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.

[Rokke]

I just want to confirm some things here. You say TWA 800 was struck by a KKV equipped Standard missile, with a hybrid RF/IR seeker. You also believe that missile was launched from a submarine (the 30 knot track) and was originally targeted and guided on a target towed by the P-3. Is that all accurate?

[acehai]

grade-A conspiracy theorist

Let me also point out that JBS, in putting forth his "cargo door" theory, is making the contention that the CWT in overpressure was not the initiating event. That puts him in direct opposition to the findings of the NTSB. The NTSB says the CWT/phantom spark "done the dirty." The NTSB considers anyone who does not concur with their findings to be "bottom feeders", "wakkos, and "grade-A conspiracy theorists." JBS does not concur, ergo JBS is a "grade-A conspiracy theorist."

Which begs the question, _Jimbo...Since you are advocating JBS' contention, doesn't that make you a (GASP) "grade-A conspiracy theorist" too?

[barf]

That is my best guess as of today. I am convinced that a non exploding missile broke apart the B747 at the initiating event but the KKV is only based on what was available that had the mass and velocity to do the job. A supersonic Russian target drone was in the news around that same time and something else besides a SM-2 hybrid may have had the capability to do the job. 'Jane's Defence Weekly' told of a pending summer test and I don't know of another test that that could have been. This is why I wonder if a Brit sub did the firing. This could be a reasonable excuse to cover-up what happened. I have difficulty believing that Bob Dole would not know what happened and if the reason for a cover-up existed, he would have to sign onto it to keep from using the crash to his political advantage in the '96 presidential election. I am convinced that our government lied but not cognizant as to why it lied; Bill Clinton or a friendly fire accident. If Bill Clinton, all's fair in love and war. If friendly fire, I should retreat and lick my wounds.

[Rokke]

I spent some time today looking for an unclassified source that lists minimum ranges and structural load limits for the Standard SM-2 missile. I couldn't find one, but let me explain two problems with your theory. The range between your shooter (the 30 knot track) and TWA 800 is a little less then 3 miles at the time TWA 800 starts to destruct. Your theory is that TWA 800 was struck by a Standard SM-2 missile carrying a KKV. That means it must have been a Standard SM-2 Block IV A, or possibly a specially modified SM-2 Block IV. Both missiles are Extended Range (ER) missiles with a Mk-72 booster attached. The SM-2 Block IV is a mach 3.5 missile built to hit targets at very long range. It has three stages of motors to propel its KKV warhead to exo-atmospheric altitudes. Without getting into specific numbers, I can tell you that 3 miles is not enough range for the SM-4 Block IV to launch guide and function. Furthermore, the KKV program includes a specially modified Aegis radar, capable of tracking tactical ballistic missile warheads above the atmosphere. There isn't a submarine in the galaxy with that kind of capability.

Additionally, even if it could launch and guide in that short a range, the G forces required to get it to reverse direction to impact the 747 from the exact opposite direction from which it was launched would exceed the structural limits of the missile. It would need to reverse its course while maintaining its nose mounted internal seekers on the target. In other words, it would have to square a corner. To do so, even if you assume the missile is only traveling at mach 1, would require a G load well beyond its structural limits. Keep in mind, the SM-2 is not a high G dog fighting missile. It is a long range interceptor. Lots of speed, lots of range, not much maneuverability.

Having said that, assuming your FDR analysis is correct, you could still say TWA 800 was impacted by a KKV missile in its left empennage, but the missile would have had to have come from a source at a much greater range then the 30 knot track, and positioned most likely from the South or West.

[Rokke]

In light of the upcoming Christmas Season, I think it is time to withdraw from this debate and focus on things closer to home. There is little doubt we could go on forever and never get anywhere, so having presented my case, I retire.

Has anyone heard any good theories on the Ron Brown case lately?

[barf]

This was a test, not normal operational usage. Your comments may explain why the test went bad. It obviously did not perform as expected. Your own rationale' could be why.

