Posted on 09/20/2007 7:33:48 PM PDT by cgk
FBI suppressed video of TWA explosion
 Recovered debris from TWA 800 |
|
More than six years after retired United Airline captain Ray Lahr launched his Freedom of Information Act petition into the fate of TWA Flight 800, the FBI has shown him –likely by accident – one seriously smoking gun.
The Boeing 747 blew up off the coast of Long Island on July 17, 1996. One of the FBI documents received recently by Lahr and his attorney details a communication that took place six days after the crash:
"The FBI guy who looked at this must not have read it, or not have realized what it would reveal, Otherwise he would have redacted most of it as before."
(excerpt...)
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
There, fixed it!
Though, Perdogg has a point, If it was a missile, which I am almost cetain it was, it doesn't necessarily have to be a terrorist act.
The US armed forces have plenty of missiles too, and the Navy were testing them close by in an exercise to try out forward linked radar between multiple vessels to extend their early detection capability .
· Test results conflict about the contents of red residue.
In March 1997, freelance journalist and ex-Seal Beach policeman James D. Sanders said red residue found on a piece of the jetliner’s seats was consistent with exhaust from solid fuel for rockets. A missile scientist said the elements were consistent with rocket fuel. Sanders used that and other evidence to conclude a missile with an inert warhead shot down Flight 800. His evidence and conclusions were published in The Press-Enterprise.
FBI and NTSB officials said the red residue was adhesive and that their tests showed it to be 3M’s Scotch-Grip 1357 High Performance Contact Adhesive. However, Scotch-Grip 1357 is green, not red.
Three independent laboratory tests show Scotch-Grip 1357’s makeup is significantly different than the residue Sanders had tested independently in a Southern California laboratory.
The test the NTSB commissioned the National Aeronautic and Space Administration to conduct on the adhesive and Flight 800 seats is so dissimilar to Sanders’ test that the results “are like comparing apples and oranges,” according to Semtec Laboratories of Phoenix, Ariz., a private test laboratory.
Laboratory manager Ed Holdsworth, who examined the conflicting test reports at the request of The Press-Enterprise, said they showed the adhesive and red residue differences to be significant.
“Clearly the data do not support the statement that the analyses are `consistent with’ the residue being 3M adhesive,” his report said. But he cautioned he also could not say the red residue was consistent with rocket propellent, in part because of “the lack of any basic data on what the residue from a solid fuel rocket motor should contain.”
Two independent tests at a branch of the Los Alamos National Laboratory at Florida State University determined the 3M adhesive and seating material from a TWA sister plane to Flight 800 were missing almost half the elements found in the red residue Sanders had tested. Of the eight elements common to the 3M product and the red residue, most were present in significantly smaller quantities in the adhesive.
The FBI’s original samples and Sanders’ sample also came from different spots, according to investigators. The FBI’s came from inside a plastic inset on seatbacks while Sanders’ was fabric from the top ridge of a seat.
Eye witness are very unreliable. Especially recalling at a later time of an event, of which they were not ready to record.
I don’t believe it was error, and if it was a set up it would of been done at night, not illuminated with a setting sun against a darkening sky off a densely populated coast.
And what is the FAA, the Navy, the ATF, the FBI, insurance investigators and Boeing too in on it? That would be thousands. No way.
I hope we hear of one next week. I think we’ll need Boeing to issue a recall on whatever airframe the Iranian Dictator decides to fly on, to look for other shorts in the fuel tanks.
Nice repair job! :)
This would not be a secret for more than 12 hours.
Anyone who has spent any time in the navy would tell you that the scenario is implausible and down right iidiotic. Why would they turn to the Navy and not the Air Force? An F-16 or F-15 would be better equipped to intercept a small airplane. And then there sheer insanity of firing missiles into an airspace populated by dozens of commercial aircraft and expecting both of them to hit one small target. Do you honestly think that the military leadership of this country is that stupid?
