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]

No one saw a fuel/air explosion until at least 20 seconds after the missile impact. A Stinger which is effective would ignite the fuel to create a fuel/air explosion. The actual missile only fragmented the aircraft without a fuel/air explosion. The fuel did not ignite until later. A Stinger has 100% probability if striking an aircraft. But a Stinger without a warhead would only bounce off of a B747 or at least allow the crew to issue a MayDay. This crew was killed on the spot by the violence of the impact. A KKV that is supersonic has both the mass and speed to destroy any aircraft without exploding.

[Non-Sequitur]

And while we are on the subject can you offer anything from your past experience that would support barf's posts? Were you on a nuclear submarine, perhaps, that test fired a missile? If not, were you in submarines and had heard of any kind of program involving firing a missile from a submarine? Were you in a P-3 squadron, using any kind of turbo-prop engine, that engaged in target towing? Any kind of target towing squadron at all? Were you ever in a missile firing exercise that involved firing at a towed target? Were you ever in a missile firing exercise in U.S. waters north of the Virginia capes? Ever on a ship that fired a missile at all? Anything you can add that would support barf's case, other than advertisements, would be appreciated.

[Darksheare]

The nose came off just before the fuel tanks. Right sbout where those landing/take off lights are......
And no, the Stinger wouldn't necessarily ignite the fuel. The blast has already happened to the warhead, the only thing left are high speed fragments, like a shotgun blast. These punch holes in the target. And, like a shotgun, wouldn't ignite anything except in a secondary role. I.e. sparking wires. This does fit a Stinger kill profile. Or an SA-14, SA-18... Javelin, etc.etc.etc.

We gave the Afghanis several Stingers (A/B/C versions) back when the SOvs were fighting them. Not all have been accounted for. Some ended up on the black market. Some are still in Taliban hands. I think back in '96 we found one. It was returned to us by way of boat. (Osama bin raghead did take credit for that hit..)

[barf]

Who saw a blast other than pieces of aircraft in loose formation? A Stinger which does not show up exploding would not do much. A B747 is a highly redundant structure that would require a very fast and relatively heavy missile to break it up. The violent yaw in TWA800 was effectively centered between engine one and engine two as shown by the EPR anomalies. A Stinger should not do this. The fuselage spine broke in two places. Again, a Stinger should not do this. No one saw a fuel/air explosion at the time of missile impact. A non exploding KKV could do what happened.

[Non-Sequitur]

Manufacturers would use sleds to test products not yet on the market or accepted by the military services.

But they would use a military aircraft and up to three military submarines, including a foreign one? You still haven't provided any evidence to back up your theory. Perhaps acehai can come up with some.

[Asmodeus]

"We gave the Afghanis several Stingers (A/B/C versions) back when the SOvs were fighting them. Not all have been accounted for. Some ended up on the black market. Some are still in Taliban hands. I think back in '96 we found one. It was returned to us by way of boat. (Osama bin raghead did take credit for that hit..)"

What's your evidence that Ahab In A Dinghy "shot down" TWA Flight 800?

What's your touch-it feel-it physical evidence of a "shootdown" of the 747?

Can you name any expert witness report analysts who agrees with the "missile witnesses" allegations?

ex·pert (kspûrt) n. A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.

[Asmodeus]

"How many buggy whip manufacturers can you name?"

How many visions about what happened to Flight 800 have you had?

barf LSOFT Flight 800 Forum Wed, 31 Dec 1997
"My theory is based on a vision that I experienced near the event. I saw fuel migrating along the swept wing trailing edge and being ignited by either an inboard or outboard engine exhaust. This also ignited unburnt trailing vapor which was later interpreted as a missile trail. The flame returned to a continuously fed volatile cloud adjacent to the rear fuselage and exploded."

barf LSOFT Flight 800 Forum Thu, 1 Jan 1998 "I assume that a refueling port was damaged by accident or metal fatigue. This was a very old airframe and should naturally be an expected harbinger for any strutural defect. I have to assume that refueling took place with a truck. Refueling operators are essentially those who have a truck driving permit and have an addition duty of connecting and disconnecting hoses. Recalling the failure of the Iranian hostage rescue mission, I wonder if the truck could have pulled away from TWA800 before disconnecting a hose. I would suggest checking maintenance records of the refueling equipment to see if any repairs were made following the 800 crash. A hose fitting might have become loose from the hose. I don't wish to dampen the missile theorists belief. I only wish to further my own. I believe that my theory and the hard evidence fit together while the NTSB explanation and the hard evidence do not even resemble one another. Conspiracies are fun to further but I feel that TWA800 was just one bad accident."

