Posted on 06/13/2016 8:53:08 AM PDT by Lockbox
As I hoped would happen, American Thinker’s series on TWA Flight 800 has prompted individuals with first hand knowledge to come forward. “Mark Johnson” is one. An air traffic controller (ATC), he worked the night of July 17, 1996 -- the night TWA Flight 800 was destroyed -- at the New York Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) located in Westbury, New York.
Johnson has provided me with his real name, and I have confirmed that he was in a position to know what he says he knows. He requested that I use an alias because he has children who depend on him. The federal government, he believes, “will seek revenge, retribution and/or any other remedy they feel like. I would be fearful my pension would be at risk.” I have heard this sentiment voiced by many people involved in this incident.
Although Johnson was not responsible for tracking TWA Flight 800, he spoke directly with the ATC who did. In fact, he asked him “plenty of questions to prepare myself for the ‘suits’ who were beginning to arrive.” Along with several other ATCs, he viewed the radar tape of the incident. According to Johnson, “A primary radar return (ASR-9) indicated vertical movement intersecting TWA 800.”
An advanced radar system, the Northrop Grumman ASR-9 is able to detect a “target” in severe clutter even when the target has no transponder. The absence of a transponder is what distinguishes a “primary radar return” from a “secondary” one. In others words, the radar picked up a small, unidentified, ascending object intersecting TWA 800 in the second before the 747 “disappeared from radar.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
To make an explosive mixture, it would have to have a source of air. There was no source of air.
That said it is hard to keep a conspiracy quiet.
...
I know. People won’t read the facts available, such as the NTSB report, which should satisfy your concerns.
bookmark
I was in the navy on subs at the time. We don't have anti-aircraft missiles on submarines, so I don't see the logic there. Unless you suspect the sub somehow accidentally shot a Tomahawk through the 747.
What I was told is that the Iranian government disavowed any culpability in the incident, and that it was the act of rogue elements of elite Iranian Military personnel, hired by a wealthy Iranian family who had loved ones on Iran Air 655.
I was told that the Clinton Administration confronted Iran with this attack, and was assured that the individuals responsible would be dealt with. The last thing Iran wanted at this point was to be attacked for what supposed "dissidents" did.
-PJ
To make an explosive mixture, it would have to have a source of air. There was no source of air.
...
The source of air comes from the atmosphere outside the tank. Are you saying it was some kind of vacuum tank? That would be amazing and would go against the common practice of pumping inert gas into fuel tanks to prevent explosions (something TWA 800 didn’t have).
I agree with the inability to come to a conclusion based on radar data ... but the entire investigation stunk from the beginning ... there was a huge number of eyewitness reports that corroborated each other from various vantage points...the conclusion was always going to be a fault in the aircraft no matter what.
"I seem to recall reports of equipment found on the nearby shore that appeared to be a (perhaps improvised) missile launching system. I'd have to go back and look to see if my memory was correct. "
Your memory is correct. I also saw that report. As I recall is was in a fairly deserted area, and found several weeks later. The article disappeared quickly and quietly. I always thought somebody should be jumping up and down about it!
I don't recall anyone ever taking credit for it. Not once. Odd, don't you think, that any Muslim entity would be able to do it, then not brag about it? Hell, they brag about stabbing Jews in Israel, but nothing over TWA 800?
Either the reported cause is true, or it was friendly fire and covered up. But terrorists would have been proclaiming it all over the place if they'd done the deed.
There was a video that someone was taking, at what looked like an outdoor bar, talking to someone at a drink table.
Over his shoulder you could clearly see a white line shoot up into the sky followed by an explosion at the top. It was a missile shoot-down. No one can tell me otherwise."
Mr G and I also saw that video. I believe it was from a wedding, with someone giving congrats to the happy couple. It was shown very shortly after news of the crash was released... that evening. We saw it once..... then it disappeared. We kept asking for days what happened to it? If we hadn't been together, we might have doubted what we saw, but it was clear as day.
Too late for anything but a little money making.
They have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehime_Maru_and_USS_Greeneville_collision
This was done while trying to impress VIPs aboard the sub.
I agree with the inability to come to a conclusion based on radar data ... but the entire investigation stunk from the beginning ... there was a huge number of eyewitness reports that corroborated each other from various vantage points...the conclusion was always going to be a fault in the aircraft no matter what.
...
My suggestion is to read the NTSB report regarding the eyewitness accounts.
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0003.pdf
See my response at #123. What I think is that the aircraft was downed by a ground to air missile. MANPADS couldn't reach high enough. Therefore it was something bigger, and the Navy was all over that area at the time. Witnesses also reported the missile rising from the water, but no one reported a boat. Ergo, a sub. Subs have vertical launch tubes that could be hacked to handle something smaller than an ICBM. An area technology coordination exercise was being conducted at the time, so I figure that had something to do with it. The rest is whether the WH ordered it (Hillary, no problem), or whether it was just a mistake. The mistake is problematic because its one thing to fire a missile accidentally, but it's another thing to have it armed. If it was ready to launch as part of a test in that area, there's no way it would have a live warhead. And witnesses saw a large explosion from the plane, so it doesn't seem to have been a dummy. Ergo, it seems likely it was a deliberate shoot-down, and that could only have been ordered by the Clintons.
If you wanted someone dead can you describe a killing scenario that would be more complex, require more resources, and need the involvement of more people in the conspiracy than shooting down TWA 800?
Seriously, if the government wanted someone dead why not just deploy a CIA team? More sure and much more secure.
They did, indeed. They worked really well. Hitler cancelled them so that they could afford more long range bombers. In reality, they could no longer build the bombers or the missiles.
How would the submarine know that an aircraft was in the area? And how would they guide the missile to the target?
They would spot the aircraft's approach; and, if they were lucky, dive to the firing position. The missile was self guided by infrared, just like the one that was ground launched. It worked most of the time.
Like I also said, the program was not progressing well. Germany was just about obliterated by then. The point was not that the Germans successfully used this stuff, the point is that the concept is old and probably well developed in the meantime.
The sensors would not start a fire. They are “intrinsically safe”. That is a specific legal term for sensors in hazardous environments. They are not capable of starting a fire.
Tell that to the Japanese fishing boat that got "porpoise popped" by the 688. Accidents do happen. That is the nature of people.
That wouldn’t surprise me at all.
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.