Posted on 03/11/2014 3:51:38 PM PDT by tcrlaf
The Civil Aviation Department of Hong Kong has received a pilot’s report that a large amount of debris was spotted in Vietnamese waters.
The pilot, flying a Hong Kong to Kuala Lumpur plane, says the debris is located about 60 kilometres southeast of Vietnamese city Vung Tau, some 500 kilometers from where the Malaysian jetliner lost contact with air traffic controllers. The department has submitted the message to the relevant authorities.
Also keep in mind almost all air defense missile use propellant that reduces the visual signature. You want to hide the missile from the aircraft you are trying to shoot down. It makes no sense to advertise your position with a smoke trail or a welding arc (this is what a rocket exhaust looks like even in bright sunshine) Most civilians would not know what an air defense missile signature looks like. I have seen almost a hundred launches and none have looked like flares.
There are other possibilities that were not explored. The cargo door theory is a good possibility considering that there were other 747s that lost there noses or suffered damage in the same frame area.
The fuel tank exploded and there was a fire as evidenced by the recovered wreckage. The nose had no sign of fire damage. So was the fire before or after the the nose fell off?
You read the entire report that fast? Last time I checked it was a couple of hundred pages. The fuel tank explosion is plausible although it may have not been the root cause of the crash. A nose falling off will cause all kinds of damage.
“On whose dime do you propose to task our Navy with this?”
If our ships are near the area (and no doubt they are), how does this kind of task cost more than their being at sea anytime? It is not like we were steaming a fleet from San Diego for this search effort...no special deployment necessary...and it gives our Navy a chance to hone their skills...
Is our SOSUS network still operational?
Everybody knows that 98% of missile scientists agree it WAS a missile.
They just cannot agree on....
what model missile
fired by whom
from where
for what reason
and nobody saw the shooters because....?
and the shooters escaped how?
to where?
And on and on.
But, they are CERTAIN.
“Over 200 eyewitnesses saw a missile streak up to hit flight 800.”
I was in Wichita that evening, sitting in the bar in a Holiday Inn eating my dinner (I usually ordered dinner there so I would ‘have company’). A number of Boeing Engineers etc were also there that evening, when the news came a big screen TV on about TWA 800 falling out of the sky. That evening they showed on TV the ‘streak’ from a video shot of the scene...definitely a missle (before the night was over, that video was never shown again). And one of the eye-witness accounts was a military officer who saw it.
Later that evening they started the ‘center fuel tank’ exploding BS. The Boeing people were adamant that that could not happen. I believe them and I ‘know’ it was a missle that downed TWA 800...and I am not a conspiracy theorist...
Didn’t know about all these missile experts. I do know that airplanes crash for various reasons. I have seen near misses where the aircraft did not crash and we caught it in time but if they had went down we would have never found out why.
I’ll give you just two examples. Over water flight from Germany to the US. Pilots keyed the HF radio and the bird went into a nose dive. They lost 9000 ft of altitude before they recovered. If they were lower one missing aircraft. Antenna cable had chafed and induced a erroneous signal into the autopilot system commanding a nose dive. We would have never found that on a crash investigation.
Next up, pilot made a right roll and stability system commanded a steeper roll than the pilot inputted. Again this was at an altitude that they recovered. At low altitude we would have been scraping them off the ground. The culprit this time was a bead of water in an actuator. It took us weeks to find it because it would freeze at altitude and not cause a problem. At lower altitudes the water would thaw out and short out the actuator. It was puzzling because it only affected rolls in one direction.
in either case we would have lost birds with missiles involved. Cockpit voice and flight data would not have recorded the problems.
So flame on.
“Is our SOSUS network still operational?”
In searching this topic, I find stuff that says it is not, and I find stuff says it is still operational, and ‘drones’ are now used as a part of the deployment. No longer used as in the cold war, but the network is apparently still there and can be used...
We would have lost birds with no missiles being the culprit.
MSN claims Chinese sat has pics of missing jet.
Many reasons for that, but foremost is MONEY. If an aircraft model is considered dangerous by the public, nobody will fly in it, hence no more sales to airlines, followed by bankruptcy. Boeing, Airbus, etc are hugely important to their countries economies.
Therefor accident investigation has advanced to a tremendous state of expertise, fueled by money.
If the two examples you gave were civil, and had crashed and been recovered I'm pretty damned sure....
The first one solved quickly and easily. Indeed, I recall a DC-9 brought down by an intermittent short in a wiring harness. That was a miraculous catch!
The second one solved (assuming modern FDRs) to a fairly high degree of certainty.
Not flaming, just opining.
The military is more strict than the civilian world when it comes to aviation safety. They will ground the fleet quick and not have to worry about monetary losses. I’ve worked both sides and compared to the military the civilian side is scary.
No, nor do I have a vested interest in theories that can’t be proven.
You mean like how they grounded the F22 fleet after many months of pilots raising safety concerns? Is that what you mean by quick?
On a more serious note, my perception is that the service branches are mostly concerned with the pilots, not so much the aircraft. This seems to be supported by how aggressively the DoD is pushing for integration of unmanned aircraft into civilian airspace compared to the ‘slow down’ stance of the FAA... no pilot? not so concerned about safety.
Good Lord, what hypocrisy! NONE of your theories are "proven." All of them ignore massive amounts of evidence, and your key contentions can't even be replicated in a lab nor supported by actual engineering diagrams of the plane.
My above post #223 references to these issues, FWIW.
I find your tactics petty, childish and tiresome, and deeply insulting to the lives lost on that plane.
You are a waste of time, and I will not be replying to you anymore.
Oh gee, I’m so hurt, as if I asked you to reply to me the first time..LOL! You obviously have a vested interest in theories you can’t prove either, so do yourself a favor and stop being an ass.
Were you born with such a filthy mouth, or do you get gold stars for degrading yourself and figure it's worth it?
Fast movers have an inherent risk because of the mission that is why they have ejection seats. The military is still more safety conscious.
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.