Ideas like this always strike me as disinformational backfires. (i.e crazy ideas that are associated with an inconvenient truth, that can be used to discredit the inconvenient truth. Other examples are some of the stories about Vincent Foster and the "clipper chip" or supposed runs he made to Swiss Banks.) So the Navy knew about this "smaller plane" and just happened to decide to conduct some exercises in the area that day? I don't remember. Does Sanders suggest that this "smaller plane" was actually there and such an attempt was made. If yes: Isn't it remarkable that no one saw this "smaller plane" including the FAA Radar? If no: Did the Navy shoot at the nonexistent plane? And what kind of a "smaller plane" was this? None of the planes I've flown can fly and/or climb that fast. These are the ravings of a madman.
ML/NJ
I heard John Kerry say we had troops in Iraq a time or two. Must be a lie.
I knew that plane was taken down by a missile, I always believed that to be the case. The thing is if the terrorists did it and got away with it why did they stop?
If the Arabs blew it up Clinton would have had to do something about it. He didn’t want to face that kind of war.The Balkan War was easy, sanitary, and “virtuous.” Reacting to the destruction of 800 would get us into an unpredictable and messy war. If it was a US military accident, well a coverup for that is obvious- he couldn’t stand to take the political blame for something like that and, as the sitting president, he would have had it poured all over him. Clinton was not a man for hard decisions.
Not true.
The MANPADS Menace: Combating the Threat to Global Aviation from Man-Portable Air Defense Systems
MANPADS can strike aircraft flying at altitudes up to approximately 15,000 feet (4572 meters) at a range of up to 3 miles (4.82 kilometers).
MANPAD Protection for Commercial Aircraft (See: Zone of susceptibility, page 4)
Makes no sense. The Air Force is charged with the air defense of the continental U.S. and not the Navy.
In any case, we will probably never know what kind of intelligence the government had and how it figured into any tactical decisions regarding this threat, if indeed, this is how events unfolded that day.
We'll never know if any such threat existed at all or if it is all a figment of someone's imagination.
I do not think it was insanity to fire missiles at a target that was seen as a bona fide threat. No, I do not think the military leadership is stupid, but they do have to operate in this real world of limited information and opportunities.
You don't think it's insanity to be shooting missiles in the general direction of dozens of civilian airliners? May I ask what your military background is?
This was not a threat to our continent. The terrorists were already here.
You don't think it's insanity to be shooting missiles in the general direction of dozens of civilian airliners?
It is insane to shoot in the "general direction" of anything. In this case, they would have been shooting at a bona fide target that just happened to get too close to TWA 800. There is always the possibility for unintended consequences when you shoot at anything.
May I ask what your military background is?
My military background is irrelevant to this discussion. But, if you must know, you can check my profile.
Then it's a matter for law enforcement, not the military.
It is insane to shoot in the "general direction" of anything. In this case, they would have been shooting at a bona fide target that just happened to get too close to TWA 800. There is always the possibility for unintended consequences when you shoot at anything.
And even more of a possibility if you're stupid enough to be shooing into an area chock full of unintended consequences. The idea that any commander on the scene would shoot two missiles after a small plane in airspace full of larger planes is insane. How would he be sure he's shooting at the right target to begin with? And what the hell does he do with his second missile if the first impacts the target? It makes zero sense at all.
My military background is irrelevant to this discussion. But, if you must know, you can check my profile.
Well yes, background is important because it's an indication of how much you understand the subject you're talking about. For the record I was an active duty naval officer for almost nine years and did many more years in the reserves. My active duty time was spent on DDGs and FFGs assigned to the Atlantic Fleet. I participated in about a dozen missile shoots, involving my ship or others, both day and night so I think I can speak with some authority on the matter. And the scenario you describe is the absolute height of insanity. I don't know what exactly brought down TWA 800 but I can say that based on everything I've read about it I have absolutely no doubt at all that it was not an errant military missile.
Not necessarily.
And the scenario you describe is the absolute height of insanity.
It's James Sanders' scenario, not mine. I'm still skeptical about a lot of it and your devil's advocate approach gave me a few things to ponder.
My active duty time was spent on DDGs and FFGs assigned to the Atlantic Fleet.
Hey, I'm just a dumb jarhead. I don't know what DDG or a FFG or a CVBT is and I don't really care. Sounds like your want to get into a pissing contest, but I am going off to enjoy the weekend. See you around.
It would definitely take planning and an experienced operator to tag a 747 at 14,000 feet from the back.
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Reports/CrashOfAA587.pdf
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.