TWA 800: Thank God for C-SPAN!

American Thinker ^ | October 15, 2016 | Jack Cashill

[Kaslin]

This Saturday at 8:45 p.m. and Sunday at 10 p.m., on C-SPAN’s "Book-TV", a national TV audience will get to see, unedited, my take on the fate of TWA Flight 800.

In truth, the story should have been on every network. My book, TWA 800: The Crash, The Cover-Up, The Conspiracy, addresses the most successful cover-up in American peacetime history, the one that followed the destruction of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island in July 1996. The fact that the Clinton White House orchestrated this cover-up during the heat of the 1996 election campaign should have made the new information in the book at least as newsworthy as, say, an eleven-year-old hot mic recording of a Donald Trump locker room chat.

As Trump has been at pains to point out, however, that is not the way our media roll, especially the broadcast media -- except, of course, for C-SPAN. In the way of background, Brian Lamb, a Purdue grad and Navy vet, first conceived of C-SPAN in 1975. While working for a cable industry trade magazine, he saw the need for a nonprofit network funded by the cable industry to televise sessions of Congress and other public affairs presentations. By 1979, C-SPAN was up and running and, as far as I can see, has kept to the straight and narrow.

[BenLurkin]

http://www.vidinfo.org/video/7623559/spheres-movie-the-real-story-of-twa-flight-80

[exit82]

Fibber James Kallstrom was at the epicenter of the cover-up.

Went from a missile did it to the center tank fuel explosion overnight.

Retired from 35 years as an FBI gumshoe and voila, landed a nice cushy retirement job as, what else?

An investment banker.

Riiiiiiiiigght...........

[cgbg]

Here is the link to CSPANII’s schedule today:

https://www.c-span.org/schedule/?channel=2

Sometimes they broadcast live on line, sometimes not—so just try it and see.

[Kaslin]

Of course not the crash happened during the Clinton administration. Do I need to say more?

[davandbar]

Bummer...I have a very basic package that doesn’t include C-SPAN2—I’ll look for it on youtube or on the cspan website in a few days. Thanks for the response.

[stockpirate]

Eye witness reports and video of the radar tracking the flight of a missile in to the rear of the plane was all I needed to see.

Like I’ve been saying the government, ALL OF IT, is corrupt.

[Spunky]

Thanks! I was able to play a book review, but I didn’t see anything on TWA800. Is that on a different C-Span?

[newfreep]

CSPAN 2

[BenLurkin]

Well written.

Could be expanded, recast, and reshot as a pilot for a drama series.

[Hulka]

Are you addressing my points (below)?

Looking forward to your explanation how a 4’ long, 4” diameter, non-reflective missile can be seen hitting a huge jet from miles and miles away. . . with smoke-trail burn-out well below 5,000’. . .well below and behind the jet (flies a pursuit profile, not interception profile) and outside its engagement envelope.

(That was the leading conspiracy theory until it was soundly de-bunked)

Now what, since the MANPAD thing doesn’t work, sub-launched ballistic missile fired?

ALL missile firing are conducted in weapons testing areas, NOTAMs issued and routing controlled by ATC, and everyone on a ship or sub hears the launch as the firing rings the ship/sub like a bell. . .and everyone , from thew 18-yr old to the crusty Chief are silenced. . .after 30-yr serving and and working with, the military, ain’t ne secret can be kept. . heck we knew about the F=-117 long before its debut. . .and it was a totally black program.

Ranges of the missile are published reflecting ballistic ranges, not an accurate reflection of tactical engagement range/envelope. Classified 3-1 manuals have nice graphics showing this.

The jet was a receding target and if MANPAD was shot, it would have been a tail chase and that significantly reduces the range. Meaning the jet would be outside the range of the missile by the time it got to altitude.

Again, small missile, non reflective, no plume, motor burned out, no way it can be seen at the ranges discussed—unless you are superman.

Internal wiring and hydraulics are routed though the fuel tanks for cooling, so internal sparking can (and has) happened.

From previous Post:

Center-line fuel tanks have a history of explosions. There is a history of aircraft loss due to wire chaffing, electrical arching and such. While the short-list of examples provided below are 707-type, it is a threat that all jets have because electrical wires and hydraulic lines are routed through fuel tanks for cooling. 707, fighter aircraft, 747, it is almost universal that all jets are designed that way.

