Posted on 01/31/2002 12:01:36 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Those who accept the government's claim that the crash of TWA Flight 800 was caused by a fuel-tank explosion dismiss the evidence that the plane was shot down accidentally by missiles launched in a Navy exercise off the Long Island coast. They say that such an accident could not have been covered up because a lot of Navy personnel would have known about it, and some of them would have talked.
One of them has finally done so. He recently said in an interview that I recorded that he was on the deck of a Navy submarine very close to the crash site and saw TWA 800 shot down.
He was brought to my attention by an acquaintance of his who told me that this retired Navy petty officer had said he was "underneath TWA 800 when he saw a missile hit it and the 747 explode overhead." He had told this acquaintance that he had given a statement to the FBI when they returned to their port, and that the FBI had checked all their torpedo tubes and all their missile silos to make sure they had all the missiles on board that they had when they left port. Asked if there were other military vessels in the area, he had said, "Yes, several."
When Pierre Salinger, at a press conference in March 1997, declared that TWA Flight 800 had been shot down accidentally by a U.S. Navy missile, this former presidential press secretary, U.S. Senator and ABC News correspondent, was mercilessly attacked by his former colleagues. They accused him of peddling unsubstantiated Internet gossip. Salinger said that his information had been confirmed by a source who learned of the Navy's involvement from a friend who had a son in the Navy. The son was said to have personal knowledge that a Navy missile had downed the plane, but his father did not want to be identified, fearing his son would suffer retaliation for disclosing information the Navy was hiding.
There are hundreds of Navy and Coast Guard personnel, as well as some FBI, CIA, FAA, NTSB and former White House employees who know that the real cause of the crash of TWA 800 was papered over with a tissue of lies. Two of them, James Kallstrom and George Stephanopoulos, have made statements that indicate an official cover-up. Stephanopoulos, a Clinton adviser who is now an ABC News correspondent, mentioned on the air a secret meeting in the White House situation room "in the aftermath of the TWA 800 bombing." Kallstrom, who headed the FBI's TWA 800 investigation, told me – and I have this on tape – that three radar targets close to the crash site were Navy vessels on a classified maneuver. We know they were submarines because the radar tracks disappeared when TWA 800 crashed.
Our newly found talker was on one of those submarines. The Navy claims that it was at least 80 miles from the crash site, but he says it was very close, and that is confirmed by the radar tracks. In our taped interview, he was more guarded than he had been with his acquaintance. He said he didn't want to do anything that might "mess up" his retirement.
He said he saw "something come up." "I don't know what in the hell it was," he said, "but that's what it looked ..." Not completing what he started to say, he said, "You know, something went up." He estimated that it went up about a mile from his location, which was only a few miles from the shore. He said there were a couple of other subs nearby. When told that the radar tracks of all three disappeared because they submerged when the plane went down, he said, "Yeah, that's what we did."
He acknowledged that a number of Navy vessels were heading for W-105, a large area of the ocean south of Long Island that is used for naval maneuvers. He said that nothing they did off Long Island was classified, but he was not comfortable in discussing it.
When I called him a few days later, he was scared to death. He feared the Navy would withdraw his pension if I reported what he had said. It was not possible to convince him that the Navy couldn't do that. Not wanting to worsen his anxiety, his name and other details are being withheld as we try to get his and other interview reports that the FBI has withheld.
…and if they seated you at a green felt covered table without an ashtray in front of you, you were in a heap of trouble.
Please read the NTSB report and all its accompanying submissions. Once you have read everything you will have read my explanation for how and why the fuel tank exploded. You will also see a long list of recommendations and actions taken by the NTSB, the FAA and Boeing as a result of the investigation. It makes perfect sense to me and the engineers at Boeing. If you still can't understand it, I'm afraid you'll just have to take their word for it.
Once again you ignore what has been repeatedly stated.
Let me summarize.
You came on to this thread making ignorant and abusive statements. You claimed that my use of the term "hundreds" was incorrect. I pointed out why I used the term and justified it with a dictionary definition. Then you have come back claiming that the term according to your "lexicon" the term means something else.
You were simply wrong. Get over it. You're making a fool of yourself. As I have pointed out the number 96 makes no difference to the argument.
LOL.
You've just admitted that you can't follow the supposed evidence. Even Boeing has stated that the investigation has found no explanation of how or why an internal spark would have ignited the fuel mixture.
