what conspiracy?what ship?,what witness.
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.
No, the precedent is not a "cause", but an explanation based on inductive reasoning.
, then there would be a lot more unexplained accidents. With a mechanical object as complex as an airliner, the statement "______ just doesn't break/explode in flight" doesn't pull much weight.
When the shuttle exploded, the cause was traced to a defective part. Has anything been done like this for Flight 800? If not a defective part, then special conditions would need to exist that precipitated the explosion. Could this be true? Of course not, otherwise the entire fleet would have been grounded.
The "explanation" of the fuel tank explosion is not based on any evidence whatsoever.
Sorry, I just went through this. There will be differences between witnesses, but there is a commonality in the descriptions that imply that *at least* one missile was identified. As I mentioned previously some witnesses are more reliable than others. There will always be some differences in descriptions.
Evidence for 6 missiles does nothing to refute the contention of *no* missiles. Surely you understand this?
You have commited a non-sequitur.
If they were surfaced, there would be a minimum of 3 sailors in the sail. No one would be allowed on deck (except during manuevering watch in the harbor) because there are no railings and too much deck wash.
First, I would have to say that the Federal Government is embodied in its employees. That being the case, I would say it admits this routinely. My experience is narrow but when military aircraft crash and civilians are injured, investigations are reported and culpability assigned.
You seem to have a somewhat jaded view of government...what did they ever do to you? I assume (from your profile page comments) that you are a retiree? If so, save me a spot on the first tee in about 10 years.
I have no idea what did cause the crash of TWA 800. But one thing that did not cause it was a missile fired from a sub, Iranian or otherwise. Regardless of what this mystery witness says.
This must be another one of your "facts". Apparently you haven't read the NTSB report, or the submissions by Boeing, TWA, ALPA or the IAM. There is plenty of evidence proving an explosion within the CWT caused the breakup of TWA800. What was never determined was the exact initiating source of the CWT explosion. Now that is a fact.
More than 100 witnesses saw the missile go up and hit the aircraft. They all describe the same thing. Use your brains, friend.
I just wish they wouldn't call themselves Freepers...
Try proving that assertion.
This must be another one of your "facts".
No, this is another one of your misinformed posts.
Apparently you haven't read the NTSB report, or the submissions by Boeing, TWA, ALPA or the IAM. There is plenty of evidence proving an explosion within the CWT caused the breakup of TWA800.
Since you feel so confident about it, let's hear what you feel is such strong "evidence"?
Uh, no. You were called clueless for ignoring my justificatin for using the term "hundreds", and then your continaul uninformed snide remarks based on *your* own misunderstanding, and then of course your contiual harping on a minor distinction that made no sense. I repeatedly pointed this out. You came in making ignorant and abusive statements, and then found out you were actually wrong.
Your lexicon? Try using a well known dictionary Why don't you tell us all what your dictionary quotes as the definition of "hundreds"? Reference?
SYLLABICATION: hun·dred
PRONUNCIATION: hndrd
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. hundred or hun·dreds 1. The cardinal number equal to 10 × 10 or 102. 2. The number in the third position left of the decimal point in an Arabic numeral. 3. A one-hundred-dollar bill. 4. hundreds The numbers between 100 and 999: an attendance figure estimated in the hundreds. 5. An administrative division of some counties in England and the United States.
Now I've quoted two dictionaries that agree with me. You have yet to provide a definition for *your* particular meaning, or even a reference. Are you making this all up?
LOL.
You have yet to post any logic or facts in support of the fuel tank "theory", and you have yet to rebut the opposing position. Since you feel so strongly about your position, let's hear your argument.
Since you must not have read them, let me offer some quotes from the NTSB report, the Boeing submission, the ALPA submission and TWA's submission. I will quote them in that order:
"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the TWA flight 800 accident was an explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT), resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system."
"Based on a review of this information, Boeing believes that there was an ignition of the flammable vapors in the CWT resulting in a loss of structural integrity of the aircraft."
"On July 17 1996, at approximately 2032 EDST, a Boeing 747-131 registered as N93119 and operating as TWA Flight 800, was destroyed by an explosion of the fuel/air mixture in the center wing fuel tank (CWT)."
"No evidence of a bomb, missile, or high order explosive damage was found on any pieces of wreckage which were examined."
Now, I suppose you know more than the NTSB, Boeing, ALPA and TWA.
It's doubtful this has anything to do with a "conspiracy". The NTSB can't justify how or why the fuel tank supposedly exploded. They can't explain how or what happened, and so they came up a pet theory. It doesn't take a "conspiracy", just ignorance and the need to come up with an explanation. They have also routinely ignored evidence that contradicts their position, which is typical of a government investigation. So need for a "conspiracy".
Do we need to go through the particulars of all the corruption found in the FBI lab, which were used to help make convictions?
Was the fleet grounded until the supposed defective fuel tanks were replaced?
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.