KC-135: History of Destroyed Aircraft (USAF version of the B-707 is the KC-135: https://airrefuelingarchive.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/kc-135-history-of-destroyed-aircraft/

“22-Jun-59 57-1446 A Walker AFB Main fuel tank explosion on ramp (maintenance)”

“3-Jun-71 58-0039 Q Torrejon AFB Crashed following in-flight explosion of the nr. 1 main fuel tank. Chafing of boost pump wires in conduits was determined to be as a possible ignition source.”

“13-FEB-87 60-0330 A Altus AFB Landed on the runway at altus afb on fire, cause was an arc in the fuel vapor area due to a compromised coax from the HF radio, aircraft subsequently burned to the ground in the infield after it rolled off the runway”

“4-Oct-89 56-3592 A Loring AFB In-flight explosion (aft body tank) during approach”

FAA: “ Since 1959 there have been 18 fuel tank explosions on transport category airplanes” http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%20120-98A.pdf

The cost of complying with regulations that remove the center line tank explosion threat is tens upon tens of millions of dollars, and the airlines absorbed that cost. . .and the airlines and OEM know the systems and if they knew the tank was not the cause then there would have been lawsuits and public hearings defending against the allegation it was a tank explosion. Heck, the OEM would have been right there alongside you saying it was bunk..

And with the threat of another center line tank explosion, the airlines and OEM have to fix the problem otherwise they would be sued out of existence. . .the fact the airlines and OEMs did not challenge the regulation and made the changes means they knew it was the cause.

Mitigation study: https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/systems/AIAAFDC32143b.pdf

http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TG1.pdf

http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/2007conference/files/Fuel_Tank_Safety/ThursPM/CannolettaFiberOpticO2/CannolettaFiberOpticO2Pres.pdf

I will leave now, I’ve said my piece and it would be pointless to continue.

I enjoy conspiracy theories like anyone else, but to me the lack of proof is not proof that there is a conspiracy.

Cheers and bye-bye.

[PMAS]

*

[Blacklisted]

Iraq did it.

[angryoldfatman]

I can’t tell if you’re talking about TWA 800 or Hillary’s e-mail confidentiality scandal. LOL!

[Sequoyah101]

One tinfoil hat deserves another and intrigue only begat intrigue. Recognize your arguments but in my mind they had to work way too hard to make things fit the conclusion. So for me there are other plausible causes including a missile of some sort and it isnt limited to a manpad.

[Lazamataz]

Simple solution to all the points you have raised: Boat-launched Islamic attack using a medium range Russian rack-mounted missile.

[SkyDancer]

This was discussed in my aviation classes. Bottom line is conspiracy theorists need a reason to exist. The biggest thing to me is if it was a missile it have to have a solid motor which burns white, a white star shape from its nozzle; witnesses report a red streak which would indicate liquid fuel. I believe the NTSB on this as a ruptured center fuel tank where the fuel spurted out back and was ignited by the hot engine exhaust, It would ignite from the back and lance up to the plane giving the impression that it was a missile heading to the plane.

I had chatted with some people here that rather than get into an intelligent discussion they resorted to hurling invectives.

[Kaslin]

Watch this

Mega Disasters Seconds From Disaster TWA Flight 800

[eyeamok]

Still the same FBI

Thank god the republicans have a majority in both houses, so they can stop all the corruption.

Unbelievable

[AndyJackson]

Thank god the republicans have a majority in both houses, so they can stop all the corruption.

I am going to take a wild-eyed leap into the abyss that this is sarcasm, but my detector has been stuned by the high energy fields flying around, the needle has wrapped around the peg about three times, and I don't trust it one bit any more.

[SandwicheGuy]

I believe the NTSB on this as a ruptured center fuel tank where the fuel spurted out back and was ignited by the hot engine exhaust, It would ignite from the back and lance up to the plane giving the impression that it was a missile heading to the plane.

I had chatted with some people here that rather than get into an intelligent discussion they resorted to hurling invectives.

First, nice home page, I've been to Australia and it is a fair dinkum place. Quite interesting in many areas, although the tourist map has a lot of truth. Secondly, watch the guy behind the curtain; By this I mean it is not the fact that the plane suffered a catastrophic event, it is all the unexplainable events that happened afterwards. Somewhere in the smoke there is a fire that the public has not seen. Obviously there was a coverup, why was that necessary? We don't know.