Exactly. (<----Tiger Tank certified)
Exactly.
Source please. I would like to see what you are using for a reference.
How much actual, live, hands-on aviation experience do you have, and on what type aircaft? What certifications do you hold? Thanks.
Duh.
When Pierre Salinger, at a press conference in March 1997, declared that TWA Flight 800 had been shot down accidentally by a U.S. Navy missile,Pierre was the victim of one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the internet:
"After his debacle of last November, when he mistook a widely circulated Net posting for a "secret" government document, "The overall story from: TWA 800 and Friendly Fire: The Rest of the Story
Media BombEditor’s Note: Here at 60GCAT, we honestly don’t know how much our readership overlaps with that of the New York Times, but a few of our more devoted followers may have noticed that back on Nov. 17, your humble (read: self-aggrandizing, career-obsessed) authors published a little piece in the Times’ Sunday magazine detailing how the TWA 800 conspiracy theory got started and the tortured path it took through the Internet and into the mainstream media. As much as we’d like you to believe that it was just a little something we dashed off in our copious free time, in between checking the point spread on the Nebraska game and desperately trying to get the VCR to tape Xena: Warrior Princess, the fact is, we actually worked on this thing. We wrote plenty more than the Times could fit into its 1,670 word space.Here, then, is an earlier, much longer version of the story. This version runs through developments up to Oct. 15, 1996. Plenty happened after that, so for updates, consult Conspiracy Currents No. 26 and Conspiracy Currents No. 30. But for now, just remember that the whole thing is
© 1996 by Jonathan Vankin and John Whalen
A scant 11 minutes after 230 people settled in for a sleepy, seven-hour night flight to Paris from New York's JFK International Airport, their Boeing 747-100 burst into a fireball and plummeted, in pieces, 2 1/2 miles into the ocean waters off of Long Island. No one on board survived. The known facts of the July 17, 1996 TWA Flight 800 calamity remain sketchy to say the least. Investigators continue looking at three possibilities: a massive mechanical failure, a bomb or a missile. None of them have been confirmed or ruled out.
That, anyway, is what they want you to believe.
But we, the people, are not fooled. We know the dark secret of TWA 800. A United States military missile shot it down and now the government, right up to President Bill Clinton, is determined to cover up the terrible truth.
Another crazy conspiracy theory? [Yes]
Just like the theories that crop up anytime there's a major public crisis, tragedy or scandal? Perhaps. And there doesn't seem to be any strong evidence to support it. So why should we give this conspiracy theory any further attention? Because the TWA 800 theory ushers the culture of suspicion into the age of the Internet. And it shows how conspiracy theories -- traditionally dismissed with a sneer or a chuckle by the "mainstream" media -- are beginning to play a part in shaping important public debates, thanks largely to the buzz they generate on the global information network.
With an alternative media as ubiquitous as the Internet, and one capable of transmitting large chunks of information withthe speed of a mouse click, conspiracy theories are no longer easy to ignore. Unlike most pre-Net conspiracy theories, the TWA 800 theory made a swift impact on the major media. In mid-September, with little else besides the rampant discussion of the theory on the Internet to go on, reporters began quizzing crash investigators about the "friendly fire" scenario.
...
As Kallstrom put it earlier in the investigation, conspiratorial speculation is bound to flourish "in a vacuum of information, because the evidence is sitting at the bottom of the ocean." The complicating factor that few anticipated was the Internet, a potent new medium that would rush to fill that informational vacuum with an ether of instant conjecture, prompting the traditional media to respond, in turn triggering a whole new round of speculation on the popular bandwidth of the information superhighway.
At least 8 posts have been wasted over this issue, and considering you have continued to "play dumb" -- I have to ask if you are just trolling, or are there other issues involved here. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to debate this, but you are pushing the boundaries of what passes for intelligent discourse.
Ferris: Center wing fuel tanks on 747's don't just "blow up"...RBA: Exactly.
Have there ever been any recorded instances of fuel tank explosions?
What would be possible contributing factors to a fuel tank explosion - that is to say:
LOL.
Trying to find enough time to make up something new?
You only show up to protect the gov't which only flies in the face of the very principal Jim Robinson started FreeRepublic.
If you wern't COMPLETELY BIASED people might take you seriously.
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.