TWA FLIGHT 800

3rd party | 11/27/01 | Fred Roberts

[sandydipper]

Today I had conversation with a commercial pilot who said that in July of 1996 just after the SHOOT DOWN of TWA800 a co-worker also a commercial pilot told him that he was sent to Paris to pick up the TWA president and fly him back to DC. The second pilot was a military pilot at the time and said that as soon as they returned to DC the TWA guy was helicoptered to the White House.

[barf]

I haven't been totally braindead since the crash. I read other postings and this was amongst them.

[Non-Sequitur]

May I ask what your experience in the military is?

[barf]

Elmer, your postings exhibit a sense of paranoia that reminds me of the Michael Donavan who was expelled from one of our previous forums for flaming in a totally irrational manner. He was writing that I was a paedophile or whatever and that led to his being kicked out. This was because I recognized his symptoms as being those similar to a manic depression victim and suggested that he get medical attention. I may have been a bit blunt but he was disturbed in some manner. I don't follow your continual rewrite of the past to support whatever argument that you may be trying to make. What does this have to do with the B747 being shot down? Your feelings must have been hurt but what does this have to do with the current topic? Again, I apologize to the other posters.

[barf]

Military experience: Electronics officer in all weather fighter interceptor squadron in Korea, the only Air Defense Command squadron in Korea; after returning to the states, assigned to 1006th Air Intelligence Squadron, Foreign Technologies Division, Air Technical Intelligence Center, Wright-Patterson AFB. Resigned commission in 1963 as a Captain. May I ask what your military experience was?

[Non-Sequitur]

Since you place a lot of faith in what other people post then would it shake your theory if I pointed out that in my entire naval career, which goes back to 1977, I have never heard of a P-3 being used to tow an aerial target? That, in fact, the Navy has not used towed aerial targets for decades? During my career I was assigned to guided-missile destroyers and frigates so I've witnessed quite a few missile shoots and not a single one of them was against a towed target because the Navy didn't use towed targets. Why? Because it was too dangerous. Your claim that there was a P-3 towing a target a mile behind it is impossible.

[Non-Sequitur]

My career? Navy ROTC, commissioned in 1977. Nine years active duty in destroyers and frigates in the Atlantic Fleet including tours in Engineering, Operations and Combat Systems. Various and sundry reserve tours including assignments at the Pentagon. I finished as an O-5. And I'll repeat that I never once heard of a towed aerial target being used. Not once under any circumstances.

[Shooter 2.5]

"But it all went the way of the grassy knoll ,"

You forgot about Roswell, the Lockness monster and the abominal snowman.

[Norb2569]

Why can't the politico's just tell us the truth?

Duh...

Klintoon was in the White House then. You aren't so naive to think ANYONE associated with him could even be capable of uttering even a smidgeon of truth, are you?

[barf]

Towed sleds can be two miles back and this object was only one mile back. I've read that they may even be more than two miles back. I admit that I assume that it is a sled. It may be something else but I can't figure what else it could be. Something is definitely showing up on the radar one mile back. It is repeated for each radar sweep and is not just a freak return. It is in the inverted blue triangle form from BOSCTR radar. The report exhibit is in acrobat format and can be magnified to suit your eyesight. Check it out and tell me if I am mistaken. I think that it is on page 42 of exhibit 13A in the P3 track. I can't pull it up from my CD while writing this.

[barf]

A Learjet was towing a target on the same day at some location. The fact that you have not heard of a towed sled does not exclude them from being used. You may have had a sheltered life. Any aircraft with wing bomb shackles may tow a sled. Do you know why the P3 had an engine fodded and propeller damage? It returned to the crash site and used FLIR to create a record. Most of the stuff in the FLIR were wispy trails of falling debris but there also was a nice tight contrail which may have been the launch of the missile itself.

[Non-Sequitur]

OK, so you know nothing about the Navy or their drones or P-3s or anything else and I'm the one who lead a sheltered life? It never ceases to amaze me how people like you can build a case with nothing more than their own vivid imagination and then, when asked to support their claims, can think of nothing better than to get insulting. OK, rather than waste my time with a fool I'll leave you alone to play with yourself. If you can provide a shred of evidence to support your claims then trot it out. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on it.