barf LSOFT Flight 800 Forum Sat, 3 Jan 1998
"Wouldn't it be unusual for a veteran 747 captain to exclaim about the rate of climb of his bird? Didn't he mention something like a homesick angel? If in addition to using fuel, he was losing fuel, wouldn't the rate of climb improve? Was the rate of climb greater than expected for a craft with the TWA800 takeoff weight? One of the crew mentioned something about the imbalance of fuel. Could a damaged refueling port allow the release of fuel? If so, the volume could be considerable. Was the erratic rate transducer in a possible connectivity with a refueling port? Intermittent starving could cause erratic readings. Because of flywheel effect the affected engine performance might not be noticeably affected. Also, if the fuel leak began while the craft were still close to sea level, could a vapor trail be ignited by a ground source such that an upward ignition could appear to be a missile trail? The time spent at sea level could have been much longer if ignition source were not yet present. Did any witness express fuel smell in the air? This could also explain the change of direction near the end of travel. The fuel which was most recently lost would not have had the chance to settle. Didn't some witnesses state that the trail became horizontal at the end. Prevailing winds could move the trail off to one side in order to make the trail look like a change of direction."

barf LSOFT Flight 800 Forum Mon, 19 Jan 1998
"My external fuel vapor explosion was likely before the CWT flare up too but it was at the rear of the plane where massive damage was done to the rear seats and adjacent to both the CVR/FDR mountings and the large soot stain. Which is more credible? A missile which left no garbage behind or a fuel leak which left soot stains and inordinate damage behind? My theory contains every FDR anomaly. My theory contains the lack of victim burns. My theory contains tha many decapitations. My theory contains the unexplainable debris field distribution. My theory contains the pilot and copilot reference to aircraft lightness. My theory contains the need to trim the aircraft. My theory contains the irratic fuel flow indication. Almost anything could be the initiating reason for a crash but my theory explains all of the hard evidence. I have modified my theory only to the extent that it might agree with a missile observation. One might say that my theory may contain the root cause of the crash which I believe happened on the ground before takeoff. A damaged airplane may self destruct if left uncorrected."

[Asmodeus]

Here's a tinfoil hatter's concept of compelling evidence that a submarine was involved in the alleged "shootdown" of TWA 800:

"BARBARA PACHOLK had an AMAZING story. She saw two objects rise from the water or land. The first object exploded near the tail and the second near the nose. She also saw a black submarine and its periscope. According to Ms. Pacholk, the periscope was looking in the direction of the plane, rotated about a 3/4 turn and saw her, then left the area. She believes that it is possible that at least one missile came from this sub. She also notice two large navy vessels in the ocean. One of which quickly left the area after the tragedy."
Source

[Asmodeus]

barf LSOFT Flight 800 Forum Thu, 22 Jan 1998 22:58:51
"What if migrating fuel had ignited within an engine exhaust stream and a still burning portion merged with an expanding slipstream vapor trail. The flame could follow the craft at some distance behind continuously accelerating until converging. Get the picture?"

Yep.

[acehai]

Again, from your Post 137...the Standard doesn't use an IR guidence system. It uses a semi-active radar homing guidence system.

From http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/sm-2.htm

Block IIIB is the next step in the continuing evolution of the Standard Missile family, incorporating an infrared (IR) guidance mode capability developed in Missile Homing Improvement Program (MHIP) with the radio frequency (RF) semi-active guidance system of the proven SM-2 Block IIIA.

Another mis-statement which calls into question your expertise and credibility.

[Rokke]

From you, no offense is possible. But since you have assumed the role of expert, could you please explain how chaff is used "to radar paint" an intercept. Do you really have any concept about radar or how chaff is employed. Do you think that any test missile somehow rigged with an IR seeker, a semi-active seeker, and a "KKW" warhead would not also be rigged with telemetry broadcasting equipment. As someone who has been involved in many missile shoots, I can tell you that any test missile is rigged with so much monitoring equipment you can tell what the shooter had for lunch three weeks ago. And I hate to ask this, but could you please describe your best guess at what the term "glitter" is actually refering to. And finally, do you really want to stand on your statement that if the missile hit your imaginary sled, the impact wouldn't be observed? I'll repeat my previous question: Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

[acehai]

I'll repeat that I have never encountered a towed target in any missile exercise that I was involved with...