[barf]

In the spirit of Xmas, please stay out of other F-16 tailpipes. It will soot your nose. But you did do a very graceful admission that my arguments beat yours. I thank you for that. Retiring for any reason is still like retiring from a chess match. Have a nice holiday. Best regards to your family.

[Rokke]

LOL. Your analysis is always consistent....ly off. I leave the judgement of the quality of our arguments to the jury. Give me a call when you find some proof that matches the originality of your theory. Merry Christmas.

[a6intruder]

Before you come to the podium to accept your award....the 30 knot unidentified radar target was an SH-60B helicopter, participating in the ongoing ASW exercise.

Now, what is the firing platform for the SM-2 Blk IV KKV missile?

[barf]

A witness to the actual impact stated that the object made a hard turn, followed a zigzag course before striking the B747. I concur with the hard turn in that if you draw a straight line from the 30-knot target through the sled, you must go right to hit the B747. So far, witness data matches radar evidence. Why the NTSB appeared to stay away from the FDR and radar evidence shows that they could not allow the facts to conflict with their own Mickey Mouse cause. Any one who states that the FDR data came from a previous flight has ignored the fact that the anomalies came only one second after the last clean data. Why are FDRs on aircraft other than show what happened? If what happens only one second later is ignored we may as well throw away the FDR's. Why didn't the NTSB review the FDR anomalies?

[barf]

How can a helicopter leave a wake in the water? It was at sealevel. Don't fly with anyone who flys anything at sealevel.

[barf]

If only an ASW exercise, why under an active air corridor and why didn't the NTSB or FBI so state? ASW exercises are not considered secret, why this one? Are you going to tell us that the mystery back and forth flying craft was part of the ASW exercise and not a drone? Are you going to tell us that a P3 tows a magnetometer at 20,000 feet altitude? Get your story credible before springing it.

[timestax]

lyin ole KALLSTROM MORPHED THE 30-kNOT BOAT into a helicopter as part of his DISINFORMATION plan!

I heard him do this on a t.v.newsclip.

[a6intruder]

I was trying to make the point that your theory rests partially on the 30 knot target being a submarine, when there is no docmentary evidence to support that assertion. I don't know what the 30 knot target was, but it was just as likely a helicopter or a surface vessel as it was a submarine.

Absent the submarine or any military platform, your theory is inoperative. There being no evidence of either, your foundation is nothing more than the ground floor of a house of cards.

[a6intruder]

Nice to see you keeping up with the latest round.

Kallstrom did, in fact, say it was a helicopter. He was the same guy that said "classified naval maneuvers" were being conducted in the off-shore warning areas. Perhaps the two were connected, but he couldn't divulge any additional information.

Other than your assertion, is there any other source that would provide proof that Kallstrom practiced "disinformation"?

[barf]

Surface vessels do not leave a propeller wake. They leave a bow wake. Their propellers are under water. A modern sub with a stealth design prop has a portion of the prop above the water when running at or near the surface. Any flying craft does not leave any wake in the water, other than a sea plane which is not flying in the normal sense if it is in contact with the water. The witness stated that the wake was like foam which, to me, is an asymmetrical shape off to one dominant side. What other than a modern sub would do this? And why did you give an exact type of helicopter if you don't know?

[timestax]

Are you in fact KALLSTROM? Or a friend/relative ? Why so interested in him?!

Come on now, tell the truth!!

[a6intruder]

And why did you give an exact type of helicopter if you don't know?

Oh, Sorry. I can't tell you that.

[barf]

It appears to me that you and others are defending the NTSB verbal report when the NTSB written report conflicts with it. Something which does not fit can't be defended. Why would anyone in their right mind support a fraudulant report? You are NAVY and I can understand any embarrassment over knowing that the NAVY screwed up. But didn't they screw up over the Iowa accident too? We need the NAVY but don't need to make excuses for them. They consist of humans and are subject to making errors like any other humans. We should accept errors but not lies.

[a6intruder]

You brought him into the discussion....are you a relative/friend, his ex-wife or a disgruntled FBI employee?

I told you before...stick to the Bumps and BTTs...it suits your contributory skills a lot better.