[barf]

Analyse the FDR anomalies and review Exhibits 13A and 13E. Then tell me that I have no evidence. It's all there.

[Non-Sequitur]

Post a link to your evidence and I'll examine it. In the mean time let me ask you some questions on your conclusions and perhaps you can provide some clarification.

In reply 56 you identify the object behind the P-3 as a target sled. Setting aside for a moment my observations that the Navy doesn't use towed targets and that P-3s wouldn't be the first choice for towing them even if they did, what led you to the conclusion that it was a towed target other than it's proximity to the aircraft? Also, you identify the 30 knot target as a submarine. Were you aware that no submarines in existence can make 30 knots surfaced? That modern submarines by their very design go faster under the water than on the surface? And if they wanted to exit the area why would they do it on the surface anyway?

In reply 65 you make reference to a 'large diameter stealth propeller'. What do you base that on? If a submarine was trying to be stealthy then why is it on the surface anyway? Why would a stealthy sub even want to shoot a missile into the air?

Also in reply 65 you present your theory that the missile was drawn away from the target sled by the greater heat source of the 747. What was causing the heat source in the target sled? What would it use to create an even greater heat source than a P-3 a mile away with those four P&W turbofans a turnin' and a burnin' much less a 747 even farther away? And if the missile can be drawn away from the target sled that easily then isn't if a further indication of how foolish it would be to use such a target in such an exercise?

In reply 82 you offer the theory that the P-3 released a drone in an attempt to deflect the missile. Why would the P-3 have both a target sled AND a drone? Why not use just the drone?

In reply 83 you mention that the missile hit the 747 in the fuselage. If it was drawn away from the target sled by the greater heat source then why didn't it hone in on that source? Why didn't it hit an engine?

In reply 91 you say that the navy was the source of the 'guilty missile'. What kind of missile was the guilty one? Tarter? Terrier? Standard? Phoenix?

In reply 130 you say that a Lear jet was towing a target the day before. What is your source for this claim? Who owned the Lear? What sense does it make to use a jet with engines mounted in the rear to tow a target? Wouldn't the engines tend to interfere with the tow line?

That's just a start. Clear up some of those issues and I'm sure I'll have more questions for you.

[thatstan]

Commander, your very reasoned and well written response to barf's theory certainly impressed and convinced me, and I'm one of Elmer's missileconspiracywackos. I hope some knowledgeable navy type like yourself can tear to shreads equally the tale I was told about the culprit being a mispackaged prototype IR guided SM2 under development test from a destroyer test platform under the 747. Then I could forget the whole matter. The best argument I've heard so far against it is there is no purpose to have a test involving a motorless test item. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if that is true or false. And knowledgeable navy types like yourself have been rather scarce on this coverup.

[barf]

Re 56: Sub on surface for missile test. 30-knots was likely a 'balls out' condition. NTSB showed sub for only brief period of time. May have been submerged before and after. There are indications that three subs were running parallel with one another at the time. Re 65: Large prop penetrated surface of water while running on surface. The spray appeared to be foam to kid riding in US Air 217 at the time. Sled uses burner for IR homing. May have been that burner was turned on early as cause of crash. Re 82: Object dropped downward before accelerating forward similar to cruise missile dropping from B-1. Re 83: Missile had IR as initial guidance but switched to radar when closing in on B747. Re 91: See previous. Likely an SM-2 with dual homing capability. KKV test version. Re 130: Tow line is below wing and causes no interference with shoulder mounted engines. Line sag keeps tow line below aircraft at all times. Feds admitted that Learjet had been used for a tow on 17 July 96 as a result of FOIA request I imagine. You can answer one question for me: Do you have a financial interest in the crash of TWA800? Note to stan: traitor! And to think that I stuck up for you. I will still in the future. Us old farts have to stick together. Excluding Elmer,of course.

[Non-Sequitur]

I had been hoping for some evidence instead of more opinion, however let me try again.

