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.
So you are making the claim that you were the only one above board at the time the missile was fired. What event or circumstance allows you to ascertain the coincidence in timing. In other words, how do you know you were above board at that precise time.
You called the submarine a "boat", is that Navy slang?
Rokke, you may be correct by virtue of semantics. However his statement is still accurate. There are over seven hundred(700) documented witness reports. IndexedHERE.
FBI interview from a witness 700 or above HERE
You have to be patient while the documents load. They are in PDF format.
Again I ask Rokke, where is your source for the 96 witnesses statement? Your credibility is beginning to suffer.
Perhpas not classified, but how about covered in a Clinton Executive Order, awaiting retribution?
HF
Perhpas not classified, but how about covered in a Clinton Executive Order, awaiting retribution?
HF
Times have changed. Please go to the NTSB website and review the Boeing submission to the report. Here is the address:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/TWA800/exhibits/boeing_submission.pdf
After reading it, you will have a better understanding of the 747 fuel system. Let me give you a hint...it isn't at all like the F-86. No one is argueing that it is hard to ignite liquid Jet A. But as I've said previously, what explosively ignited was the vapor. Your anecdotes about burning fuel are all interesting, but moot.
"No I'm afraid you can't convince me that the center fuel tank exploded."
That's fine, but can you convince the engineers at Boeing that it didn't?
Heck, I can't even post a url to something I posted in 2000. But for the life of me, I can't figure out why it matters. Why would I bother posting under three names in the first place?
"By the way what is your source for the 96 witness's?"
http://twa800.com/4a/exhibit4a.html
"* Based on the data, 183 witnesses said they saw a streak of light, 201 said they saw one or more explosions, 100 said they heard one or more explosions, and 339 said they saw a fireball.* Of the 183 who observed a streak of light, 102 gave information about the origin of the streak. Six said the streak originated from the air, and 96 said that it originated from the surface. Of the 96 who said it originated from the surface, 40 said it originated from the sea and 10 said it originated from land.
Rokke, your own data source confirms the accuracy of UberVernunft's original statement. You are obviously here to harass and disrupt.
The problem guys like you have is that when you find someone you can bluff, because you never source your data and they are not sure, you push it to the point any casual observer can see through you.
You remind me of "Landshark" and Sinkspur. Like you, they are too lazy to post a URL. They speak as if they know something and never source their comments. All too often they are misrepresenting something or it came from their imagination.
So how many screen names have you had? Why do you need more than one?
SidebarModerator Rokke is a disruptor. Why don't we make all screen name alias's common knowledge? Why have we removed the ability to broadcast, by preventing anything but valid screen names? The quality of discourse would improve immediately.
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.