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 ...
Why bless your heart. Was the following due to a missile, too?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_143
So do you have any actual info about those obviously not American SLAAMs or do you just post that artist’s rendering on all TWA 800 posts and run?
No modifications to the Combat Control System or air to air missiles needed? Oh and what model missile did they use again?
Actually, my pet non-conspiracy theory is a “shoe bomber”...since they later actually caught one.
Why does this seem so far fetched to you? The Germans did also build the first ICBM during WWII. They also built TV guided anti-ship missiles that almost turned the tide of the Anzio landing.
Here are others:
Luftwaff Resource Center
German guided air to ground missiles
Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it didn't happen. Dig in, you can find a lot. The best material, however, comes in printed books found in a library rather than on the web. Ever been to a library?
Yes. The most important point, however, is that an intrinsically safe sensor cannot supply enough heat to ignite that fuel even if the fuel-to-air mixture was ripe for an explosion. The sensor is a low voltage, low current device that would deliver no spark even if shorted out. The intrinsically safe barrier between the sensor and the rest of the plane would prevent sufficient heat from being generated in the sensor even if the sensor's signal wires were connected to the 480 volt batteries of a tow tug.
Let me look that up in my Official Guide To Ongoing Secret Naval Missile Technology.
Geez, grow up.
Well if they meant to hit a 747, yeah, it was a cinch.
If they didn't mean to do that, then no, it wasn't a cinch.
And if the AN/BSY-1 Combat Control System links to the Aegis electronic warfare and real-time C&C system, I'd guess that was the main point of the exercise - if it was an exercise.
Or do you think hundreds of witnesses were simply too stupid to properly identify a light rising in the night sky AS an actual light rising in the night sky, that ended up meeting the aircraft exactly at the moment the center fuel tank just happened to spontaneously explode?
Just like publicly available government reports, right?
Yes, the equipment located in the tank is safe when new, but it wasn’t new and problems were found.
From the NTSB report:
15. Existing standards for wire separation may not provide adequate protection against damage from short circuits.
16. A short circuit producing excess voltage that was transferred to the center wing tank (CWT) fuel quantity indication system wiring is the most likely source of ignition energy for the TWA flight 800 CWT explosion.
17. Silver-sulfide deposits on fuel quantity indication system components inside fuel tanks pose a risk for ignition of flammable fuel/air vapor.
18. The ignition energy for the center wing fuel tank (CWT) explosion most likely entered the CWT through the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) wiring, and, although it is possible that the release of ignition energy inside the CWT was
facilitated by the existence of silver-sulfide deposits on an FQIS component, neither the energy release mechanism nor the location of the ignition inside the CWT could be determined from the available evidence.
Do you mean like the Southern California Trident test last year? Idiots were calling TV stations saying they were seeing a wormhole open.
Almost all the "settled science" of the TWA 800 conspiracy posted on this thread today starts with statements like "I saw on you tube" or "I seem to recall" or "I heard it from a friend whose neighbor worked for the CIA".
Frankly, I'm surprised that the legions of Navy SEALS haven't checked in yet...to take their share of credit and boast about their "Sworn to Silence Medal".
That is the problem with the report. Intrinsically safe barriers will not transmit high current to the sensor even if the wiring on the other side is shorted to power buses. That is the purpose of “intrinsically safe”. Wire separation, not an issue. Short circuit, not an issue. Deposits inside the tank, not an issue. The current in the sensor cannot reach levels that ignite anything in the tank. That is simply the design criteria of the barrier. The barrier itself is encapsulated.
I would be happy to have you present information that would prove or disprove the theory that it could have been a missile or drone. That's what this forum is about. Debate.
But did they launch the shoe from a submarine or a MANPADS ?
The ‘story’ the public believes, and the story the ‘investigation’ provides, are the same. Neither is the truth of what happened exactly.
Well since no TWA800 witnesses claimed to see a wormhole, I'd have to say, no, I don't mean like that.
What the NTSB found was that the wiring and components in the tank were not intrinsically safe:
1)Exposed conductors on FQIS wiring (caused by either mechanical damage or cold-flow) within a fuel tank could provide a mechanism that would lead to arcing inside the tank, which in turn could ignite the flammable fuel/air vapor. (This was one of the suspected ignition mechanisms for the 1990 Philippine Airlines 737 CWT explosion and the 1972 Navy C-130 fuel tank explosion.) Very little (about 4 feet) of the CWT FQIS wiring from the accident airplane was recovered, and, therefore, the degree to which the wiring in the tank might have been damaged before the accident could not be assessed. However, investigators found preaccident damage, including exposed conductors, on some of the recovered FQIS wiring from inside TWA flight 800’s wing tanks, and damaged FQIS wiring was found inside the CWTs of several of the other 747 airplanes examined by the Safety Board. In addition, the presence of a conductive material, such as metal drill shavings or safety wire (both of which were found in the fuel tanks of other airplanes), could have provided a mechanism that would lead to arcing of FQIS components. Although no clear evidence of arcing was found inside TWA flight 800’s CWT, fire damage along the route of the FQIS wiring was severe enough that it likely would have obscured any such evidence.
2)Another potential source of ignition energy is resistance heating, which could have resulted from a thin filament being heated through contact with a wire, probe, or compensator exposed to excess voltage. Although no clear evidence of a filament ignition was found inside TWA flight 800’s CWT, such evidence could also have been physically lost or obscured by fire damage.
3) Research and testing conducted during this investigation found that silver-coated copper parts inside fuel tanks, such as those used in the FQIS, can develop silver-sulfide deposits that are semiconductive and, therefore, can reduce the resistance between electrical connections and permit arcing. Such deposits can become a potential ignition mechanism inside a fuel tank.
Let's start with that one and then we can move on to airplanes at 15,000 feet and climbing. How does the sub know where the helicopter is so it can shoot the missile at it?
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.