, heading and gross weight into his computer and it predicted the landing point by calculating a ballistic fall. He went to that spot and immediately found the main wreckage including the fuselage, wings and engines."
The calculation for a ballistic fall does NOT add any altitude gain, it only calculates the fall from altitude based on the original trajectory, gravity, and the opposing winds and prevailing winds. The Rude sailed to the predicted impact point and that is where the aircraft splashed in. That is proof that there was not climb under lift. It would have complicated the ballistics which DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR LIFT, POWER, or other forces applied to the body in question.
Since the empirical results of the Rude's calculations of a ballistic fall took them to the actual splash down WITHOUT adding ~18 seconds of climb into their equation, much less adding an additional 18 seconds of fall back to the original starting altitude before commencing the rest of the parabolic arc, the location was closer to the point of initiation of the fall than it WOuLD have been including the climb portion of any arc by several miles.
Thirty-six seconds at a ground speed of 412 MPH (358 knots) while making this mythical climb, would have placed the splashdown site about five miles further north east than where the Rude found it. Even 18 seconds would have been 2.5 miles further north east. It wasn't. Ergo, no climb.
No you are being deliberately obtuse. There is a difference between "flying" and merely "hurtling: i.e., being airborne in an uncontrolled, unsupported manner."
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.