You didn't repeat all you said. That which was omitted goes to whether you can be trusted. Here's what you said...

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.

The URLs I have provided speak for themselves. You are the one whose credibility is in question.

Oh, by the way...I can also fill another gap in your knowledge of the TWA 800 affair with regards to the non-interview of the persons that were transferred and therefore not available. According to Appendex AA of the NTSB CD, The aircraft was from Brunswick NAS, Brunswick, Maine. The personnel in question were:

Ray Ott
Richard Van Deorstyne
Bradley Baca
Manuel Yarberry

[Rokke]

The IR guidance in the Standard Block IIIB is for the endgame and was developed to counter new ECM techniques in expected targets. The Block IIIB still uses semi-active guidance requiring the appropriate radars (none of which are sub mounted) to get its initial guidance. I don't believe the Block IIIB entered the fleet operationally until 1997, and most of its testing would have taken place on the West Coast.

Unfortunately, your concerns about credibility don't seem to cover anything coming from Barf. Maybe you can tell us about the Navy's 30 knot on the surface capable submarines.

[Rokke]

"The URLs I have provided speak for themselves."

While you're skating around the internet, why don't you find some evidence that the Navy has actually used towed targets for missile tests in the last couple decades. I do know the Navy uses towed banners for strafing practice, but I think you'll be hard pressed to find any missile test using a towed target instead of a drone. Just because something exists, does not mean it is in use. I can give you a list several pages long of equipment the military still inventories, but doesn't use.

[barf]

When I worked in flight test we frequently used Naval assets in testing items which were one of a kind. These items may never reach the fleet where you would come in contact with them. I was trying to build a condition which would satisfy both of our arguments. I witnessed my designs on aircraft which weren't meant to carry them. But one of my designs ended up on fleet deliveries because the intended item was not available when the aircraft were delivered to the fleet. This item was painted with ANA508 International Orange and stuck out like a turd in a punch bowl and located in the forward electronics bay which was open when the nose was folded back for hanger deck storage. I was shocked when press release photos of our first deliveries went out showing planes with their noses folded.

[barf]

Let's pretend that you were the commander of a sub below an aircraft breaking up. Would you idle your prop and watch the action or try to get out of there in the most expeditious manner. One thing which happens when the thrust line drops relative to mass centroid is that the nose should pick up while the stern drops. As the stern drops more of the prop would be exposed to the water. Maybe a balls out condition gives a higher speed than simple cruise. I don't know sub specs but can imagine that the physics change. Force vectors act similarly in all systems. When my employer was testing ramjet powered target drones, they used a booster which fell away when the main engine took over. Major problem developed when the flight control transients switched and we had many drones dig holes in the desert. I suggested that the booster motor be installed inline with the cruise ramjet so that the flight control would have very little change after boost. Marquardt went with this suggestion and created the Low Volume Ramjet and had a new market niche. As far as I can recall, I never received credit for this suggestion. I also came up with a new chaff type of corner reflector which could jam receiving radar stations but it did not go into production. I feel that much of my own experience supports my TWA800 pitch. With thanks to Elmer Fudd for replaying my earliest thoughts on the crash. My education over the past few years has changed my theory a great deal.

[GregoryFul]

Good try, but I don't believe that you will change the "mind" of Criminal Number 18F. This character is obviously a government shill.

[Non-Sequitur]

Very interesting except you left off the part about the Block IIIB being tested as late as April 1996, two months before it was supposed to be used by this mysterious submarine of yours and barf's.

[Non-Sequitur]

The URLs say nothing except such a target exists. It says that it is used by navies all over the world but doesn't say the U.S. Navy is one of them. The ad also dates from 1998. Was it being marketed two years prior? And one again you are speaking from websurfing and not experience. Do you have any military experience that would shed light on this?

[Rokke]

"Let's pretend that you were the commander of a sub below an aircraft breaking up. Would you idle your prop and watch the action or try to get out of there in the most expeditious manner. "

In the real world, even if you want something to happen, sometimes it just isn't possible. I can give my wife's mini-van all the gas in the world, but it will never go from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds. Likewise, the commander of a submarine on the surface may want to leave an area at 30 knots, but it just isn't going to happen.