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.
Now, I suppose you know more than the NTSB, Boeing, ALPA and TWA.
The statement implies the possibility that there were also "pieces of wreckage which were [not] examined".
If someone from the CIA showed up and said that for reasons of "national security" they needed to lie in the report, do you think they wouldn't do it? Could they be bribed to do it, at taxpayer expense?
Just the one you see. My multiple personalities only come out on New Year's Eve and they have better things to do than debunking conspiracy theories. One of them is even a close advisor to Vice president Cheney.
Having read some of a6intruder's and Non-Sequitur's posts over the last couple years, I'll take that as a compliment. However, based on my day long debate arguing the meaning of "hundreds", I'm not sure a6 and Non-Sequitur are as eager to accept the comparison. But congratulations on finding a way to create a conspiracy on something as insignificant as a FR thread.
Here's how I knew the article was bogus before I even read it...Right underneath the banner announcing the special WorldNetDaily Report on "The Coming Gold Rally" it says WorldNetDaily Exclusive. Enough said for any not suffering from a tinfoil overdose. But let me add some other points...
1. CMDR Donaldson believes TWA800 was struck on the left side. That means the missile came from the west. The only thing west of TWA800 is Long Island and shallow water. So much for the "Navy shot it down" theory.
2. This quote is patently false "In the event of a missile strike to a large commercial aircraft, the extremely high speed of the missile would carry the warhead right through the plane "almost like it's not even there," said the Air Force source." As usual, WND's only sources are anonymous. Here's the facts. Any surface to air or air to air missile is equipped with a proximety fuzed or impact fuzed warhead. The warhead is designed to explode before it hits or as it hits the aircraft. Not slip through the plane "like it's not even there". The Islip radar may have picked up debris to the right of the aircraft, but it isn't a missile warhead.
3. Another bogus quote "He'll stick a pencil in the bullet holes in the wall to see the angle the bullet entered the wall. You do the same thing here and it's pointing right back at a boat that was in range of a shoulder fired missile". If that were true with a missile (it isn't) then lining up the debris pattern points right to Long Island.
4. CMDR Donaldson claims TWA800 was brought down by a shoulder launched missile. They are all heat seekers. Heat seekers guide to the hottest point of the target. That ain't the fuselage.
I could go on, but I'm bored. Bottomline, the article is as bogus as its source.
If this is true, how do you explain the 1,000s of Americans who have seen flying saucers...and the hundreds who have been on board them.
I can't imagine why they would change that configuration, unless they illiminated the pumps and used air pressure to force the fuel through the lines.
We burned up an F86 once because an Afterburner boost pump, which turned at 10,000 rpm had a bearing go out and the heat melted the seal and ignited the fuel in the tank. It didn't explode. It just burned. If the tank hadn't been vented(to exhaust fumes) it probably wouldn't have burned.
I have worked on furnaces that were hard to light with igniters. Sometimes the fuel would build up and when it finally lit it would burn furiously but it didn't explode. That fuel oil,like JP4, has to be atomized for efficient ignition to occur.
They don't use spark plugs on diesel engines. They drive the cylinder air temperature up with pressure and then spray atomized fuel into the combustion chamber. They often have to use ether to get them going. In cold weather they do not shut them down, because they are so hard to get started.
No I'm afraid you can't convince me that the center fuel tank exploded.
Take a wild guess. Vince Foster, Bill Clinton, JFK, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, et al. Our government is not in the business of admitting they're ever wrong.
I doubt that. How about a url to something they posted in 2000. Your credibility is at risk.
By the way what is your source for the 96 witness's?
Was this intended to be sarcasm, or are you making this claim?
I doubt it. Who claims that they do(a name please)? What purpose would they serve? Last but not least, how about a wager?
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.