Re: Reply 56 who has identified it as a submarine other than you? What submarine can make 30 knots surfaced? Why wouldn't it submerge fist and then hit the gas? How did you determine that there were 3 subs running parallel?

Re: Reply 65 how did you determine that the propeller penetrated the surface of the water? Was this before or after the sub hit 30 knots on the surface? How could the propeller come out of the water since the sub's stern planes - which help it submurge - would have had to be out of the water as well? Have you ever been on a submarine? Have you ever talked to someone who had been on a submarine in the last 30 years who described an occurance like this ever happening?

Re: Reply 65 a P-3 is powered by four T407-GE-400 turboprops. What kind of burner could the target sled use that would put out more heat than that and not melt it but at the same time not enough to keep the missile from being drawn to the 747?

Re: Reply 82, I'll ask again. Why a target sled and a drone? Why not just a drone?

Re: Reply 83 and 91, the Standard doesn't use an IR guidence system. It uses a semi-active radar homing guidence system. Also, the Standard is a big missile, about 14 1/2 feet long. And the Standard requires initial guidance from the lauch platforms combat systems. A submarine has none of those radars installed.

Re: Reply 130, how about a source for that claim about the Lear? Who owned it? What kind of target was towed? Do you even have any idea how much weight is involved in the kind of towing rig that you have created?

Again, I am asking for support for your claims. Until I have a chance to see some sort of evidence then I'll repeat that your claims make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[barf]

I tried to answer your questions. Where is the answer to my question? When a modern sub is hauled, they cover the prop with a shield. They are giant size. I believe that I stated that the missile was a test version which had dual homing. The IR was an addon. Relative to sub antenna capabiltities, are you familiar with those of the UK. Relative to three side by side subs, this was given to me by private Email. I am not able to confirm this. I stated that there was a possibility rather than a fact. Relative to how did I know it was a sub, that came from a passenger on US Air 217. As to what the P3 was carrying at that time, I have no idea of how many slung devices that it can carry. How many bomb shackles does one have? Didn't it seem weird to you that the P3 had its secondary radar transponder turned off while crossing a busy air corridor? Relative to a sled being used, the missile was not an exploding variety. The mystery aircraft which was flying back and forth may have been a drone to act as a backup target in case the missile missed the sled. Both the initial direction of the missile and the mystery aircraft were on a SE to NW course. Acting as a backup target seems feasible for a test vehicle with IR homing since a drone flying back and forth repeatedly should generate a zone of heated air. Heated air is likely what drew the missile into the B747. Witness data was that the missile flew in a zigzag course before intercepting following the hard turn which the feds went out of their way to discount. The feds stated that a missile could not make a hard turn but a KKV with vectored thrust could. To repeat my question: Do you have a financial interest in the crash of TWA800?

[Non-Sequitur]

I have no financial interest in TWA 800 whatsoever. I'm just interested in facts rather than opinion, something I'm not getting much of by reading your posts.

A test missile with dual homing guidance system? Again, is this your opinion or do you have some evidence other than mysterious emails? And as a matter of fact I am familiar with the radar suites on British subs, at least as they were when TWA 800 crashed. I was in the Navy, remember? British subs use a Kelvin/Hughes Type 1006 or 1007 surface navigation radar (U.S. subs use a BPS 15 or BPS 16 navigation radar). These radars are not capable of target tracking. For that they would need any one of our target tracking radars, like an SPS-49 or SPG-51D (I won't even bring Aegis into this, their fixed array system is the size of a garage door). The other radars use an antenna similiar to that of the SPS-49

Did your witness see anything like this on the sub? Which raises another question. TWA800 crashed shortly after dark. How did your witness see a black submarine sail on a dark ocean at night?

A P-3 has 10 external weapons points. Their rated capacity is 750 pounds. They are incapable of carrying the kind of load you claim.

Now how about you? What kind of interest do you have in TWA 800 that makes you cling to such a ridiculous theory when you don't seem to have anything but uninformed conjecture and mysterious emails to back it up?

[acehai]

You'd best do a little research on towed targets. Things appear to have changed since you were an Ossifer. Try Clicking HERE and read all about just one of the systems that you say is impossible.